verzali

30 ms·

571.
by verzali 2y ago
" he cannot see anything we can see. For instance, we cannot say, “Look at Ursa major; now see how those stars are arranged"
572.
by verzali 2y ago
I've seen papers outlining an Orion docking to the ISS. It was considered as part of the conops back when Orion was part of Constellation rather than Artemis. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070025134&#x
573.
by verzali 2y ago
Starship won't work for the ISS, it is just too big and will create all sorts of control issues if it does dock.
574.
by verzali 2y ago
NASA would be fully aware of the capabilities and would not have made assumptions, especially for flight to the ISS. They are very strict about approaches to the ISS, and would have gone through it with a fine comb before the flight.
575.
by verzali 2y ago
It's a software configuration as I understand it. The software itself is capable of the automated undocking, but it will need to be reconfigured to allow it. ISS operations have very strict requirements about safety and especially abou
576.
by verzali 2y ago
I've heard Boeing has been looking for a way out for a while now and it's NASA that is pushing them to go ahead with Starliner. A lot of people at NASA don't like relying on SpaceX for everything. Also it's not really ce
577.
by verzali 2y ago
But here they are physically printing the book in high quality, that's clearly something that's expensive to do. How much does it actually cost Steam per game they sell? It can't be more than a cent. But here it is actually c
578.
by verzali 2y ago
Which is true. Who votes for someone promising to raise taxes and give you less for it? People only vote for that to happen to other people, not to themselves.
579.
by verzali 2y ago
It's written in British English. Other than that, I didn't see any typos?
580.
by verzali 2y ago
The ability to target adverts more effectively.
581.
by verzali 2y ago
It's a good question. A lot of people seem to think SpaceX can build it and the demand will appear, but that isn't how things have played out so far. SpaceX has lowered launch costs and they do launch a lot, but they're mostl
582.
by verzali 2y ago
Probably not a lot. Blowing up a ship in the middle of the Panama or Suez canal might do it, especially if you wreck it badly enough to block the canal for months. Even easier if you target a big oil tanker. I don't think this is linea
583.
by verzali 2y ago
I think the lesson should be that many of our own models are also probably wrong in ways that might look very silly in 50 years time. Science should always be a humbling field.
584.
by verzali 2y ago
I wonder if he's hoping Trump will stick massive tariffs on foreign competitors and mean he can just take the US market for himself? Though he also seems keen on selling in Europe and China, and he's setting himself up as a prime
585.
by verzali 2y ago
Interest rates haven't been near zero for a while. I am not sure the logic of being 100% in stocks still makes sense right now, especially since you can get 4-5% interest in cash accounts and bonds are also starting to pay higher rates
586.
by verzali 2y ago
That's an extremely naive statement. Massacres of politicans are rarely followed by everything going calmly back to normal, it's much more likely to be followed by more violence, a crackdown on freedoms and liberties and a slide a
587.
by verzali 2y ago
Ariane 6 is booked for years, SpaceX use most of their launches to put Starlink satellites in orbit. They have a lot of capacity to sell more launches, actually.
588.
by verzali 2y ago
Ariane 6 has flow successfully. New Glenn is missing in action, and Starship still has a long way to go before it is ready to actually put payloads in orbit. Ariane 6 is ahead of both, given it has actually flown and delivered satellites to
589.
by verzali 2y ago
It depends what you do with the rocket. Reuse isn't free, it has costs. Notably you need to carry more fuel with you in order to land, and that negatively affects overall performance. You also need to fly frequently to get the cost adv
590.
by verzali 2y ago
I imagine you know more than enough math to already do that!
591.
by verzali 2y ago
Hmm, not really. They scanned several million stars and found a handful that look like they could have Dyson Spheres. But it is much more likely the stars are just surrounded by dust clouds.
592.
by verzali 2y ago
The opportunities are different, but the attitude of keeping your eyes open to opportunities and figuring out what works is still true.
593.
by verzali 2y ago
Are you a broken bot?
594.
by verzali 2y ago
How much more dangerous is it to take two flights (and two different planes with varying ages and maintenance records, plus two landings and take offs), than to take one Boeing?
595.
by verzali 2y ago
Sounds like they think it's actually a software problem rather than a hardware fault.
596.
by verzali 2y ago
It's hard to do that. What you suggest would mean losing all your orbital speed before you hit the thicker layers of the atmosphere. You could probably do that, but you'd use a lot of fuel to decelerate. And then you are still bei
597.
by verzali 2y ago
NASA is keener on having Starliner flying than Boeing is. More likely scenario is Boeing decide they don't want to fly it anymore and they don't bother proceeding with the recertification, at least not without getting a lot more m
598.
by verzali 2y ago
Stars usually form through gravitational collapse of gas clouds, not through the kind of bottom up process you are talking about. The physical phenomenon is called the Jeans instability and it only works for gas clouds above a certain densi
599.
by verzali 2y ago
Why does he keep using learning rate in his charts? Is that what we used to call just gradient? Or is he trying to imply some kind of machine learning/AI is behind the trends he is pointing to?
600.
by verzali 2y ago
There are limits on how old stars can be. They obviously can't be older than the universe itself. It also took time for star formation to be possible. The paper itself argues these are among the oldest stars that can exist in the galax

More ›