[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/g/ - Technology



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: meme rocket.png (908 KB, 1280x720)
908 KB
908 KB PNG
Elon Musk, what a retard.
Seriously everything this idiot is doing is stupid.
His Mr. Burns levels of exploding rockets:
>Hey let me make a rocket that is 10 times cheaper then NASA rockets
>YEY capitalism much progress
Literally retard engineering held together with bubblegum and duck tape.
Rockets constantly explode
>Oy why do my rockets constantly explode?
>WE totally get to mars with this shit.
>Look at this MEME landing thing
(MEME landing makes every 5 rocket explode)
Literally the RGB ram of landings.
Make rockets explode.

Use a normal parashoot you retarded meme lord! The thing is supposed not to explode not make MEME landings!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPv0VZcvm4Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9FzWPObsWA
>>
>>67599487
He was so stupid he blew up one of Zuckerberg's satellites destined for Africa. How are those poor niggers going to post of Facebook? Fuck Elon! Really.
>>
>>67599498
Why do people love him? He is a scam artist idiot.
>he blew up one of Zuckerberg's satellites
That was a good day.

If he only can make the house where Zuck lives than the next happy accident will be something to celebrate.
>>
What are you rambling? He did some impressive stuff.
>>
>>67599498
wtf i LOVE elon NOW
>>
>>67599591
>What are you rambling
Watch the video
https://youtu.be/BPv0VZcvm4Q?t=890
He makes MEME scam rockets that explode.

>He did some impressive stuff.
Name one thing.
>>
You're a fucking idiot. I dont like him personally, but the technology space X uses is literally decades appart from the likes of NASA or ESA.
I work in airbus and something like the rocket parts re-entry and retrieval is just science fiction with the current civil rocket technology
>>
>>67599627
are you baiting or are you THAT MUCH insecure?
>>
>>67599689
this. First time i saw falcon heavy double landing i literally got a hard on.
>>
File: Mail-Wife_s-Letter.jpg (1.05 MB, 5257x2247)
1.05 MB
1.05 MB JPG
>>67599689
Here is the thing:
why the fuck do you use rocket engines to retrieve/land the rockets?
Why not use a parashoot?
The MEME landing's make the things explode its the definition of a "rube goldberg machine".
However parashoot don't make wanna be techies get erections.

>science fiction
And it also makes them explode.
MEME landing or a rocket that is not exploding.
MEME landing or a rocket that is not exploding.
You chose the MEME landing.
You are retarded.
>>
>>67599487
Exploding rockets is business as usual in the space industry desu.

It's quite normal.
>>
>>67599858
To add. My dad often hires out engineers to work on rockets. I also got to attend a launch a while ago. And that rocket also exploded. And everyone just raised their shoulders.
>>
>>67599689
So working in airbus and supposedly (you didn't say with what) knowing this stuff: how much can be saved realistically?
The materials themselves aren't what cost much in a rocket however, before reusing a part they have to be controlled and if those controls aren't thorough enough micro-cracks etc. can accumulate. So there are savings but what level of savings?
>>
>>67599841
most cringe inducing thing ive read in a while
>>
>>67599858
>Exploding rockets is business as usual in the space industry desu.
This is what millennials actual believe.

NASA did not have them in decades and the ones that are shown are extremely rare (space shuttle exploded 1 time after ~20 years of service)
>>
File: cool-me.png (109 KB, 403x347)
109 KB
109 KB PNG
>>67599487
>His Mr. Burns levels of exploding rockets:
Pls don't insult mr. burns. He is a good guy. Really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1T5uMeYv9Q
>>
>>67599884
>can accumulate. So there are savings but what level of savings?
OP here.
What makes Elon an LOL cow is that he cuts corners and parades like he is the king of the universe however what he does not understand is that the extra costs in NASA rockets prevent them from exploding. And is surprised after his explode.
>>
this thread is making me like elon musk
>>
>>67599841
You can't even spell parachute correctly, you Mongoloid. All your opinions are wrong
>>
>>67599914
https://youtu.be/lZ5PermDs0I
>>
>>67599627
>name one thing
That one time he fooled Israel into entrusting him with their satelite and then he blew it up. That was pretty impressive shit.
>>
File: you.jpg (35 KB, 735x541)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>67599984
>correctly, you Mongoloid. All your opinions are wrong

Nice job on turning yourself into a joke.
Pff English is a dumb language it will be replaced with Spanish after the Reconquista from La Raza.
>>
File: 1536757534964.jpg (35 KB, 456x456)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>67599498
>Listen to Elon talk about dangers of AI.
>Facebook satellite "accidentally" blows up.
It all makes sense now.
>>
>>67600029
>Israel into
Is Israel nuked? No? Then he failed miserably.
>>
>>67600040
He's the Dark Knight.
>>
>>67600037
It really is astounding that not only did you get this many replies with an obvious bait thread, but that people still reply to you after making it more and more obvious and dropping more and more hints
>>
>>67600037
lmao you beaners can barely speak your own language
>>
>>67600060
>more and more hints
That you and all Elon fanboys are retarded?

