4 ms·

Down at the bottom of the article it's revealed that Contrary Research (article host) is an investor in Galadyne and another of the discussed manufacturers. Gal

by prawn 4mo ago

Down at the bottom of the article it's revealed that Contrary Research (article host) is an investor in Galadyne and another of the discussed manufacturers. Galadyne is introduced as a company with a stake in the liquid propulsion angle that the article pushes. One of the authors is listed as CEO of Galadyne. Bit like an advertorial?

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> Bit like an advertorial? The author should have disclosed their affiliation more clearly at the top. But their arguments are solid, and I respect them putting their money where their mouth is. Solid-fueled rockets should not be the backbone of our missile forces anymore. That doesn’t mean we get rid of them. But we should be adding mass-produced liquid-fueled missiles to the mix. And our entire rocket force shouldn’t be able to be nerfed by hitting one plant in Utah.
- sieabahlpark 4mo ago
  [dead]
- oliver236 4mo ago
  > I respect them putting their money where their mouth is. More like putting their mouth where their money is.
  - junofan 4mo ago
    Haha. Honestly it’s rocks in a tube. If we need to we can figure it out.
    - oliver236 4mo ago
      what does rocks in a tube mean
      - springhalo 4mo ago
        I'm assuming he means that solid-propellant rockets are conceptually simple to make; rocks being either the explosive at the end (akin to throwing stones) or maybe the basic fuel and oxidizer propellant mix. Either way it's the idea that the most well funded military on earth could make another rocket factory easily if needed.
        Henchman21 4mo ago
        Can we? Do we still have the ability and smarts? I know there’s some portion of nuclear weapons we cannot make because we simply lost the ability.
        deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
- locknitpicker 4mo ago
  > The author should have disclosed their affiliation more clearly at the top. But their arguments are solid (...) Aren't they selling their product?
- protocolture 4mo ago
  Thats crazy which plant tho.
- sam_lowry_ 4mo ago
  The Soviets had liquid-fuelled rockets forever, and they come with a bunch of problems: corrosion, leaks, weight and slow deployment requiring specialized equipment.
  - anonymousiam 4mo ago
    There are a bunch more problems than those you listed, and they're more serious. You don't typically keep the fuel in a liquid fueled rocket (because it's highly corrosive), so you load the fuel before launch, which takes time and commits you to either launching or shutting down the rocket for months while it is refurbished. There are safety issues too. I once heard a story from a missileer about a wrench being dropped into a silo, which caused a leak. When the fuel leaks out, the structural integrity of the missile is lost. Two (low ranked) men were sent in, and they both died. Solid fuel solves a lot of problems, and is really the best way to go. Lastly, articles like this are irresponsible because they disclose facts that may not be known to the enemy, and the enemy can adjust their tactics to take advantage -- which is exactly what we've been seeing in Iran over the past month. Half of the US population is against anything that our president does, to the point of actually hoping that he fails in Iran, and supporting the opposition party's efforts to stop him. If that occurs, and the Iranians detonate a nuke, they will have helped create another holocaust.
    - Paradigm2020 4mo ago
      Got a bit sensationalist and baiting there at the end. A more relevant comparison (- the baiting) would be another Hiroshima or Nagasaki given that those are the only nukes that have been used against civilian targets... Also: despite nethanyahu saying for the last 30yrs that they have nukes (look up the compilation it's quite funny) the only one party in the middle east that we are 100% sure of has nukes is Israel...
      - _DeadFred_ 4mo ago
        Last night Iran wounded 63 (seven who required major, urgent surgeries.) and one dead because Iran happily fired missiles randomly across the middle east and hit random civilians in an airport terminal which this site would be screaming about if Israel/the USA did. If Iran were to use a nuke it could easily start a chain reaction. Iran CURRENTLY has a billboard with a date for the erasure of Israel. They have a countdown clock. This is nothing like Hiroshima or Nagaski. Iran is targeting a country with over half the population of one ethnicity in the entire world. The 4.6million in greater Tel Aviv make up over 25% of all Jewish people in the entire world. Iran's moderates in government pushed students off roofs to their deaths. That is the moderate Islamic Republic position and are not people that should have access to nuclear weapons.
NordStreamYacht 4mo ago
It's a good article. I learnt a lot.

