Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The one and only savior whom I have is the Lord Jesus Christ. Attempting to label Putin, or Musk, or Trump as a savior is extremely insulting in my opinion.Many conservatives love their saviors, be they named Trump, Putin or Musk.
I would agree, but when you have so called leaders saying things like "I alone can fix it" and everyone cheers, that does look like him being treated like a savior to me.The one and only savior whom I have is the Lord Jesus Christ. Attempting to label Putin, or Musk, or Trump as a savior is extremely insulting in my opinion.
I think it's fair to say that NASA never really had the computer power to do ANYTHING CLOSE to something like that.Elon Musk's SpaceX landed a large booster rocket safely back upon its launch pad. This is an amazing feat and it's something that NASA has never been able to do.
The premise of this whole thread is that Elon did this thing, not SpaceX. And when people push back against that framing you accuse them of having animosity against Elon. So I actually think it's fair to say you are claiming he gets sole credit.I didn't say he he gets sole credit I said he makes it all possible, didn't he get the government contract? I'm sure he had help with that too
What you think is fair is irrelevant. I said he doesn't get sole credit and you don't get to put words in my mouth. You are trolling now.The premise of this whole thread is that Elon did this thing, not SpaceX. And when people push back against that framing you accuse them of having animosity against Elon. So I actually think it's fair to say you are claiming he gets sole credit.
NASA could have as much computer power as it wants. They’re just not in the business of building large hardware in the way that private companies are. They do tons of data processing, though. Likewise, the DOD doesn’t build airplanes, but they do process satellite imagery.I think it's fair to say that NASA never really had the computer power to do ANYTHING CLOSE to something like that.
I did address the post, but I see we're apparently playing "imply then deny."What you think is fair is irrelevant. I said he doesn't get sole credit and you don't get to put words in my mouth. You are trolling now.
If you wish to have a conversation address the post
Neither the OP title nor the topic identify who exactly "hate"s him. That's something that appeared out of nowhere in the post I was replying to.Refer to OP title and topic.
I found the explanation for WHY they built a tower to catch the booster (and eventually the Starship as well) to be equally fascinating.The tower catching the booster was especially impressive I thought. Watching that made me go "ohhhh...."
It's a world history first but I'm sure it seems unimpressive to some. I'm not in that group though. I think innovation is actually kinda cool... Towers catching rocket boosters? Count me in the nerd club that does find that fairly impressive.
If you take a few steps back and look across the portfolio, you might see a different "story" unfolding.I'd be really interested to know how much of their direction is from him as a visionary and how much is just from him as a piggy bank who stays out of the way. I've read comments (that at least seem to ring true) that, at least in the past, he was a pretty decent engineering manager, which I can believe. But that's hard to jive with some of his more recent actions. I wonder if he just takes SpaceX more seriously and respects the level of expertise required to get anything done, whereas with Twitter and, to a lesser extent, Tesla, he sees them more as playthings.
If you take a few steps back and look across the portfolio, you might see a different "story" unfolding.
If your objective is to be pro-human, you might consider expanding the number of humans. If you want to expand the number of humans, you'll not only want more places to live (other planets), but back-up plans (other planets). If you want to expand society to other planets, you need:
Structures (SpaceX, Boring Company)
Transportation (SpaceX, Tesla)
Communication (StarLink, X [formerly twitter])
Energy (Tesla [solar])
Food / Farming (??? might we see something in the future)
Strip mining is how much of mining is these days. Coal mining, iron mining, gold mining, copper mining.I was more thinking exploration for minerals. We are strip mining the earth for rare earth minerals.
Collectively they are less rare than many well known metals like copper and zinc, but they don't concentrate in ores that can be easily mined as well.We have to find other sources or sooner than later the rare earth minerals are gone and we go back to the 20th century of technology, which is to say basic.
Anyone who views new technologies as a potential way forward is going to be concerned with making sure the minerals needed are less rare.
Oh brother. Asteroid mining (generally) is a very iffy prospect when there is high concentrations of something really valuable, but lifting something off the surface of a planet is so much less economically viable. (And without many of the geologic processes that concentrate minerals, I doubt there would be very viable "ore bodies" in asteroids either. It would probably be cheaper to just pick any random rock and extract REEs from them.)I see all this as his pet projects towards mineral exploration on nearby planets myself.
‘Cause there’s gold, coal, iron, copper in where them thar hills used to be!Strip mining is how much of mining is these days. Coal mining, iron mining, gold mining, copper mining.
Strip mining is how much of mining is these days. Coal mining, iron mining, gold mining, copper mining.
Collectively they are less rare than many well known metals like copper and zinc, but they don't concentrate in ores that can be easily mined as well.
Oh brother. Asteroid mining (generally) is a very iffy prospect when there is high concentrations of something really valuable, but lifting something off the surface of a planet is so much less economically viable. (And without many of the geologic processes that concentrate minerals, I doubt there would be very viable "ore bodies" in asteroids either. It would probably be cheaper to just pick any random rock and extract REEs from them.)
There’s CERN too, over in Europe that is nearing a better understanding of gravity and how to maybe harness it for human beings benefit. (They’re probably around the place Volta was with the frogs legs vis-à-vis “the fyre electric”.)The hope is that AI will provide some assistance with a path forward with new technology that uses what is abundant and is easy to acquire instead of needing to use the earths core, which is plentiful but not easy to get to.
Anyone who views new technologies as a potential way forward is going to be concerned with making sure the minerals needed are less rare.
I didn't say strip mining was good, I said it was how a large number of economically important substances are obtained. Strip mining for REEs wouldn't be categorically different than for copperI won't go around and around on this because there's really no point but strip mining in general is horrific and there's toxicity issues involved and everything else.
What? (This is what I meant about this post.) AI is not some magical tool or supreme intelligence. It is quite dumb and completely dependent on what human generated information is fed to it. I have no idea what magical "path" you think it will find? (To get of the Earth easier? Nope. that is just simple gravitational potential energy, it can't be avoided. To find new "tech" that doesn't need REEs? Good luck with that.) One possible use would be a ML model that was taught geological formations and REE minerals. Perhaps it could find some location where a hidden ore body might be located.The hope is that AI will provide some assistance with a path forward with new technology that uses what is abundant and is easy to acquire instead of needing to use the earths core, which is plentiful but not easy to get to.
Empty statement with no meaning. What are we "stopping"? What is that "better" something?We have to stop what we are now doing, it's ridiculous to even consider continuing unless you see it as a very very temporary step in the process towards something better.
Mining other planets is pretty dumb. Can you find even one credible economic study for mining REEs on Mars? I have my doubts.Exploring Mars and other nearby planets as potential places we can send AI driven robots to mine in the future has to remain open as a possiblity or people should honestly just stop using new technology now because it's far too damaging to the environment and human health. It's definitely not sustainable to continue.
I vote if we have to strip mine, we do it on another planet not one inhabited with people. It's not doable yet, but we can get there faster than we can continue to strip mine the whole earth.