I have wasted more time than I care to admit watching that guy eat all the different MRE's. I think the Canadian MRE's definitely looked like they tasted the best.
Well that is just a vast misrepresentation and distortion of the facts. The idea of landing boosters came about from spacex wanting to pursue reusable orbital vehicles from the beginning. Now spacex never wanted to acquire Russian engines. Where this russian connection comes from is before Elon started spacex, he wished to buy a few Russian ICBMS to launch a small greenhouse project to mars. The idea was to spur interest and investment into a mars program. This was back in the early 2000s and the russians basically laughed him out the door.
From this, Elon founded spacex thinking he will build the rockets himself. A founding tenet of spacex was to decrease the cost of access to space. To achieve this, they set about trying to reuse rockets in the very the beginning. Their first rocket, the falcon 1, had parachutes on board to test first stage reusability. Later, on the first 2 launches of their falcon 9 rocket they again tried using parachutes. It became apparent that using parachutes wasn’t working and so, in 2011, they began the grasshopper program to practice their rockets propulsively. Within 4 years from the start of the program, spacex was successful and had landed a first stage from a rocket launching a payload
To suggest it wasn’t part of the original inception of spacex or it was just an off the cuff response is blatant exaggeration. Listen, Elon has quite a few problems and in my opinion he should not be in charge of the day to day management of his companies. He should be the ideas man, pushing the companies vision and letting others get bogged down in implementing his ideas.
Musk’s talent is the ability to raise capital for ridiculous sci-fi projects. This skill at least partially requires the subject to believe that Musk will be at the helm to navigate the cannonball run endeavor.
If Musk isn’t actually pushing the buttons at Tesla then the magic is gone.
The issue with the leaf is the battery is not thermally managed at all. So you get a lot of battery degradation over years. After 5 years of ownership you can see a huge decrease in capacity compared to a climate controlled battery.
Also airlines are moving from the hub and spoke model to the point to point model. So the need for 747's and especially A380's for passenger service has gone way down. Plus both those planes just aren't as efficient as twinjets. In fact, it was partly the high fuel consumption of the early 747's that eventually led to Pan-Am's bankruptcy.
I would so most states are setup where if you transfer from a CC to a public state school, you basically have everything transfer and can finish all your schooling in 4 years.
I'm from Maryland, and our CC system, at least for my county, is great. We even had a pretty good career center. Knew many people who where able to get internships at places like NASA or NIH though the community college.
I did my first two years of electrical engineering at CC and it was great. Pretty much all my professors in EE classes had PhD's in the field and were of comparable quality to the ones at my 4 year university. Plus, since your in a class of only like 20 kids, you get a much better relationship. Had a few help me with a getting an internship sophomore year.
This is the same reason why nvidia didn't bother with HBM for the 10 series. Those gpu's do not need that much memory bandwidth and in most cases GDDR5 provides plenty of bandwidth as it is.
Well Intel isn't screwed at all. Shareholders are just gonna be angry when Intel is forced to lower margins and they see a drop in profit.
Also, while Intel maybe winning the mobile (really only laptop) market now, ARM is slowly catching up. It's really only a matter of years before say someone like Apple chooses to ditch Intel in favor of using their own A processors in their computers.
Not really. In the 60s we basically verified that certain rocket and engine designs work and that we could go beyond earth orbit. Creating a reliable, long lasting and reusable space rocket/vehicle is, in my opinion, orders of magnitude more difficult. Just look at the Space Shuttle failure as an example of trying to do space on the cheap. Also, remember it took about 5% of the US GDP in the 60s to put men on the moon. I believe in Musk but trying to make space cheap is just simply a difficult problem and one I wished we funded more.
A reliable, long use rocket is not exactly new either. Delta II first launched in 1989, 153 launches, 151 successes. There will be another launching this fall for JPSS-1.
