panick21

5 ms·

1.
by panick21 3mo ago
Not sure Tenstorrent agrees.
2.
by panick21 3mo ago
Seems to me that making it hyper-converged, with all storage make it make sense. Ultra dense compute alone isn't ideal. Oxide rack has the features of blade but is hyperconverged with everything. Plus the better integrated software.
3.
by panick21 7mo ago
Agree. But I think that Shuttle didn't do intermediate tests of these things is part of the reason it never lived up to its potential. During development they lost fact of what they tried to achieve in the first place. They sacrificed
4.
by panick21 7mo ago
This not actually a good reason. First of all, of course you can't get anything better if you never ask for anything better or consider alternatives or put any money into anything better. If you never invested in anything else, then th
5.
by panick21 7mo ago
> By your own data, Apollo had 65% more money than SLS/Orion. I would say by my own data Apollo has to do 800% more work given the point on where it started. > My point is, Apollo had a clear objective: put people on the moon. Wh
6.
by panick21 7mo ago
The “% of the federal budget” comparison is mostly a rhetorical trick. It can matter politically, sure, but it’s a terrible way to compare programs across time. Apollo happened before a bunch of Great Society-era spending and later expansio
7.
by panick21 7mo ago
I think you are just talking out of your ass. Please provide some sources. The milestones and options are all defined in the original contract and each milestone is assigned some monetary value. There were a set of extension option that add
8.
by panick21 7mo ago
I would agree. The heatshield is tricky. But they have shown they can survive without parts of the heatshield. But its a problem for rapid re-usability. That said, I think Starship architecture can be useful even if this issue is not fully
9.
by panick21 7mo ago
This is just nonsense. First of all, the companies in the 1960s were all there for profit and all made profit. And the politicians in power back then also tried to get contracts to companies in their districts. Why do you think the NASA con
10.
by panick21 7mo ago
This complete nonsense. The Apollo team was much, much, much, much larger then any V2 team. And mostly Americans. And their testing procedures were actually very high quality. You don't just accidentally land on the moon and return. Th
11.
by panick21 7mo ago
How many of those traffic accidents could have been prevented if traffic engineering was a serious engineering profession and road deaths were not simply accept as a 'fact of live'. How many lives would have been saved if a bridge
12.
by panick21 7mo ago
The budget is actually not that much worse. If you adjust for inflation. On avg NASA budget was about the same as now. But now we do more things now. But between Constellation/SLS and Orion this new Shuttle based architecture has as mu
13.
by panick21 7mo ago
No it doesn't. Because literally anybody who knows anything about NASA and follows the Space industry in detail has known about most of the issues since 2015 or even in 2011 when this whole new Post-Constellation shit-show started. And
14.
by panick21 7mo ago
I think this claim of being 'way too complex' is a bit over the top. Sure it was complex for the electronics and some other aspect in the Soviet Union, but not by that much. N1 actually flew and it mostly failed when engine outs a
15.
by panick21 7mo ago
Except of course that SpaceX is launching Astronauts right now and has a perfect safety record and operate the safest space vehicle ever built.
16.
by panick21 7mo ago
Wrong. Both were lost because of a fundamentally BAD ARCHITECTURE. And that architecture was bad because the NASA engineers who designed it, had never designed anything like it before and were never able to test or evaluate any of their ass
17.
by panick21 7mo ago
False. SpaceX development of Starship is much cheaper then SLS despite using more test vehicles. The claim that building hardware rich is more expensive is not really shown in the data. NASA has done some analysis on early SpaceX and shown
18.
by panick21 7mo ago
True but we know for a fact that it doesn't consume 4-5 billion $ a year for the last 15 years like SLS/Orion because SpaceX couldn't afford that. If you actually do some basic math and look at SpaceX revenue and so on, you c
19.
by panick21 7mo ago
Starship is irrelevant. SLS was dumb already in 2011 when Starship doesn't exist. Its a dumb system and was never the right system. NASA own analysis showed that. People who defend SLS on the bases that Starship isn't good don&#x2
20.
by panick21 7mo ago
Difference is SLS has received 2 billion $ a year for 15 years in a row, while SpaceX get that much once and has to actually cover any extra cost themselves. Why do people just totally ignore money when it comes to SLS. Not to mention that
21.
by panick21 7mo ago
The SLS and Orion project have been so incredibly deeply flawed from the start. Its a huge mistake that they exists. The were bad designs to begin with and they are badly executed. Constellation was a bad program by Bush Jr that was aimed a
22.
by panick21 7mo ago
Electric buses have been a thing for many, many decades. They are called Trolley bus and they work great. And its better in a number of ways then battery buses. Specially inside of cities.
23.
by panick21 7mo ago
Most memes and most application of memes were not that funny. Scrolling reddit 10 years ago is not that different from TikTok just with pictures instead of videos.
24.
by panick21 7mo ago
No . No . No. Please No. Absolutely fucking not. Shipping hydrogen is literally one of the dumbest things you can ever do. Its pure and utter nonsense that is only getting pushed for political reasons. It has 0 actual viability. Even if you
25.
by panick21 7mo ago
> trucks, buses or trains Trains no, electrify everywhere is clearly better. Maybe for really old legacy branch lines, batteries. Trucks should as much as possible move to rail, much better solution. For the rest, the waste majority of
26.
by panick21 7mo ago
> , and thus at some point green hydrogen would be too cheap to meter. Even if you assume that is true. It will always be more expensive then straight electricity. > The more sensible project were the green steel project. Not sure I a
27.
by panick21 7mo ago
They go first to private medicine, like literally every new innovation. But new technology is consistently getting rolled out. Late live quality has increased. Caner 5 year survival rates have increased. Live expectancy has generally increa
28.
by panick21 7mo ago
And other cloths they could buy don't use trucks? The point is increasing the cost of over-production. Its not about the EU knowing better, but imposing a higher price for waste. Not sure how you are confused about that.
29.
by panick21 7mo ago
Given how absurdly efficient shipping stuff in container ships is, I don't believe its actually worse. Specially if the company can just save money by being slightly more conservative in terms of how much they manufacture in the first
30.
by panick21 7mo ago
Its simply impossible for most people to go to university, only enter the job market by 25 retiring by 65 and then live 20 years on retirement when you have an increasingly aging population at the same time. > I don't see the millen

More ›