Don't know if it matters to point that out but, as stated here, the Starship has a capacity of 100-150 tons, for a gross mass of 3.675 tons.
They've demonstrated that it's doable, succeeding 3 times and failing twice. Hence, they've demonstrated that they're able to carry a payload into space, feel free to learn that you were wrong in your assessment(, like me/everyone,) and to downvote this comment as well 👍
soumerd_retardataire
The curve would be even worse if the y-axis was linear b.t.w. 🤷
One one side you have single-use rockets, and on the other side they're reusable, don't really look like a deception
The chart seems to have emerged from an apparently famous report(, p.13, discussed there), whose taking its source from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an american think tank.
As for the estimated cost of Starship, it seems confirmed all over the internet after a quick research, with many articles(, e.g.,) speaking about an aim for a future below 10$/kg.
However, interestingly enough, the only contradiction i found came from wikipedia, since a capacity of 100.000-150.000kg for a current launch cost of $100.000.000 would imply a cost of 666-1000$ per kg.
I've probably made mistakes while checking all of this, so feel free to dive deeper in order to explain the differences between SpaceX's estimates and the wikipedia page.
I'm trying to write something interesting, you're not 👎
It's easy to write something that everyone will agree with, but it's less useful/interesting i.m.h.o.
Yeah, among the affirmations that i knew would displeased the crowd in my last comment, Elon Musk is freaking awesome, better than all of you combined. You'll probably have difficulties to find where you disagree with the mainstream medias or the Lemmy users/mindhive(, try it, have you found at least one disagreement ?), and not even ask yourself why you don't have real/solid reasons to hate better people than you, sick.
Nobody will change their mind through insults or mod censorship, having the mass behind you doesn't mean you're right if you're unable to argue(, which, as you'll convince yourself, you could easily do but don't want to, don't feed the troll or w/e). Being a bunch of haters is one thing, but doing so without solid arguments is another, don't be surprised that sheeple is a word, we've simply seen the level of your (non-)argumentation online(, often inexistent, or a 1000 times worse than in newspapers, even if, beyond being recruited/fired by their capitalists owners, journalists have to suck since they usually have to write multiples(!) articles/day, not one per week or even month, so it's unavoidable).
It's much more so the work you do that's important, not the idea itself.
Yes and no, i'm not talking about technicians(, even though in a team of technicians there's still some persons better than the average), but about scientists emiting theories, there's a reason why theorems or units of measures have the name of a person, and the book cited in the selftext is another justification : some scientists are known in their field for being important(, some are important/known mostly because of their positions, but others because of their groundbreaking ideas/discoveries).
But sure, it's a teamwork, especially when putting theory into practice.
As for the other argument, i don't want to have someone good at that kind of performance, i'm not talking about entertainment but about someone unknown and passionate about h.er.is field of study, who cares if s.he is in front of the camera for the first&last time of h.er.is life, it could eventually be prepared beforehand, but i'm not talking about the guests invited by Lex Friedman, such as Neil deGrasse Tyson or other popularizers/showmen, they may be scientists as well but i wasn't talking about them(, some emissions search&invite such people but there's only a few).
As i said it's natural that we're choosing entertainment over, e.g., studying manuals after work, it's not a real criticism but it'll hopefully change one day(, retrieving the level of the aristocrats of the past, but for everyone this time), which shouldn't be difficult since almost everyone wants to be better/more, just that life usually seems too 'time-consuming'&short for that.
(i've also realized today that my favorite people, mostly Raphaël Enthoven(, i'd never reach his level in a century, really glad that there's at least one person like him,) and Étienne Chouard, but also Idriss Aberkane and kinda François Asselineau, and clearly Elon Musk as well, are all hated by the population(, or at least the french lemmy instance), of course we'll ignore God, hate other countries, and belittle our superior ancestors(, the least writing of the past is still written in a better way than the best conversation on Lemmy), i'm feeling at odd, there's either a problem with me or with society and it's kinda annoying sometimes, and the so-called "reasons" are so absurd, similarly to how Lemmy will hate Trump on, e.g., him saying that some immigrants ate pets or any other argument really, for most people we've been told to hate even if we've never accomplished anything ourselves, we don't even realize the problem with our absence of any real/solid argument, people in real life are way better than online, perhaps because we don't really care about making efforts online since it'll be forever lost to time, it's not a reflection of society)
I personally prefer a picture because most softwares for browsing Lemmy require to load the whole post in order to read the selftext, but agree with your arguments/explanations, so if that ever happens again i'll try not to forget to accompany the picture with a transcript.
Thank you very much for such an answer/explanation.
Oh, ok, thanks for the explanation, their software usually has an OCR feature since we can nowadays easily read much harder pictures than this one though, otherwise they wouldn't be able to browse most social medias. Seems like this recommendation is 10 years too old if i'm not mistaken.
Even better : since a description of the scenery would be more useful to them for some memes/pictures, but more difficult to do for the o.p., i don't think it'll be long until free softwares offer them a description of pictures in their favorite style of description(, since, after all, large language models like ChatGPT can already do this).
It'd have been easy for me to copy-paste the text in the selftext, i'll try to remember this if there's a next time and thus interpret this rule as "no picture unless accompanied with a transcript", unless i'm wrong in this interpretation.
Thanks again for this information.
Still, some are closer to the source of these ideas than others, think about awards attributed to individuals for example. And if our "idols" are singers, actors, politicians, or youtubers, then we'll produce singers, actors, politicians, or youtubers. Why don't we have more emissions that will interview each week a researcher on h.er.is studies ? Just that we'll have the population we deserve, that's all.
Also, they bring everything but the money goes to the investors(, not really what Ayn Rand claimed).
And we're using objects everyday without understanding how they work.
For now, we're working all day and spend our free time entertaining ourselves and spending time with our family, i'd certainly be wrong to judge, but if our time ever gets liberated(, e.g., with machines, longevity, ...), then i just hope that our civilization will seek a higher purpose than entertainment 🤷.
What a weird rule, do you know why it exists ?
What should i have done to post this information then ?
This comment was first downvoted, like, 10s after i posted it, thought it was by you so i mentioned it.
This post&comment were downvoted because of Elon Musk, and i believe they/we are mistaken, if i don't say it there's not a lot of people here who would.
Your observation is weirds because every datapoint on this graph is here to stay, it's not a measurement, i don't get it, you obviously don't believe that the curb is gonna go up, and at most i could be accused of stating something that everyone knew for years, not something that people find hard to believe in.