What if an intelligent species was born, thrived, and perished in that galaxy? What if thousands had?
Humanity will one day be gone - will anyone out there even know we existed? Shouldn’t this awareness of our insignificance be unbearable? Shouldn’t I be sleeping right now?
Awareness of our insignificance is incredibly freeing. It means that you get to assign your own purpose to life because that’s all it matters to.
As long as you’re not infringing upon the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others, then everything else is completely up to you! Have fun! Play video games! Eat great food! Make others happy! And don’t worry about your mistakes or being humiliated because none of that really matters after you’re gone.
In the end, only you can make your life worth living.
I always think we are such rare combinations of molecules. And we are even able to see how precious and rare all lifeforms are. Very likely there is nothing like that out there.
And on top of that we are the only known combination of molecules which theoretically could protect complex life, even beyond the lifespan of earth or even our galaxy. But we don’t see us as the ones who could have protected that freak of chance. Instead we bicker and perish and the universe will with high probability never see anything like that again.
At a greater cost than every starship built to date combined…
Congrats?
I expect they’ll be able to launch 2, perhaps even 3 more Artemis rockets before the program is cancelled and the rocket architecture abandoned due to unreasonable cost.
Where’s your evidence proving exactly how much Starship has cost in total? Or wait, maybe you are just making bullshit up because you have no idea how much it has actually cost them because they don’t disclose that information like NASA does.
SpaceX can likely build and launch a fully expendable version of Starship for about $100 million. Most of that money is in the booster, with its 33 engines. So once Super Heavy becomes reusable, you can probably cut manufacturing costs down to about $30 million per launch.
This means that, within a year or so, SpaceX will have a rocket that costs about $30 million and lifts 100 to 150 metric tons to low-Earth orbit.
Bluntly, this is absurd.
For fun, we could compare that to some existing rockets. NASA’s Space Launch System, for example, can lift up to 95 tons to low-Earth orbit. That’s nearly as much as Starship. But it costs $2.2 billion per launch, plus additional ground systems fees. So it’s almost a factor of 100 times more expensive for less throw weight. Also, the SLS rocket can fly once per year at most.
The starship is built out in the open, the whole world can watch. Because of that, there are pretty good estimates for how much construction costs. If you take the more pessimistic estimates, my statement would still hold true.
Also, as a reminder, even without knowing exact numbers you can still make some ballpark assertions with confidence. For example, Jupiter has the mass of more than a dozens earths. I could look up the actual number, but I can be pretty damn sure it’s more than twelve.
Different philosophy. Play it safe and analyze everything extensively to make sure you don’t have a PR nightmare. That leads to less aggressive designs and longer schedules, but looks better for the public and Congress.
And they don’t even have a goal of more than one launch a year and billions of dollars per launch. Artemis is the same old flag waving BS: do it once to say you’re first, then lose interest.
Starship’s goals of reusability, frequent launches, order of magnitude cost reductions can be the foundation of the next jump in space industry/exploration
But as someone who works in the industry, it is a bleak outlook. NASA absolutely needs more funding for its human spaceflight exploration, Earth Science, robotic exploration, and astronomy/astrophysics.
The argument is that processing data physically “near” where the data is stored (also known as NDP, near data processing, unlike traditional architecture designs, where data is stored off-chip) is more power efficient and lower latency for a variety of reasons (interconnect complexity, pin density, lane charge rate, etc). Someone came up with a design that can do complex computations much faster than before using NDP.
Personally, I’d say traditional Computer Architecture is not going anywhere for two reasons: first, these esoteric new architecture ideas such as NDP, SIMD (probably not esoteric anymore. GPUs and vector instructions both do this), In-network processing (where your network interface does compute) are notoriously hard to work with. It takes CS MS levels of understanding of the architecture to write a program in the P4 language (which doesn’t allow loops, recursion, etc). No matter how fast your fancy new architecture is, it’s worthless if most programmers on the job market won’t be able to work with it. Second, there’re too many foundational tools and applications that rely on traditional computer architecture. Nobody is going to port their 30-year-old stable MPI program to a new architecture every 3 years. It’s just way too costly. People want to buy new hardware, install it, compile existing code, and see big numbers go up (or down, depending on which numbers)
I would say the future is where you have a mostly Von Newman machine with some of these fancy new toys (GPUs, Memory DIMMs with integrated co-processors, SmartNICs) as dedicated accelerators. Existing application code probably will not be modified. However, the underlying libraries will be able to detect these accelerators (e.g. GPUs, DMA engines, etc) and offload supported computations to them automatically to save CPU cycles and power. Think your standard memcpy() running on a dedicated data mover on the memory DIMM if your computer supports it. This way, your standard 9to5 programmer can still work like they used to and leave the fancy performance optimization stuff to a few experts.
Something isn’t right with this article. I’m suspect:
Type 1 is where your islet cells die off and you lose insulin production. Type 2 means your insulin production is fine, but your cells are resistant to the insulin. A Type 2 should have plenty of islet cells so adding more doesn’t seem like it would do anything. Your body should regulate those cells to output the same amount of insulin as before.
This same treatment has been done in Type 1s already. It’s not new. The problem is their body eventually kills off the transplanted cells and you have to do it again. Plus, you have to take immune suppressing drugs forever.
“Despite a kidney transplant, his pancreas still doesn’t produce insulin.” - This is just nonsense.
Type 2 can have a reduced insulin production, as well as the insulin resistance. In fact, insulin resistance can put increased demand on production and exhaust the producing islet cells.
Since type 2 is not an immune system disease, in that case there’s no need for immune suppressing drugs!
At least Tesla actually make batteries, all Toyota ever do is just claim that the future is some other technology that they are developing. Usually it’s one that makes absolutely no logical sense.
Normally they go on about hydrogen power cells, which have never worked properly.
Yeah, I don’t use any other social media except lemmy, and in honestly thinking about replacing it’s location on my home screen with something to read that’s better for my mind.
Bruh its a TEST STAND TEST STAND this is not the Frist time a engine exploded on a test stand raptor engines in their development phase are supposed to explode. Elon musk has said if something doesn’t explode then you did something wrong
interestingengineering.com
Top