avmich

21 ms·

391.
by avmich 2y ago
Can't believe you don't see the other reasons why ISS is on orbit.
392.
by avmich 2y ago
The point here I think is that we should try doing autonomous operations on Earth first not because they are cheaper - they are not - but because it's cheaper to try them on Earth than on the Moon. When we have these tests successful o
393.
by avmich 2y ago
Does 2.x BSD really include TCP/IP networking?
394.
by avmich 2y ago
I'd offer better: not even being able to do that?
395.
by avmich 2y ago
> 1. Increase conflict between you and a nation with nuclear weapons How? The nation with nuclear weapons probably understands that it will suffer a lot in a nuclear war, or will likely get hit with nuclear weapons itself, right? > 2.
396.
by avmich 2y ago
Whenever a roboticist is asked if robots are better than humans for, say, Moon exploration, he pauses. Red Whittaker from Astrobotic was admitting that robots are not nearly as capable as humans, at the time of Google Lunar X Prize competit
397.
by avmich 2y ago
Then why cosmonauts wrote a letter to Politburo suggesting sending them to fly around the Moon in Zond capsule even though it didn't have perfect flights? The reasoning was that the spacecraft deficiencies were correctable should a cre
398.
by avmich 2y ago
> Doesn't sending weapons to a country at war ensure more death and destruction? Well, if you send weapons, instead of killing people you have the aggressor's army just pumping cheeks and pretending to look fierce. No death, no
399.
by avmich 2y ago
> Sending money also increases the risk of nuclear war In which way?
400.
by avmich 2y ago
How would you explain that in most other countries there's no such overabundance of individual weapons, and also no or relatively little ill effects?
401.
by avmich 2y ago
SpaceX works on the leading edge of today's aerospace capabilities, and it's reasonable to expect new problems during their work. So it could justifiably be terra incognita to regulating agencies, including environment protection
402.
by avmich 2y ago
Judging by the URL, the full name of the article is "FTC pushed to crack down on companies that ruin hardware via software updates or annoying paywalls". Regarding annoying paywalls, it's ironic that the page says "Check
403.
by avmich 2y ago
No access without JS, and enabling it doesn't help.
404.
by avmich 2y ago
The C language also requires some assembly, or rather machine code, if you're starting strictly from scratch. Ok, not bootstrap in a sense of creating a sublanguage which allows to write the rest. I'm curious about how to write Dh
405.
by avmich 2y ago
Excellent work. And it seems maintained. Documentation is somewhat behind the implementation, but not too much. Looks like its going to the right direction... reminding that adding features are easier than removing them. Wonder ;) how hard
406.
by avmich 2y ago
> statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu Verifying you are human. This may take a few seconds. statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding. Very funny.
407.
by avmich 2y ago
They'll do that regardless. Who cares?
408.
by avmich 2y ago
No, this doesn't seem the case here. The NASA's intent clearly was to get a spacecraft capable of flying to ISS. Where's that?
409.
by avmich 2y ago
> Parterships operating under a legal gun don't really operate. It's business, nothing personal, right? Boeing can be welcome to bid on the next project - after siphoning and wasting lots of NASA's money on this one, and l
410.
by avmich 2y ago
Is X today the real supporter of the freedom of speech?
411.
by avmich 2y ago
All current problems notwithstanding, SpaceX in 20 years of existence delivered a lot of progress to the aerospace abilities of the whole world. No matter what they'll do next, SpaceX already shown a number of important achievements. H
412.
by avmich 2y ago
Not only funding, but lots of technology, like original research into heat shield. And that's part of the intent of the NASA - it's as designed. Yet NASA is criticized because it doesn't do much useful lately - yes, it pays t
413.
by avmich 2y ago
Starship is rather similar to ASSTO actually.
414.
by avmich 2y ago
The development is what already being spent... Each flight, after development is complete, will be reusable - that's the plan - and will cost less than $0.1B == 100 millions dollars, if total per-Starship expenses are divided into the
415.
by avmich 2y ago
I think they had money to make up to 4 flights. Looks like they got some money even before the flight 4, but not sure how much compared to their own expenses.
416.
by avmich 2y ago
X-37 is too light to carry humans. X-33 was a good idea... with less than adequate implementation, I guess...
417.
by avmich 2y ago
Yes, the liner is quite comparable to the seat in size, if you mean that. Not sure about the weight.
418.
by avmich 2y ago
> Most of the companies with actual money behind their space station proposals seem to intend to use the IDSS, so theoretically they'd be able to take either of the commercial crew spacecraft. Right, but to be practical, those comme
419.
by avmich 2y ago
Thanks for the links. I can't find in the article how much DARPA gave SpaceX, in dollars, and the second link talks about payment for the launch, not the grant. The mission carried a $6.7 million price tag covered by the U.S. Air
420.
by avmich 2y ago
https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-spacex-1-15-billion-contra... So, two flights to the Moon - ~$4B. SpaceX already spent around that on the developments in Boca Chica, each flight - expendable - is estimated at $0.1B, we al

More ›