I asked you why its not using parachutes (thanks for the correction I don't even pay attention how to write things in your retardation of a language, it will be obsolete in the next 20 years anyway) instead of his MEME landing that blows his rockets up. Still no answer.
>>
>>67599487
le definition of a shitpost
>>
>>67600064
>Heh I was almost forced to face the fact that my argument was bad but i see here that you made a typo hahaha tough luck pal
>lets talk about Spanish
You can't make this shit up.
>>
File: 1468219454028.jpg (27 KB, 542x474)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>MEME landing MEME landing MEME landing MEME landing MEME landing MEME
cringe
>>
>>67600108
I hate Elon, he is trying to get ahead of anyone else by using the state and then tries to act like some high and mighty free market capitalist
That was also my first post on the threa, so you didn't ask me shit
That being said, stop trying to meme Spain into the new India, it's not gonna happen
>>
>>67599689
>I work in airbus and something like the rocket parts re-entry and retrieval is just science fiction with the current civil rocket technology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls
>>
>>67600108
Parachute landings aren't exacly smooth and it's hard to controll where it lands. Once you master meme landings, they are just more convenient than having to fish potentially damaged rockets from sea.
>>
>>67599487
>YEY capitalism much progress
musk made his fortune from government grants.
>>
>>67600205
Is it worth having the fuckers explode on landing or start for this?
>>
>>67600145
people from spain dont speak english like that. he's probably a wetback
>>
>>67600238
>musk made his fortune from government grants.
I know the line was ironic.
Also all free enterprise/capitalism is nothing more then doing the same thing the government did only more expensively/worse and extracting more money from the government into crony hands.
>>
>>67600283
>only more expensively/worse
I know for a fact this is bait
>>
>>67600318
>fact
Then you have no facts.
Look into it you colossal idiot.
Example Uber literally makes their "workers" earn less then minimal wage or even negative profits (this is a extremely bad thing). Turn your "workers" into something worse and payed less then slaves.

If you are to indoctrinated into bullshit to realize this and its a simple calculation then you are unable to think or calculate because of your crippling ideological indoctrination.
>>
>>67600395
You forget that Uber gave everyone a much cheaper service than taxis, and taxis were infamously bad for overcharging so much that OBVIOUSLY a good alternative means they'd stop jewing people out of their money
If you want to make calculations, try the following mental consideration:
>1 store sets the prices (it is called the government but it's still a store)
>100 different stores of varying sizes and with varying priorities compete for the biggest piece of the pie
If your idea is that "muh workers get paid less", consider that the US has been using a mostly free market system and it's wages are higher than most government controlled markets
>>
>>67600254
It's called teething problems. Russians who are always looking to skimp on something are they revisiting this type of landing instead of parachutes, so that tells you something...
>>
File: 1955 ...Werner ponders.jpg (178 KB, 1329x1000)
178 KB
178 KB JPG
>>67599487
>>67599498
>>67599526
>>67599601
>>67599841
>>67599884
>>67599905
>>67599936
>>67600029
>>67600037
>>67600145
Nobody ever said flying rockets is easy, NASA lost 2 out of 5 space shuttles and eventually had to scrap the program due to inefficiencies, russia has had massive issues with their Proton-M etc, and spacex was founded in 2002, fucking 2002.
Reading this stuff by people otherwise prone to debating pros/cons of getting a college degree in CS or some sysadmin certificate from cisco is painful.
Get an engineering degree, get some experience building your own rockets and then share your results.
I'm done with this amateur site
>>
>>67600523
Unironically >>>/r/eddit
>>
>>67600523
why tf did you even @ me?
all i said is that i like elon now
>>
>>67600487
>Pro uber
Go work for uber you fucker.

>much cheaper service than taxis,
Yes and you know how they did it? By tricking idiots into working for them and using legalistic loopholes to not classify their "workers" to be workers. You get payed pennies or nothing if you work for them.

>overcharging
Don't get me wrong I also think you are overpaid since you make more then zero. I only hope you get payed less then zero because whatever you are doing you are obviously overcharging everyone.

You are mentally crippled by your ideology.
People like you don't deserve to have any power or property.

>much cheaper service than taxis,
You realize this is similar to the overexploitation problem (in like farmland)? And systemic to all pro business thinking? You can overexploit a farmland and get 20 more food units out of it however the next year you will get nothing. Wow 20 is bigger then 10 (everyone is making 10 units ) only you fucken starve the next year you retarded fuck!

