Alcun Atirutan BBS

@winter @requiem (It makes sense that they wouldn't put 27 RS-27s on a disposable rocket, especially when they cost 146 million each, compared to Raptor 2's 250k each.)

@winter @requiem And were there 27 RS-25's on the shuttle or SLS? That's what would be required to equate the thrust of the Superheavy booster, and this is what I'm talking about, total thrust of the rocket.

@winter @requiem You're forgetting all of their experiments with Falcon 1 getting the engine design down, The stuff that they're experimenting on with Starship and Superheavy are more akin to their first Falcon 1 launches trying to get the engine design down, and again, this is a much more aggressive and novel engine design than the fairly pedestrian engine that the falcon designs use. You also have to remember all of the landing failures before they had a success. They were planning on doing Soft landing attempts in the water with the booster in this case.

@requiem @winter This seems like more of a rant against Musk than against Starship. Again, I don't care at all for the guy, all I want to see is results.

Nasa did not make a rocket this large 50 years ago with slide rules. Nasa did not make a full cycle engine 50 years ago with slide rules, Nasa did not make a rocket that could land back at its tower 50 years ago with slide rules. These are all novel things that they're experimenting with here. Russia did try to make a full cycle engine and failed, and Russia tried to make rockets this powerful and failed.

@winter @requiem If you look at its early days, it also had quite a few launch failures, it was also significantly less aggressive. Falcon 9 had numerous failures in their landing system for example before they got it right. Starship is both trying to make a viable full cycle engine, and trying to make the largest, highest thrust rocket ever made, but also trying to get the landing system that requires higher precision than the Falcon with a larger rocket down at the same time. It's not the least bit of a surprise that it's going to take it more trial and error before it is finished. They are following the same method they used for the Falcon though, with their destructive tests on Landing until they get it right.

@requiem @winter Normally when someone says "the rich" they are implying something that costs $50k or more, rather than being able to go around the planet for $1.5k, or go to the other end of the country for $200.

@requiem @winter Falcon 9 is private property, and yet it gives NASA the capabilities to get humans to the space station at much lower prices than before. Besides, with a commercialized reusable rocket, we're more likely as civilians to be able to get to space, than with 4.1 billion NASA rockets that are public property, but still built by private companies.

@requiem @winter Us as in humanity, all of the airplanes that we ride around in to travel around the country and between countries are private property as well, and yet they give us the ability to get to Japan the next day.

@winter (As for how I find it? I follow people on every end of the spectrum, and people just randomly reboost things that are silly.)

@winter @requiem I really don't care about Musk at all. I pretty much hate all of his companies and his opinions on things, but I'm a fan of space flight, and the way to do it is through re-usability, rather than bespoke 4.1 billion dollar launch platforms that are tossed every time.

@requiem (Of course, both of those costs are exaggerated.)

@requiem I bet the cost of those programs are several orders of magnitude different by the time they're done. The Starship will be a whole lot cheaper because they're willing to test, test, test, on novel designs rather than sticking with proven systems, and overdesigning everything. I'd be surprised if the Starship costs even 50 billion by the end, let alone 100 trillion. Artemis also is going to ultimately give us a disposable rocket with barely any reusable components, while Starship should be extensively reusable.

@zaitcev I'm pretty sure it's about the Marijuana date instead of what you mentioned... You know how many times he's brought up 420 over the years.

@polpo @icecreamjonsey I had Starcross on my Atari 8-bit, I definitely couldn't understand it though. Part of that is probably because it came with the computer when we bought it, but they didn't include the manual.

@polpo @hisham_hm @mcc I remember playing that game, I don't think I ever got very far though.

@abishek_muthian Darn, that's terrible then. Might look to see if any local manufacturers end up using a 7x40u series chip for 15w, or 7x40hs series if you don't mind 35-50 watts.

@abishek_muthian (You can buy the motherboard separately and put it in a 3d printed case if you want it in a mini desktop form.)

@abishek_muthian Check the new framework laptops with the 7840u (or maybe 7740u?) chips. Those should be close enough in performance without having to deal with Apple weirdness in the boot sequences, and you get officially supported GPU drivers instead.

And the RAM and SSD aren't soldered directly to the motherboard or cpu interposer. Since Apple does that, upgrading ram and recovering data is impossible.

My main portable system though is still either the Steamdeck with bluetooth accessories and a USB-C screen, or an old i7-8550u 17 inch, depending on how small of a bag I need to bring. You don't always need the absolute fastest chip to get things done.

@gamingonlinux That's kind of lame. Besides, this is Fediverse, not Mastodon. Mastodon is just a server for Fediverse. ;)