/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10637557
Forgot example link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/bezlsw/23_of_us_voters_say_100_renewable_electricity_by/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/b7sw49/a_major_part_of_aging_turns_out_to_be_just_iron/

>>10421609
based anon - out of all the /r/futurology-esque bullshit people post here, I'm glad there's at least some people who understand how crazy hard and slow this process is

I'll add that article to my journal club spreadsheet - if they've got some success in tissue culture they ought to try it in mice and non-human primates.

>>10388431
It was never more than a pr-gag , SpaceX has not provided ANY evidence that reusing saves money.
Stop getting hyped /futurology tier.
Nobody who is in the business or really knows his shit gets hyped by the Falcon 9.
Leave this place and go to reddit / 9gag where you belong.

>>10336041
>The argument is simple: reusable rockets are the future assuming we want something more than launching 12 tin cans per year.
Oh so there is no way that expendable LV can make more than 12 launches per year ... interdesting.

>Now, maybe some regressive people like you are fine with rocket science stagnating and never accomplishing anything notable in space ever again. In that case, please continue with boring, expendable rocketry.
Great argument.... it's boring.
Even if expendable launch vehicles were boring (they aren't) who fucking cares?
Most of the scientific work is boring.
HOW IN THE WORLD does reusability change anything?
Scientific payloads are launched by expendable rockets so expendable rockets have done more for humanity than your shitty LEO GTO meme rocket.
>The rest of us will reach for the stars. Reusability is coming.
Oh the starts, you mean like all the probes that have been launched decades ago by expendable rockets?

You can not provide any argument how reusable is the future because you can not demonstrate a econimic advantage.

>The argument is simple: reusable rockets are the future assuming we want something more than launching 12 tin cans per year. This is a given.
If you really think this is an argument you should se a neurologist asap I think you had a stroke 3 years ago.

There is no fucking point in responding to you, you have 0 arguments why reusability>expendable.
And history of spaceflight proves that expendable rockets are what brought us to the moon asteroids every body in our solar system and even beyond your solar system.

Btw "le dropping costs will cause new starts and development" is nothing but wishful thinking.

Launch rates are going down since the 90s again you demonstrated that you have 0 knowledge on this subject.
Back to /futurology you piece of trash

>>10297512
>Mars terraformed by 2200
Not going to happen, scientists actually think that it would take thousands of years your retard.
Stop going to /futurology and read articles written by scientists not "I fucking love science" brainlets.

>>10285729
>we're going to Mars 5 years late
Remind me in 5 years.
We are not even close it will take 20 years, back to /futurology with you.

>>10279157
the stench of stainless steel and reusability

COME ON YOU FUCKERS, why arent you posting, dont you realize this is historical history in the making
elon musk is one of geniuses the likes of plato tesla or butler. hes gonna take us to the future society and you cant even think as science enthusiast to ask something=???!?!?!

Ill give you a little tiny on little on now of a hinter of what you shoulder do, lets do yes do this:

10 quesitons
that i propose you

1)what is reusability going two?
2) what is the other companies going to do to not like have to compete. COuld you imagine the ceo of nasa sleeping in the streets? lol
3)Better materials tomorrow?
4)If stainless steel doesnt deform could that mean infinite flights out of one craft, like, imagine that, initial investment then literally only cost is fuel. 200.000 u$s of fuel ----> can take easily 50 people. 4000U$S ticket to LEO. AMAZING!!
5)HOw many other revolutiaonarie inventions is musk gonna create
6) Chinese reusability? is it done yet?
7)Neuralink Ai and tesla automated, how will it incorporate to mars futurology?
8) Cars, AI , grid infrastructure smart transportation improvation. what else does this genius mastermind has in store for us? thoguhts?
9)scientific education: i think the clue to elon musk spacex is bringing in the little guy into the equation, i mean that nazi guy who did shuttle was not democratic at all, and the soviets were also nazis, but this guy, come on, he lets us watch the updates, and we learn a lot. I think as an american that this is the rocket i want and for once the knowledge is open to the public
10) If the us authorizes safe nuclear fuel, could this get to another star?!?!


There i gave you 10 easy ones.

so
lets say there are 50 peoples lurking sci, if they call themselves science fans tehy HAVE to reply, if 50 peoples, each one thinks at least 5 answer to each of my questions, then thats 50 times 5 times 10 , no reason why not 250 answers should appear

>>10267542
He comitted fraud, he was lying about 420 funding secured remember?
He is lying to investors this is a crime and he has been comitted remember?
So tell me, why should I trust a pathological liar that always underdelivers anything?
He will do or say anything he can to push his narrative and get attention/ investments.
How naive do you have to be to regard him as some kind of saviour of mankind.
Look at this mockup it's a joke and hase nothing to do with serious R&D work he is just trying to stay in the news because he running out of taxpayer/investor money again.
Basically a kind of ponzi sheme.
Bullshit claim > attention+money > underdeliver > excuses > repeat
SpaceX didn't revolutionize the market and is working on it's backlog while ESA gained more new launches in 2018 than DpaceX how does that fit the /futurology narrative thst he will revolutionize spaceflight?
Reusability is not economically feasible and economics is the only reason for reusability so the whole concept is a failure.
I really like spaceflight and new developments but Musk is a fraud not a saviour or godlike engineer.
I am pretty sure these 24/7 SpaceX shilling threads are populate by SpaceX trainees.
>Inb4 24/7 stopdoingrocketsguy kys