Now back to Uber, its so cheap everyone will get into it no more taxis, only one problem you need to hope you will have a stream of idiots who you can trick to work for you with less pay then slaves (negative profits!) if there will be no more idiots or all your idiots realize it and quit or simply go bankrupt (negative profits!) then you will have no one to drive you around.

And this children is why capitalism is a load of shit.
>>
>>67600523
>Nobody ever said flying rockets is easy, NASA lost 2 out of 5 space shuttles and eventually had to scrap the program due to inefficiencies
I agree however they lost 2 rockets over how many years? And how many times did the shuttles fly to space?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions

>inefficiencies
Did they explode?

> russia has had massive issues with their Proton-M
What problems? Explosions?

>spacex was founded in 2002
>>
>>67600523
>>67600729
Shit it posted automatically.

>>>spacex was founded in 2002
"Its like they looked back at all of human history and managed to learn nothing from it."

Is a quote that comes to mind.

Because NASA did figure all of this out, and NASA is giving this knowledge for free.
And Elons joke company is to stupid to learn from NASA.
>>
File: 1534049369952.png (428 KB, 558x744)
428 KB
428 KB PNG
>>67600700
>go work for uber
Why? I have a degree and work for a company that pays more
>you get paid pennies or nothing
So you mean these people willingly work for "pennies" and that's somehow bad? You're not forcing them to work, it just proves that people that are unemployed due to minimum wage bs would want to work for less than minimum wage if they could
>you are obviously overcharging everyone
There's more to a transaction than just money
I'd easily not get paid $1000 to have a month off work, but I wouldn't not get paid $10k to have a month off work because I value my work time at around $10k which is what I get paid
>dont deserve to have any power
I have power over me and my property alone
>or property
Why don't you come along and try to take it, pic related
>you starve the next year
>overfarming
Proven wrong so far by any remotely free market economy
Far as I recalled when the government meddles with the economy though you had
>civil war
>The great depression
>Pearl Harbor
>Korea
>Vietnam
>Middle East
>Housing crisis
>the next crisis that's gonna hit ~2021-2
Anyways
>now back to Uber
Again, people that don't get paid because of unemployment would literally work with that wage
Thinking that makes them slaves because they make less than others, but refusing them a job by asking they get paid "muh living wage" is purely uneducated thinking
>noone to drive you around
If Uber disappears overnight, you'll have 1000 new businesses in its place the next morning
As a matter of fact, you probably already do
>capitalism is a load of shit
Feel free to go to Cuba or Venezuela
>>
>>67600729
The reason why spacex exploded more is becase if it was a goverment project, it would've been canceled after second failure and all the money already poured into it would be wasted. So goverment run projects focus on not having stuff explode, whereas spacex can afford to focus on a particular goal even if the risk of stuff exploding during development is higher.
>>
>>67600523
Thank you, Anon! I don't see these tarts building rockets..
>>
>>67600828
>even if the risk of stuff exploding during development is higher.
Do you put your serious payloads on these rockets then? In like actual satellites that where expected to be in orbit? And got exploded in what is the pre alpha hacked together demo software for rockets?
Because this is what he totaly did.
Its OK to dick around with exploding rocket ideas however you don't use them seriously unless they are finished.
>The reason why spacex exploded more is becase if it was a goverment project, it would've been
Perfected until the rockets are ready for serious use see NASA rocket history.
>goverment project, it would've been
Did you say that government is superior to free enterprise? Because it totally is.
>>
ITT: ELON MEMES
>>
>>67600820
>but I wouldn't not get paid $10k to have a month off work because I value my work time at around $10k which is what I get paid
You are clearly overpaid I can't wait when the Uber for programming arrives so we can finely have cheep devs that are payed less then zero.
>>
>>67600869
>perfected
Yeah, like they did the venturestar.
>>
>>67600889
>overpaid
Nah, I believe I'm paid just about as much as I need be
>Uber for programming
That's arrived already, you're talking about Pajeets
I'm in network architecture, I believe I'm safe for the next 30 years considering less and less people get interested in actual hardware
>>
>>67599591
It's ((his)) desk job. Elon pissing them off makes it so much sweeter.
>>
>>67600178
10,000 feet up is not space
>>
>>67601057
Okay anon, is the moon in space?
Last I checked NASA landed a lunar lander on there with rockets, and then they launched it back up into orbit and docked it.
>>
>>67599841
it doesn't have a "parashoot" because it has to control the area of decent you fucking idiot.
>>
>>67601211
The next question is why it needs to be so precise? Even during the era of the space shuttle SRBs were recovered using just some boats.
>>
>>67601226
because they have to ensure it lands on a spot that's level, solid, and not a spot that a human is at. Also, ocean landings would seem to be the safest option, because in the event of a failure there's nothing around to get damaged.
>>
>>67601272
Well yes, that's the point, if they aim for the ocean and ask boats to stay away from the expected landing zone then they can forego fancy guidance systems and use a parachute and some inflatable balls.
If the guidance system fails or the propulsion system fails and they aim to land it anywhere but a barge in the ocean then they have a chance of hitting someone anyway.
They can also use that valuable last bit of fuel to get larger things into orbit (or get smaller things into higher orbits).
>>
>>67601300
There's probably a reason they don't do this that I'm not smart enough to think of. It obviously does sound much easier. But why wouldn't nasa do this? There's probably a serious issue with it
>>
>>67599487
He's had more than 40 consecutive successes so far with the Falcon 9 since the last incident, only Arianne 5 and Atlas V have that record atm. And he's launching more rockets/commercial payloads than these two combined.
>>
>>67601300
Has anyone tried to fish huge fuel tank that smacked into water and then reuse it? Doesn't sound as easy and as safe as you make it out to be.
>>
>>67601300
For the same reason that commercial airplanes don't parachute their customers over NYC and and then deploy a big chute to bail into the Hudson. It's better to land with your main propulsive mode than to add an entirely separate one on top of it.

