If passenger density was comparable to a typical airliner, an intercontinental E2E flight should be roughly comparable to a subsonic flight. The supersonic flight would be substantially worse. Rockets have the advantage that they very rapidly get out of the dense part of the atmosphere.
In reality a Starship flight would probably sell few very expensive seats instead; just like Boom's aircraft only has 50 seats. Which would make it worse than subsonic flights in terms of fuel used, but still competitive with supersonic.
Starship's payload volume is around 1000 m ^3, which should be about the same as an A380 interior volume.
For a flight time between 20 (minimum) and 40 minutes (maximum) to anywhere on earth, this volume could comfortably fit 1000 passengers per flight.
At 2 or 3 times the price of a regular ticket, their offer would be a direct competitor against business class tickets, if they can reduce enough the risk, and handle logistics of rapid reuse.
Should be much better, you spend most of the time coasting and most of your acceleration in very thin atmosphere, vs a plane that has to cruise down in the soup.
Also, starship has more pressurized volume than a 747. You can fit a lot of people.
And don't forget the required pressure suits. You can't just to use simple masks like in airplanes, since cabin pressure loss at heights beyond 25km would make breathing using just oxygen masks impossible.
A "short boat ride" you say... Current exclusion zones and logistical requirements suggest otherwise.
Realistically, P2P using giant rockets is a nothing but a pipe dream. Just straight forward things like weather proof this. The latest F9 launch had to be scrubbed two times due to unfavourable weather at the launch site, for example.
Now multiply that just that weather-risk by two, since the landing site also requires good conditions at the same time.
Then there's the "little things" like airspace closures, launch permissions, boarding procedures, the requirement for personal pressure suits (simple masks won't do in case of cabin pressure loss), etc.
The idea sounds so easy on paper, but there's a lot of good reasons that in over 60 years of crewed space flight, the idea hasn't even been demonstrated.
Sorry, it took me a bit to reply to you on this censorship laden bullshit “you’re replying to fast by posting more than 3 times a day” website.
Fuck dang, time to cycle residential proxies.
That said, see sibling comments about fineness. In addition to being fine in the shiny variety, starship is a portly fellow. It will be able to land in anything less than a hurricane.
F9's fineness ratio makes it very sensitive to weather. Soyuz rockets can launch in blizzards.
Starship should be weather insensitive as well.
Now for the launch platform, it will have to be built about 30km from shore, and could be accessed by high speed train, the travel time would be 15-20 minutes from the shore
Don't confuse satellite launches with crewed launches. Losing a satellite due to a failed launch is no big deal, risking the lives of potentially hundreds of passengers is a different story entirely.
It's not proprietary, you can hook up the drives to a linux box and pull files off them just fine if your box dies. I've never had to do this, but I've seen others say they've done so successfully.
I could be wrong, but i think i remember that they have made some "magic" inside mdadm or lvm to allow btrfs self healing to work, and bypass the normal lvm self healing.
They tooted something around the release of DSM 7 that Btrfs now used native self healing instead of relying on lvm, but of course i can't find any documentation for it.
No, repealing Section 230 means every site with user generated content is publishing the information, just like a newspaper or TV channel, which get successfully sued all the time.
In fact, Section 230 was passed explicitly because of successful lawsuits against forums and websites hosting user generated content.
> The court held that although CompuServe did host defamatory content on its forums, CompuServe was merely a distributor, rather than a publisher, of the content. As a distributor, CompuServe could only be held liable for defamation if it knew, or had reason to know, of the defamatory nature of the content.[2] As CompuServe had made no effort to review the large volume of content on its forums, it could not be held liable for the defamatory content.
I've read that if you moderate you are acting as an editor even if the content is user generated and that means you are a publisher. Publishers are liable for what they publish.
Section 230 basically erased the distinction between publisher and distributor.
It is most certainly the judicial consensus. You might argue that it's not a social consensus, but that doesn't magically override existing constitutional protections. Much the same as social consensus on guns doesn't override the Second Amendment.
Not yet, but when the combined effects of the merge + EIP 1559 drive ETH to flip BTC _and_ the ever-increasing "BTC wastes X countries worth of power per day" it will eventually happen.
No chance at all while BTC remains top dog (in market cap)
Disagree. This is a centralized project forcing a set of breaking consensus rule changes on users. Literally "upgrade your software or your money is gone"
Bitcoin has hard guarantees of user rights. Ethereum is a centralized project masquerading as decentralized.
Dude, the entire point of crypto is freedom and choice. If you like protocols that don't change their consensus rules, stick with Bitcoin. Nothing wrong with that.
If you don't upgrade your client software you wont be able to transact w/ the new/forked ethereum network. Ok so maybe "upgrade your software or your funds remain locked" is more accurate. Still not good.
I mean, you can still transact. As long as you have your private key, you can transact. For example, there is going to be a "Proof of Work" fork of ETH after the merge. Price will dump on day one, but it will be there, and will tick away, and you'll still be able to move your ETH on both chains. But one will be considered canonical, because the community has gone with it.
Same thing has happened to Bitcoin multiple times. BCH, BTG, etc.
I think it's just as simple as "if you want to interact with people through software you have to use the same software as them." Nothing controversial about it, its just that the interaction isn't chatting over telegram, it's transacting.
There's nothing stopping you from selling your ether to someone who wants it and deploying that capital on something else. Or ignoring it and forking the chain and keeping your fork ether. "But it's valueless" I hear you say, see my above paragraph for the answer to that one.
This commenter here is right you know. They (Ethereum Foundation) decide what the 'trademarked' Ethereum uses and if you are not on whatever they ultimately move to, well your money is unusable and locked. PoS is an increased risk of censorship and it is quite possible for regulators to even tell validator providers to censor addresses if they want to be compliant with regulations.
It is the re-centralization of Ethereum and will be made worse with Proof-of-Stake.
There only needs to be a single miner that uses PoW and you can freely move your funds to other wallets. You can even start the miner yourself.
So no, your funds are definitely not lost. You might be the only one connected to the "network" but wasn't this the promise of cryptocurrency decentralization?
well the PoS fork tokens will acquire 99% the value of the current ethereum tokens, so if you want to access that you've got to upgrade your software. You are right tho you'll continue to be able to interact with the PoW network.
AirDrop is 100x slower than the equivalent wired solution. I say this as someone transfering 350GB of media off their phone on friday, Apple needs to fix wired file access from mac to phone.
Lightning is limited to 53 MB/s by the sheer virtue of being USB 2.0, and probably is even slower in real life, so AirDrop would be at maximum 0.5 MB/s?
What people say they’ll do/buy is often only loosely correlated with what actually happens.
See:
-YouTube thumbnail controversy, vs what people actually click on
-/r/apple and other comment section’s obsession with the commercially-failed mini lineup of iPhones
-everyone says ads don’t work on them, but ads work
I could go on