171–180 of 391 posts
Official video: https://youtu.be/s1HA9LlFNM0
So what's burning above the motor, I thought these were closed cycle engines? Were they incredibly lucky
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement? That led to sharing of nuclear weapons design information, over a decade after the Manhattan project. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_US–UK_Mutual_Defence_Ag...
Read the details; it wasn’t free exchange of information. It was basically a way for the US to allow sales of some nuclear plants and material, and sharing of design work only when it overlapped significantly with what the UK already did.
> The Americans disclosed the details of nine of their nuclear weapon designs: the Mark 7, Mark 15/39, Mark 19, Mark 25, Mark 27, Mark 28, Mark 31, Mark 33 and Mark 34. In return, the British provided the details of seven of theirs, including Green Grass; Pennant, the boosted device which had been detonated in the Grapple Z test on 22 August; Flagpole, the two-stage device scheduled for 2 September; Burgee, scheduled for 23 September; and the three-stage Halliard 3. The Americans were impressed with the British designs, particularly with Halliard 1, the heavier version of Halliard 3. Cook therefore changed the Grapple Z programme to fire Halliard 1 instead of Halliard 3.[85] Macmillan noted in his diary, with satisfaction that:
>> in some respects we are as far, and even further, advanced in the art than our American friends. They thought interchange of information would be all give. They are keen that we should complete our series, especially the last megaton, the character of which is novel and of deep interest to them.
> An early benefit of the agreement was to allow the UK to "Anglicise" the W28 nuclear warhead as the Red Snow warhead for the Blue Steel missile.[87] The British designers were impressed by the W28, which was not only lighter than the British Green Grass warhead used in Yellow Sun, but remarkably more economical in its use of expensive fissile material.
Wikipedia doesn’t appear to support your version of events. (Of course, Wikipedia is sometimes wrong; but if you think it is wrong, which of the above claims it makes is wrong specifically?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Star Trek's society is collectivist (as all societies are, to a degree), but is it authoritarian? I suspect that summarizing collectivism as authoritarian is like summarizing libertarianism as selfish: they go well together, but you can also get one without the other. I don't know Star Trek very well, but as a utopia I guess they imagine a form of collectivism that largely preserves individual freedom? Of course most…
Anything said about libertarianism is necessarily hypothetical, because it has never happened. If it ever did, it would instantly dissolve into something certain to be very unpleasant for almost everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m glad that not everyone in human history has shared your bright outlook, otherwise we would still live in caves…
Could it be the case that a bright outlook leads people to overlook issues that need to be addressed. Maybe a more depressive (or realistic) disposition motivates people to enact change.
Man, I saw that thing moving sideways right after liftoff and I thought it was a gonner! Huge congrats to SpaceX for landing with an offset engine like that on their first try!!!
Same here. I was waiting to see if it would cross the point of no return and obliterate their ground facilities... again. Instead, looks to have been a nearly perfect test. Onward!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's being powered by one raptor rocket. It's designed to have 6.
And the first stage "Super Heavy" is designed to have 31. Update: I think the hopper in the video is a prototype of the lower stage, which is planned to have 31 engines. The upper stage is planned to have 6.
Thank God for that guy in the corner helping me to know how to feel. Seriously though, this has been an incredibly annoying trend for a few years, everything has to be tagged with some pre-packaged emotional reaction. Such a dumbing down of public discourse. Someone linked the official video and it's amazing: https://youtu.be/s1HA9LlFNM0
See also "Youtube face".
Why is it shaped like this? Why the fire seems to be not exactly in center and how it managed to keep balance with that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could it be the case that a bright outlook leads people to overlook issues that need to be addressed. Maybe a more depressive (or realistic) disposition motivates people to enact change.
Let's look at this way, humanity needs to become multiplanetary species to prevent extinction if some sort of cataclysm happens on Earth: nuclear war; Yellowstone erupts, etc. Compared to that, any other problem seems insignificant.
And it doesn't matter how many Dyson spheres are made, if humans aren't dedicated to improving the collective opportunity to live life without suffering, there's little real 'significance' to extending the project of humanity compared to any other life-form.