Also, if you build the rocket to be able to land in water, it'll be too heavy to give any decent speed boost. The Falcon 9 first stage gives the upper stage more than three times more velocity than the shuttle SRB's did to the shuttle. It has to be built lightweight, and if you soft land it on water it won't survive flipping in the water after it's landed.
>>
>>67601403
Yes, they literally did this with SRBs. But re-using the rockets even when you land them isn't much easier than reusing SRBs which landed in the ocean and were fished out shortly after.
>>
>>67599487
Can someone please explain what this wall of aspergers means?
>>
>>67601450
SRB's didn't have any fuel tanks, or rocket engines. They're like a firework rocket, they're just huge steel tubes filled with explosives that are designed to burn slowly. The thick steel tube is the cheap part, the shaped fuel was the expensive part of the SRB.
>>
>>67601226
>Even during the era of the space shuttle SRBs
This I have seen a documentary about shuttle operation where the rockets(the big things it has in the start and is not coming back with) the shuttle drops where fished out.
Pro tip this is why all space facilities are next to water so they drop the things in the water.

Elon is more interested in making fancy looking landings then actually getting things into space, with less exploding rockets.
>>
Is there a way to help in ruining him? I lost shitloads of money and now I'm more or less in debt because of his tesla scam and I'm trying to figure out how to fight back
>>
>>67601491
For this reason, reusing the SRB's stopped because it was more expensive to just make a new one from scratch.

By comparison, a liquid fuelled first stage only needs to have it's fuel tanks refilled, like most existing vehicles.
>>
>>67601300
Fuel represents like 10% of a rocket cost. Using that little bit of fuel to land your very expensive rocket parts near your base is a massive boost. Seawater rapes everything it touches too.
>>
>>67601497
How do you lose money on Tesla? If you shorted his stock, that's entirely your own fault.
>>
>>67601491
The issue with SRB reuse is that the most expensive part is the fuel. Which, coincidentally, is all used up during its operation. This is in great contrast with liquid rockets where the liquid is quite cheap compared to the rockety parts.
>>
>>67601226
>Even during the era of the space shuttle SRBs were recovered using just some boats.

And then had to be rebuild from the ground up due to being destroyed by salt water.

Rockets need to land gently on the pad, otherwise dont even bother with reusability.
>>
>>67601337

>But why wouldn't nasa do this?
NASA is doing the exact thing.
>>
>>67601300
.>They can also use that valuable last bit of fuel to get larger things into orbit (or get smaller things into higher orbits).

You know there are multiple companies launching rockets? SpaceX reusing their rockets saves a lot of money but obviously that comes with the cost of having to carry that extra fuel and not being able to do heavier payloads or higher orbits.

NASA has a tool to figure out the best rocket for your use! Sometimes SpaceX would be best, sometimes not.

https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Default.aspx
>>
>>67601435
Rockets are incomparable to commercial aeroplanes. This is a false equivalence.
An airline is transporting people on sub-orbital trajectories.
It's certainly not EASIER to land with your "main propulsive mode" and is also a big waste of the last drops of fuel which give most of the ∆v.
The concern over the water landing could be solved quite simply, the engine could detach from the (considerably cheaper) fuel tank. This would not only make it easier to recover but also lighter and less likely to break up if an inflatable heat shield was used for re-entry and parachutes and inflatable cushions were used for the water landing.
>>67601491
That's not the point though, the fact of the matter is that they were still very expensive to reuse.
>>67601516
You don't understand how that 10% of fuel makes up the majority of the ∆v.