>>10264132
>Need to spend money to make money, dude.
Well you are right but:
We are talking about someone who never made money with his companies and relies solely on scamming taxpayers and investors.
Remember Solar Roof ? It was a scam
Remember 420 funding secured? A scam to push the stock
Remember sending people around the moon in 2017-2018? Also a lie
Elon Musk is known for lying, there is no reason to trust him this time, just look how many times they "redesigned" the BFR yet.
Since I am not american I don't really care since it's your money if you want to support a South African drug addict you are free to do so but just know that you are retarded and naive for falling for all his sensational claims.
/futurology might be a place for you check it out.

>lol didn't read
>ad-hominem
>I could answer your question buuuuut......
You guys are awesome I knew that musks fanboys are uneducated and lack any sceptical thinking ability but you guys are comically immature and unable to argue as well.
Thank you guys you really demonstrated how retarded Musks fanbase is.
See you guys on /futurology.

>>10260537
great argument do you haveany evdience for the economic feasibility of the F9 first stage?
Shit I guess you kids don't really care if you are right all of you rely on ad-hominem to avoid answering the bitter truth that you have no good reason to repeat Elons claims as if they were true.
Enjoy sucking Elons south african cock and now back to /futurology

>>10260424
>Reusable always wins
Wrong, the only reason for reusability could be a economically advantage and SpaceX has not demonstrated that it actually saves money.
Reusability is not really a feasible option if reliability is priority n1 e.g. condoms.
I guess this is your first day here, you can go back to /futurology now.
Reusability like SpaceX does is a pr-stunt and a dead end.

>>10254526
>hold the responsibility of operating the vehicles they fly in.
Wait you actually think that astronauts navigate and FLY rockets/spaceships?
Get the hell back to /futurology brainlet, ofc you are a musk fanboy you have no clue about rocket science and technology.

>>10204440
>>10204563
Back to /r/futurology, brainlet.

>>10098614
The author that wrote their futurology inspired life into being.

>>10093454
Musk isn’t even investing anything in hyperloop unlike Richard Branson. He’s investing in making boring cheaper and faster. Which might lead to an underground hyperloop network, but that isn’t the main goal. Musk knows that unless they can build an underground system, hyperloop will always be a meme for futurology fags to follow and a near certain failed venture. An underground hyperloop system will solve 80 percent of the serious issues that is brought up by critics when they argue against the feasibility of such a system. Such as maintaining low pressure(easier when you’re surrounded by a 100 metres of rock), earth quake risks, temperature fluctuations that can bend steel, freak weather events, terrorism, destructive vibration etc. a hyperloop system that isn’t wholly underground will fail, and Musk knows this.

If Musk can develop a low cost and fast boring technology, then I assume he will probably create an underground hyperloop for freight first, and Amazon can use their services for their one day deliveries, which will bring him the big bucks. Then in a decade, when it’s safety and stability is proven, they’ll move on to public transport.

>>9986984
>The rest of the industry indeed did not give a shit, because they were very much content launching once a month for $ hundreds of millions a pop and never improving, to keep them sweet tax dollars flowing.
Yeah fuck all those conservative companies doing their job.
No cult of personality no lies no vapoware BFR.
They keep their mouth shut and do their job how boring... 120launches without a failure? Hoe boring right?
LLeave this place you /futurology lurking piece of uneducated hipster trash.
Rocket science is a serious business and not a place for a drug addict ponzi sheme running faggot like musk now go suck his dick.

>>9897875
>improved efficiency

Thrn why are 40 year old soviet engines far more efficient?
You are either clueless about rocket engines or you are deliberately lying.
The Merlin is a low tech engine with poor isp, nobody cares about twr the specific impulse is the most important stat of any rocket engine.
Do your homework now back tu /futurology

>>9795169
Oh, I can see the problem now.

OP here. >>9794276 was not me, nor do I think it would resemble any respirocyte design I may actually produce if this proves to be feasible.

What anon linked in that post is from a site called foresight.org, which falls under futurology, and is something I am therefore highly skeptical of and do not personally consider worth looking into. It was what provoked me to write >>9795009 which more fully expresses the degree of my skepticism.

I avoided responding to that post directly until now because I'd rather not deviate into my full thoughts on futurism. I am very skeptical of the field and do not wish to rant at length about it in a thread that could otherwise prove to be very productive.

To be clear, I do NOT endorse the work of futurists or foresight.org.

I think r/futurology would be more to your liking, OP

>>9639058
Why don't we have futurology threads on /sci/? Someone make a general.

>>9605144
>>9605187
Black holes and relativity might be real science, but they are completely and entirely misunderstood by the general public. 99% of the time you will hear them mentioned it will be by people who only know what IFuckingLiveScience and /r/futurology told them. It will be almost exclusively supernatural bullshit about black holes being a portal to afterlife, or altering your life with meditation because "reality is relative".

This was from a futurology thread today. Everyone was agreeing with this shit.