by prawn 4mo ago

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago

> Bit like an advertorial? The author should have disclosed their affiliation more clearly at the top. But their arguments are solid, and I respect them putting their money where their mouth is. Solid-fueled rockets should not be the backbone of our missile forces anymore. That doesn’t mean we get rid of them. But we should be adding mass-produced liquid-fueled missiles to the mix. And our entire rocket force shouldn’t be able to be nerfed by hitting one plant in Utah.

sieabahlpark 4mo ago
[dead]
oliver236 4mo ago
> I respect them putting their money where their mouth is. More like putting their mouth where their money is.
- junofan 4mo ago
  Haha. Honestly it’s rocks in a tube. If we need to we can figure it out.
  - oliver236 4mo ago
    what does rocks in a tube mean
    - springhalo 4mo ago
      I'm assuming he means that solid-propellant rockets are conceptually simple to make; rocks being either the explosive at the end (akin to throwing stones) or maybe the basic fuel and oxidizer propellant mix. Either way it's the idea that the most well funded military on earth could make another rocket factory easily if needed.
      - Henchman21 4mo ago
        Can we? Do we still have the ability and smarts? I know there’s some portion of nuclear weapons we cannot make because we simply lost the ability.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
locknitpicker 4mo ago
> The author should have disclosed their affiliation more clearly at the top. But their arguments are solid (...) Aren't they selling their product?
protocolture 4mo ago
Thats crazy which plant tho.
sam_lowry_ 4mo ago
The Soviets had liquid-fuelled rockets forever, and they come with a bunch of problems: corrosion, leaks, weight and slow deployment requiring specialized equipment.
- anonymousiam 4mo ago
  There are a bunch more problems than those you listed, and they're more serious. You don't typically keep the fuel in a liquid fueled rocket (because it's highly corrosive), so you load the fuel before launch, which takes time and commits you to either launching or shutting down the rocket for months while it is refurbished. There are safety issues too. I once heard a story from a missileer about a wrench being dropped into a silo, which caused a leak. When the fuel leaks out, the structural integrity of the missile is lost. Two (low ranked) men were sent in, and they both died. Solid fuel solves a lot of problems, and is really the best way to go. Lastly, articles like this are irresponsible because they disclose facts that may not be known to the enemy, and the enemy can adjust their tactics to take advantage -- which is exactly what we've been seeing in Iran over the past month. Half of the US population is against anything that our president does, to the point of actually hoping that he fails in Iran, and supporting the opposition party's efforts to stop him. If that occurs, and the Iranians detonate a nuke, they will have helped create another holocaust.
  - Paradigm2020 4mo ago
    Got a bit sensationalist and baiting there at the end. A more relevant comparison (- the baiting) would be another Hiroshima or Nagasaki given that those are the only nukes that have been used against civilian targets... Also: despite nethanyahu saying for the last 30yrs that they have nukes (look up the compilation it's quite funny) the only one party in the middle east that we are 100% sure of has nukes is Israel...
    - _DeadFred_ 4mo ago
      Last night Iran wounded 63 (seven who required major, urgent surgeries.) and one dead because Iran happily fired missiles randomly across the middle east and hit random civilians in an airport terminal which this site would be screaming about if Israel/the USA did. If Iran were to use a nuke it could easily start a chain reaction. Iran CURRENTLY has a billboard with a date for the erasure of Israel. They have a countdown clock. This is nothing like Hiroshima or Nagaski. Iran is targeting a country with over half the population of one ethnicity in the entire world. The 4.6million in greater Tel Aviv make up over 25% of all Jewish people in the entire world. Iran's moderates in government pushed students off roofs to their deaths. That is the moderate Islamic Republic position and are not people that should have access to nuclear weapons.

NordStreamYacht 4mo ago

It's a good article. I learnt a lot.