To be honest, this is all talk in the end. I would be interested in seeing some actual numbers for cost to weight and profit.
>>
>>67601559
This.

Rocket reusability is a meme that cripples performance severely.

Hence why it wasn't pursued until certain PR gurus decided to dabble into the business.
>>
>>67601497
>I lost shitloads of money and now I'm more or less in debt because
Explain.
>his tesla scam
Update me on this.
>>
>>67601300
>They can also use that valuable last bit of fuel to get larger things into orbit (or get smaller things into higher orbits).

Rockets are rarely used to full capacity. Landing fuel is essentially free. If additional capacity is really required, then they can use orbital refueling or even expend the rocket.
>>
>>67600523
>NASA lost 2 out of 5 space shuttles
Stopped reading there

Musk loses 2 out of 5 launches, NASA lost 2 out of 140
>>
>>67601559
Falcon 9 already has a larger lift capability than most rockets in reusable mode. If that's too small, the falcon heavy is big enough to handle pretty much every mission you could think up in reusable mode.

And then there's the BFR which will be introduced in a few years, which will have 150 ton payload to LEO.

Reuse arguably increases the payload of a rocket, because you can make it big enough to handle the largest payloads and still fly the smaller payloads on it profitably.
>>
>>67601576
Finally a bit more reason. Though I'll argue that SMART which you are probably referring to is PR as well. There is no need to reuse anything. It's a double edged sword that always cuts you, either in R&D costs or by imposing limits on manufacturing.

Increase production capacity, maximize performance. That's the right way.
>>
>>67601593
>> Musk loses 2 out of 5 launches, NASA lost 2 out of 140

[Citation needed]
>>
>>67601600

BFR is never going to fly.

It is a powerpoint star-trekish "rocket".
>>
>>67601583
>>67601576
brainlet posts
>>
>>67601583
...And now the old established players can't compete. They had their chance and didn't make use of it.
>>
>>67599936
But nasas rockets explose all the time
>>
>>67601583
>Rocket reusability is a meme that cripples performance severely.
this is false and not what was said at all
>>
>>67601593
>Musk loses 2 out of 5 launches, NASA lost 2 out of 140
I applaud you sir and the fact that there are still sane people on /g/ and not only Elon cock suckers.
>>
>>67601630
First test flights are literally next year.
>>
>>67601642
Ignorant.
>>67601644
All "old established players" are worth more than spacex and have numerous government contracts for variety of aerospace hardware.
>>
uhh Space X is like the only really promising company Elon Musk has a hand in. Their track record with rocket launches is pretty damn good. I think part of the problem is that they video tape pretty much every test and have made many MANY of those tapes public, even if the rocket blew up. There is no bubblegum or ducttape on a spacex rocket.

In case you haven't noticed SpaceX rockets have a unique feature that they fire back up on the descent. It requires them to haul a BUNCH of extra fuel into orbit, way more than a traditional launch vehicle. It also contributes to the 'splody factor if the thing is gonna go up in flames.

Rockets are huge bro, there is no way you are going to parachute a falcon nine fuselage back to the ground without destroying it. even the engines by themselves would never make it on chutes alone
>>
>>67601655
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#2018
>>
>>67601497
>I'm more or less in debt because of his tesla scam
Please expand on this
>>
>>67601618
>[Citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions
5 tests 135 normal with humans.
135 +5 = 140

What exactly do you want documented?
>>
>>67601593
>Musk loses 2 out of 5 launches

2 out of 61. Industry standard reliability.
>>
Its as if you guys actually think NASA builds rockets. they don't
>>
>>67601663
>All "old established players" are worth more than spacex and have numerous government contracts for variety of aerospace hardware.

Nice pork barrel you got there.
>>
>>67601675
I "shorted" because it was safe bet. I didn't expect he'd be running a scam and intentionally reducing the value of tesla stocks below their real value so he can do what he did. Happy now?
>>
>>67601589
>expend the rocket.
This is an exponential problem.
>orbital refueling
Which is even more complicated than just launching the rockets, letting them burn up and not needing to do it.
>Landing fuel is essentially free
It really isn't.
>Rockets are rarely used to full capacity
Okay, but I'm quite sure they get more use than spacex uses before they reserve fuel for landing, which is the key here.
>>67601617
I wasn't ever really advocating for reuse, I have doubts that any reuse is really that much more cost effective than making the rockets simpler and cheaper to manufacture.
>>
>>67601681
They design, integrate and operate them. Inefficiency galore.
>>
>>67601663
>> All "old established players" are worth more than spacex and have numerous government contracts for variety of aerospace hardware.

