rory096

28 ms·

211.
by rory096 8y ago
Note that this flight tested an in-space abort, firing the crew capsule's solid motor to simulate an emergency escape from the booster. Because the abort took place after MECO, the capsule reached an apogee of 118.8km. This will likely
212.
by rory096 8y ago
>Additionally, you should highly doubt this kind of outside estimate of cost per New Shepard launch. It sounds like they used the same costs as you would expect for a fully expendable rocket like Falcon 1e class (same first stage thrust,
213.
by rory096 8y ago
>Yet that appears to not be the case either - as buildings get taller and more dense, costs seem to increase outside the direct supply/demand system [3] and those units which are built are typically more expensive then low density o
214.
by rory096 8y ago
Berger is a competent but aggressive journalist who has a bias, but wears it on his sleeve - much like Andy Pasztor. Worth reading, but with a critical eye. Ignore them and you'll be missing out on important scoops and original journal
215.
by rory096 8y ago
>I think it's pretty safe to assume that NASA will not be going anywhere outside LEO in 2030. This is certainly not safe to say and in fact is quite unlikely. Multiple separate programs promise to get us beyond LEO by 2030. Whethe
216.
by rory096 8y ago
This is for certification, not demonstration missions. That capsule is scheduled for the unmanned DM-1 flight, after which will be the manned DM-2 flight, at which point SpaceX will submit its data for final certification in advance of oper
217.
by rory096 8y ago
This seems to be an issue with all tronc (née Tribune) papers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17480636
218.
by rory096 8y ago
Yes, though HERA is mentioned briefly in that article (regarding the evacuation during Hurricane Harvey) and HI-SEAS is mentioned briefly in this one (as a similar program). The main difference, from what I can tell, is that HI-SEAS simulat
219.
by rory096 8y ago
Note the early parachute detachment at 1:24. Capsule freefalls into the ocean from that point. Unclear if this was intentional — I've yet to see a statement from ISRO mentioning it. https://www.isro.gov.in/flight-test-o
220.
by rory096 8y ago
>The Chicago Tribute is a small paper in chicago. The Tribune is the top newspaper in Chicago (the third-largest US city) and the eighth-largest paper in the country by circulation - about the same as the Washington Post. It may not have
221.
by rory096 8y ago
Relevant: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin...
222.
by rory096 8y ago
>What about the "frictions" renters face based on a tax system that inherently rewards home ownership? I mentioned that. It's constant across the country though, so I don't think it creates a new cost to move from one
223.
by rory096 8y ago
What is it that you don't understand about it? The two are not mutually exclusive. Economics works at the margin: it's not whether friction exists or whether it does not, but the level of friction. Some frictions apply in both
224.
by rory096 8y ago
>On one hand, it's not desirable for most people to rent longterm, and owning property is an important way to store and grow wealth. Neither of these are particularly true in an economic sense, except in that homeownership in growin
225.
by rory096 8y ago
Those earlier launches were as a two-stage sounding rocket. The three-stage variant capable of putting a payload in orbit first launched in 2017; it made orbit on its second flight earlier this year. SS-520 is a one-off experimental project
226.
by rory096 8y ago
Right. Trade is a Kaldor-Hicks improvement, not Pareto. Losers exist, though they could be theoretically compensated for their loss to create a Pareto-efficient outcome. The same is true of immigration and automation. https://en.
227.
by rory096 8y ago
>I ask people to make their own arguments because I think it's lazy to post things that even you don't understand. My degree happens to be in economics, but okay. The argument is that trade barriers, both unilateral and bilater
228.
by rory096 8y ago
Over 60% of macro papers published are empirical. Hell, that article you linked includes the phrase "carefully assembled evidence." https://www.aeaweb.org/research/charts/an-empirical-turn-in-...
229.
by rory096 8y ago
>Also, I don't know why we keep deferring to economists as if they know anything since they are wrong about everything ( even the nobel prize winners ) and economics isn't an empirically testable science. Economics is a religio
230.
by rory096 8y ago
I'd say the Nobel Prize winning trade theorist explains it better than I can, but feel free to read the NYT editorial by the (non-prize-winning) economist if you prefer html to pdf.
231.
by rory096 8y ago
>Trump believes that the USA is getting a bad deal - not that trade is bad. China may purchase US companies and Universities, but US is nowhere close to being able to do the same in China. I'd like to believe this is so, but the evi
232.
by rory096 8y ago
It should be noted that Steven Mnuchin disputes this report's accuracy: >On behalf of @realDonaldTrump, the stories on investment restrictions in Bloomberg & WSJ are false, fake news. The leaker either doesn’t exist or know the
233.
by rory096 8y ago
Removal of trade barriers is always good, even if it's unilateral and asymmetric. https://econrsa.org/wkshops/tradepolicy/session2day1-whatsho... https://nytimes.com/2018/06/20/
234.
by rory096 8y ago
>In fact, there would be a growth in the lucrative industry of coyotes who offer transportation and relocation assistance, because their line of work would now be legitimate. This is true if you define 'coyote' as anyone who tr
235.
by rory096 8y ago
>Ask yourself why the company moves its operations to a "low-capital" country. Because migration restrictions prohibit them from hiring those same low-wage workers domestically. >And while you're at it, ask how companie
236.
by rory096 8y ago
How does that even remotely follow? We're talking about an individual's productivity, not a firm's profitability.
237.
by rory096 8y ago
No idea why this is getting downvoted, as you're entirely correct (obviously). OP is talking about real economic growth as massive amounts of wealth are created. A change in the money supply would create nominal growth, but no chan
238.
by rory096 8y ago
>Firstly, the core thesis of the argument is that merely by moving to a richer country, people become automatically more productive: >> Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly,
239.
by rory096 8y ago
And they never have. What's the relevance to cost here, anyway?
240.
by rory096 8y ago
>Visiting Mars few times, then the public losing the interest is the most likely scenario. That's why colonization must start on the first mission. Flags and footprints missions are self-defeating. >You can't make near time

More ›