Camacha
-
Posts
4,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Camacha
-
-
Just now, Gargamel said:
No it's not, it's a commitment problem.
You need commitment to solve the engineering problem. It's still an engineering problem.
-
3 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:
How can you disagree? The United States and Soviet Union could have put a car into orbit in 1961. Seventy years ago. It's easy to put a car into orbit.
The argument was that it's prohibitively expensive to go to Mars ourselves. The argument here is that it's prohibitively expensive to frivolously send a car to space. They could, but didn't, because nobody would pay for it. We could, but we don't, because it's too expensive to just do that. Except that we did.
Going to Mars is an engineering problem, just like putting a car in space is. It's just a matter of getting someone to pony up the cash.
-
2 minutes ago, tater said:
The core is likely toast. Doesn't matter, they want block 5 FH stuff, anyway.
All the various subsidies combined and counted towards SpaceX still make SpaceX a bargain for NASA. Their own cost calculation formula puts the dev cost of Dragon 1 and 2 and the F9 to deliver to station at more than 10X what they actually spent.
SLS is an example of NASA cost models actually sorta working, or indeed underestimating costs.
Be careful not to take my quote out of context. I just pointed to the fact the public is paying for Musk's other projects, so stating he isn't rich enough to go to Mars and that the taxpayer won't pay to make it happen doesn't seem to be accurate. Musk seems to be very good at getting funds for his projects.
I'm not criticizing it, which people seem to think.
-
1 minute ago, Streetwind said:
It's amazing how, even in the midst of what may be SpaceX's greatest event this year, people in this thread still manage to wander off topic.
But man, what great views on that webcast. Too bad the video team screwed up a little by accidentally putting the view from the same booster into both camera slots, but I can only assume that their fingers were shaking
I don't see anyone going off-topic.
-
Just now, Gargamel said:
No, No... Don't Panic is a much better reference for a car in space. I betcha there's a towel in the trunk too.
And a tea pot, of course. Y'all can't prove one isn't.
-
3 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:
No guy or gal has the 400 billion+ you'd need for a Human landing on Mars. You'd need taxpayers and they won't pay.
Like how taxpayers aren't currently paying for Tesla, SolarCity and more?
-
Just now, Canopus said:
Well he can try. Still won't happen before even 2050.
Are you willing to put money on that prediction?
-
1 minute ago, razark said:
It's not a question of "easy". It's a question of "finding someone crazy enough to spend the money to do it."
Exactly. It's a money problem and wanting it bad enough. There just happens to be a guy wanting it a lot, and he happens to be both very, very rich and highly capable of getting money from other people for his projects.
-
1 minute ago, Canopus said:
I wouldn't say never but surely not in 6 years and probably neither in 25 years.
Well, there's this guy that seems to know how to make things happen who made going to Mars his personal mission and who happens to also have the budget for it. You don't need millions of nay-sayers to get something done. You need one capable guy or gal who just gets it done (and many more to help).
-
1 minute ago, Kerbal7 said:
People are never landing on Mars. Too expensive.
Not that long ago anyone would have said the same about launching cars into orbit. Now look at us.
-
2 minutes ago, DAL59 said:
They don't have another?
I think it's about whether it needs further development and getting all the information to proceed.
-
Magnificent ba$tards.
Can't write no-no-words, apparently.
-
1 minute ago, cubinator said:
Come on, teapot, teapot, teapot...
No teapot mentioned. Darn.
I was just thinking about that the other day. A Roadster will do, though.
-
Here we go. Looking good.
-
I wonder whether manufacturers are going to speculate on it lasting by increasing production. I've been slowly warming up to VR, but there's absolutely no way I'm going to spend close to a grand on a GPU alone.
-
On 16/01/2018 at 6:38 PM, Harry Rhodan said:
That seems very optimistic. I would guess Zen 3 and the Ice Lake successor in 2020 could be the first generation that might be free of that stuff.
Remember that this isn't a regular refresh. Developing a new processor family normally takes a couple of years, but this is both a subsystem (and therefore not an entire processor) and a major vulnerability. This needs to be fixed ASAP. Software mitigation can probably only do so much.
Intel announced this week they will have fixed processors before the end of the year. AMD can't really afford not to, even if their processors are less vulnerable. I'm curious to see what the consensus in IT will turn out to be when safe processors emerge. If it does turn out software mitigation isn't fully possible, the conclusion might just be that you need new hardware if you're running any sort of respectable operation. If that's the case, we're going to see a lot of hardware being dumped. Obviously, Intel and AMD can only produce so many processors in any given period of time, so prices might spike.