>> Having the government as your only customer, while being completely uncompetitive on the private market.

Give it five more years. Communism always fails on its own.
>>
>>67601653
Recovery hardware has mass. Mass that has to be taken directly from the payload capability.
Payloads are expensive. Very, very expensive. Recovery hardware simply can't save enough money and that's the issue with rocket reusability.
>>
>>67599841
its parachute retard
>>
>>67601694
>> I "shorted" because it was safe bet.
>> I didn't expect he'd be reducing the value of tesla stocks
Oh god, your posts are comedy gold at this point.
>>
>>67601678
The real question is what the "No attempt" category is in the reports of Elon.
Is it his way to spin the numbers?
>Whats this the rocket crashed on landing?
>Well we did not try to land it this time!
>Checkmate atheist!
>>
>>67601711
>everything i dislike is communism waah scary reds i dont want free healthcare!
>>
>>67601709
>Okay, but I'm quite sure they get more use than spacex uses before they reserve fuel for landing, which is the key here.

They dont. SpaceX can launch vast majority of existing payloads. Including heavy military sats with Falcon Heavy. There are very few payloads that SpaceX is incapable of launching with reuse, and even then it can simply choose to expend the rocket.
>>
>>67601694
>Using the stock market
Why don't you go into a casino already.
>he'd be running a scam
He is a scam man, now you know how he made his fortune.
>>
>>67601715
>Recovery hardware has mass. Mass that has to be taken directly from the payload capability.

Good thing that payloads almost never fill all of the capability of the rocket.
>>
>>67601715
If SpaceX is too expensive you can use one of the other rocket companies.

https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Default.aspx

NASA literally has a tool to tell you which rocket is best for you in terms of cost and performance.

There is no "issue" with rocket reusability. It makes SpaceX the best option for a lot of people. Sometimes it also makes it not the best option. But, again, you have 4 other companies to choose from.
>>
File: spacex.png (48 KB, 738x428)
48 KB
48 KB PNG
>>67601715
Meanwhile on the russian suicide watch.
>>
>>67601678
I find that hard to believe since I've seen video of way more than 2 SpaceX rockets explode.
>>
>>67600523
>1 stroke engines
>difficult
>>
>>67601779
Soyuz 5 and Angara are coming and things will change.
>>
>>67601779
>Global Commercial Market Share
So its a meaningless number.
>>
>>67601736
"no attempt" in rocketry usually has to do with weather delays pushing the launch outside the launch window, and cancelling the launch because of it. Not sure if thats what you're talking about you have no source listed that you're quoting (in the reports of Elon)?
>>
>>67601777
Excess capability is usually used in other ways. Co-manifested payloads, higher energy orbits, etc. Not an argument.
>>
>>67601576
I do understand. Efficiency goes up with the vehicles's speed, Oberth effect, yada yada. You fail to understand that that little $10k worth of fuel can bring a $500k rocket back to your base.
Efficiency for the sake of efficiency and ignoring everything else is how you get nice little inventions that don't go anywhere.
>>
>>67601781
those were failed landing attempts, does not affect the mission outcome.
>>
>>67601806
the most meaningful number if you want to judge actual competitiveness of the launch vehicle
>>
>>67601781
Performing an actual paid launch? or during testing?

because they blow up rockets a lot during testing, but they're not loading them up with expensive payloads that were supposed to make it to orbit.
>>
>>67601617
>>Increase production capacity, maximize performance. That's the right way.
SpaceX already has the highest production out of any rocket manufacturer. Reuse and increased production stack multiplicatively, not additively.
>>
If you think it's okay to use the word MEME this much please leave your house at least once today.
>>
>>67601807
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#2018
Funny because the rocket flies in space you know and then its expected to come back and we have
>Failure
Rocket make boom
>Success
Rocket is OK
>No attempt
= ???
> the launch outside the launch window, and cancelling the launch because of it
all "No attempt " are on "Booster landing" I smell something fishy like someone is trying to doctor his success rate.
>>
>>67601808
>Co-manifested payloads, higher energy orbits

Sure, but primary payload is where the real money is, and SpaceX can do that. Getting your hardware back is more economical than these other bells and whistles.
>>
>>67601781
if a spacex rocket fucks up the landing, it only costs SpaceX. doesn't affect the company that paid for the launch to put their payload into orbit, the payload made it to orbit and SpaceX did everything they agreed to.

It just saves SpaceX money to successfully land it, with the idea that if they can do it reliably enough they can pass those savings to their customers
>>
>>67601862
The word meme is a perfectly valid word invented by Richard Dawkins. It just happens to be the case that the OP is too retarded to use it in a proper context.
>>
>>67601750
>They dont. SpaceX can launch vast majority of existing payloads. Including heavy military sats with Falcon Heavy. There are very few payloads that SpaceX is incapable of launching with reuse, and even then it can simply choose to expend the rocket.
There's a bit of a contradiction here.
If they can "chose to expend the rocket" by which I presume you mean, let it burn up but use the extra fuel, then surely the amount of fuel they reserve for landing is more than the amount of fuel which would be left over when a different rocket would be used to launch a payload which was at its own upper limit.
>>67601809
Not even with the vehicles speed, the efficiency also goes up when your vehicle gets lighter due to used up fuel.
The question is what the loss of revenue through the reduced capacity of that $10k worth of fuel is, and if there isn't a way to make more money by not having to use fuel for recovery.
>>
>>67601879
Sometimes SpaceX does let their rockets come back down without booster landing. If they have a successful launch and a booster landing was never planned for, then the rocket will come crashing down but its not a failure, nor is it a successful landing. I would call not attempting a booster landing a "no attempt"
>>
>>67601855
I also like to know this.
This is why I'm only interested in serious launches and not testing, he can blow up test prototypes all he wants and test his square wheel perpetual motion designs all he wants. We will chuckle at his attempts.

However when he is expected to send something serious into space and says that his toy rockets can do it and they fuck up then then he dun goofed.
>>
File: based.jpg (61 KB, 968x645)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>67599487
>t. CIA nigger
fuck off, ol musky will help destroy your jewish dictatorship when the time comes
>>
>>67601926
>There's a bit of a contradiction here.

No contradiction, the point is that those cases where the rocket needs to be expended are rare. For vast majority of launches, there is more than enough fuel left for landing. Hence for vast majority of cases reuse is basically free.
>>
>>67601926
Yes increased thrust and corresponding g loads for the payload are very helpful and efficient.
>>
>>67601881
Only this one rocket exploded on earth, while being refueled, something NASA never did after perfecting their rockets so 1969 to today.
And your cargo will explode with it.
>>
>>67601926
>The question is what the loss of revenue through the reduced capacity of that $10k worth of fuel is, and if there isn't a way to make more money by not having to use fuel for recovery.
I'm sure they got their engineers and bean counters early on to compare how two rockets, with the same capabilities, would cost when one uses le meme landing and the other is expendable.
Hell, reusability has been a big goal for aerospace since day one, guidance systems just were not mature enough back then, so the approaches to reusability were less than ideal
>>
>>67599487
yeah op i guess you should go back to the fucking forest and bang your head on rocks, maybe that will get you to the moon
fucking retard
>>
>>67601933
This is what I was thinking.
Only this sounds like a way to doctor the results see:
>Whats this the rocket crashed on landing?
>Well we did not try to land it this time!
>Checkmate atheist!
>>
>>67601992
I wouldn't be so charitable to any engineers working under elon musk.
I mean, in the end, elon musk is also the man behind tesla motors and the memeloop.
>>
>>67601926
when they choose to expend the rocket, they don't load it up with landing fuel. There is a tiny bit of extra fuel for trajectory corrections if they're necessary, but esentially the payload weighs too much to pack in enough extra fuel for a booster landing so they don't even bother. They just use the vehicle like a traditional rocket, load it up with enough fuel to take the payload to orbit, spend the rest of the fuel on a de-orbit burn, and crash into the mohave or ocean or whatever.

I'm pretty sure its the cost of printing new engines, and wrapping new high pressure fuel tanks that they're trying to avoid by reusing rockets.
>>
>>67601998
>maybe that will get you to the moon
Only spacex never got to the moon, NASA did in 1969.
I don't know where you are going with this.
>>
>>67601941
there were two SpaceX failures during serious launches

all the other explosions were either Falcon 1 or during landing attempts

again, SpaceX reliability is industry standard, it would not capture almost half of commercial payload market if it wasnt, sat manufacturers are not stupid
>>
>>67602041
Spacex is nothing more than us gov subsidy to cripple european and russian sat launch markets.
>>
>>67602023
>I wouldn't be so charitable to any engineers working under elon musk.
>I mean, in the end, elon musk is also the man behind tesla motors and the memeloop.
Aaah, I see, you have a personal grudge with him. See, /g/ has had this debate a thousand times, and the general consensus is that he himself is a conman that creates hype out of thin air. However, at the same time, everyone agrees that there are actual engineers and qualified people doing all the heavy lifting behind him, and while the meme loop has been a meme since Brunel tried to do something like that, don't throw all the success of SpaceX under the bus because you don't like their CEO.
Makes you come up like a bitter little bitch that focus too much on the who and not on the why
>>
>>67602040
>Only spacex never got to the moon, NASA did in 1969.