I don't see the major manufacturers exchanging hardware for free, as that would mean certain bankruptcy. No one is served by that, short or long term.
-
2 hours ago, Geonovast said:
Water. Monster. Sometimes some variation of Mountain Dew.
I don't drink alcohol.
Something tells me that alcohol might be a better idea than Monster or Mountain Dew, though it obviously depends on quantity. Water is by far the best option.
-
On 12/01/2018 at 8:01 PM, invision said:
yeah its brutal
i was going to return 2 Radeon rx-580's for 3 gtx 1060's but when i went to ship them back the prices sky rocket over 350.00 each so i decided to just keep the rx-580's and use them.
just looked again and now gtx 1060 with 6 gigs of ram are over 500.00 PFFT thats what i paid for my gtx-1080 and the rx-580's are sold out and reach upwards of 700.00
It really is no fun. My video card actually isn't horribly slow, but the 2 GB of RAM is starting to become a source of slowdowns. Anything that would mean a decent enough upgrade would costs me $350 or up and I'm not going to spend that on a video card. I'd rather spend the money on something that'll last a little longer.
Considering the Spectre and Meltdown issues, it's not unlikely I'll upgrade all the hardware as soon as a resistant chip is released. That might be a year or so off, though.
-
Yeah, buying video cards isn't a lot of fun at the moment.
-
On 04/01/2018 at 8:26 AM, Deddly said:
For what it is, yes. But it will have no problem running on a modern-ish low-spec machine. An old Core-2-Duo runs it fine, and even a very basic graphics card or modern integrated graphics is all that's needed.
It can certainly eat up a lot more than a Core 2 Duo, especially when you start modding. Again, it's not as resource friendly as it looks to be.
-
5 hours ago, Deddly said:
Oh, well Minecraft doesn't need much in the way of power, and depending on your college assignments, you probably don't need much power there, either. If you need it for serious work as well as a few not-too-heavy games, I would suggest a secondhand busuness laptop, since it will be a higher quality compared to most consumer devices. Something like a Thinkpad T460 like this one on Ebay would be great for Minecraft, and it should do KSP pretty well, too. How important is KSP to you for your laptop?
Minecraft isn't optimized well and can chew through a lot of performance.
-
On 05/11/2017 at 2:59 AM, mikegarrison said:
Notice that they had to build something that looks entirely unlike a bicycle in order to generate their effect, and even in the article you quoted they admit normal bikes can be made unstable by reducing trail.
You're not getting the gist of the article. The effect I was talking about works on basically every bicycle. They just built a strange bicycle to show the effect being fully capable of keeping it upright without the two other effects acting upon it. The effect is not uniquely generated by their model, it's just isolated in it.
I'm not sure why you insist on mentioning trail. I just noted that an thus far unknown effect has recently been discovered, which is correct. No one was talking about trail, nor disputing it.
-
10 hours ago, NSEP said:
I've heard that one before, but there's a problem with that. It assumes active high binary logic. Active high means that a bit is represented by a signal going high, like going from 0 volt to 5 volt. However, because that's just a convention, it's not how all of the data is encoded. Many chips are actually active low, which means a bit is encoded by a signal going from high to low, like going from 3.3 volt to 0. In that case, more data means less electrons. Another major problem would be magnetic hard drives, which don't encode with voltages or charges at all. Instead, a hard drive encodes information by the direction of the magnetic domains on a surface, which means it shouldn't change weight with the adding or removing of data. Most of Earth's data resides on magnetic hard drives - by far.
Even though it makes for a great story and isn't based on fiction, it's also not quite accurate. -
On 03/11/2017 at 2:45 AM, mikegarrison said:
Yes, this is true, but it's certainly not "recent research". This has been understood by bike designers since pretty much forever.
The key geometry is what is shown on that picture as "trail". The bigger the trail is, the more stable the bike will be, but that also makes the steering heavy.
Cars self-steer for much the same reason, though the mechanism works slightly differently.
You're talking about the trail effect, which is what causes shopping cart wheels to align with the direction of travel. Researchers have done mathematical analysis on the forces involved and found a third phenomena, other than gyroscopic forces and the trail effect, which seems to work through the distribution of mass. It's strong enough to keep a bike upright on its own, which is proven by a model they built that self corrects without the other two phenomena influencing the model.
The research looks to a little over five years old, which is recent enough. You can read all about it here.
SpaceX Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
You're still missing the point. We have a guy insisting we go to Mars, and with a proven ability to fund his projects with personal and public money. Nobody is claiming he's going to pay for a trip to Mars with the Tesla profits. That was never the intended approach.