And then never went back due to inability to keep costs under control. Ignoring economic efficiency is stupid. I have more faith in SpaceX landing the next man on the Moon than NASA.
>>
>>67602058
>Private American company wins contracts to deliver payloads
muh g-goverment subsidies
>State funded space agencies get billions from their governments to do the exact same thing
now THAT was reliability right there
>>
>>67602023
>tesla motors
You mean the pollution mobile?

>Quadruple your CO2 output with inefficient energy transfers! Coal power plant -> Energy grid -> AC to DC -> battery
>Get ready for heavy metals in your water from our """battery recycling center""" known to generate defects and insanity unlike the unproven global warming hypothesis.
>>
>>67602040
Nazi engineers did that. Nasa tied a 60's glider to a rocket and killed more than a dozen people with it because they couldn't figure out how to automate the landing gear deployment. Then they gave up on that too.
>>
>>67601991
At least nobody was on board. Its not like they labeled their vehicle as human-flight ready and subsequently barbecued 7 astronauts like NASA did with the Challenger

Fueling a rocket is dangerous, especially with supercold fuels.
>>
File: gmshill.jpg (124 KB, 808x805)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
>>67599487
the absolute state of gm shills
>>
>>67602101
It's not even that, the fucking thing is like an iphone in how unfixable it is by third parties and how glued together it basically is.
The fact that they use linux for their OS is a joke when they absolutely lock down every other bit for no good reason.
Cars are already black boxy enough, tesla took it to a whole new level.
>>
>>67602101
The dose of FUD memes is too high anon.
>>
>>67602136
when you say black boxy: do you mean in appearance? or in tracking and telemetry like an airplane black box?
>>
File: NAZI.png (279 KB, 589x394)
279 KB
279 KB PNG
>>67602079
>>67602117
>Nazi engineers did that
This.

We are all forgetting that old NASA was full of captured Nazi engineers who used their Nazi science to create technological Nazi wonders, the race mixed american dumb fucks of the time can not even engineer a cardboard box.

Now all Nazi scientists are dead or senile.
>>
>>67602209
As in tracking and telemetry.
They can literally remotely disable your car completely or some of its features on a whim for example.
>>
>>67602121
>Fueling a rocket is dangerous, especially with supercold fuels.
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPv0VZcvm4Q&feature=youtu.be&t=890
NASA solved this in the 1960s! Space X is retarded.
>>
>>67602254
that video did not age well at all
>>
>>67602136
>Cars are already black boxy enough, tesla took it to a whole new level.
Aww shit! Tesla the iPhone of cars (this is a bad thing).

You know I was more obsessed how electric cars are obsolete inefficient meme technology and especially the metals in the water supply because i drink water YO and I don't drive a tesla.
>>
>>67602237
>They can literally remotely disable your car completely or some of its features on a whim for example.
>remotely disable your car completely
1984 version 3.0
Elon created more evil for the world then Steve Jobs.
>>
>>67602292
If only spacex can copy this old wheel (not exploding rocket on refueling) technology from the cavemen (NASA). Na lets go Elon style and make square wheels fuck round ones they are all gay and old and gay and stone age and gay.
>>
>>67602337
There were manufacturers which ended up implementing this sort of shit before, but all of them did it by accident through incompetence (media centre connected to canbus which was getting unsigned OTA updates).
>>
>>67602374
>Na lets go Elon style and make square wheels fuck round ones they are all gay and old and gay and stone age and gay.

such level of argumentation.. teach me master.
>>
>>67602389
Yes and Steve Jobs stole ideas form others and popularized them. Same for draconian shit he stole form others.
>>
>>67602374
Don't worry, SpaceX has been apparently brain draining NASA for a few years now, given how NASA is pretty much dormant and already outsources most of their manufacturing to companies like Lockheed and Boeing while SpaceX is getting contracts left and right and offering big phat salaries.
>>
>>67602426
>and offering big phat salaries.

Nah, SpaceX salaries tend to be on the lower end. However the brain drain is real, SpaceX is where you go if you want to make a difference and are actually passionate about spaceflight, as best people in the industry tend to be.
>>
File: Planet-of-the-Apes.jpg (303 KB, 1918x816)
303 KB
303 KB JPG
>>67602426
>brain draining NASA
Its nu-NASA full of people who are to stupid to not forget how to get to the moon.
IGNORE THE FLAT EARTH SHIT CONSPIRACY.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjt7HpC6w3o
https://youtu.be/eN2UTSRaYUE

look at this retard nu-Nasa fag
Not the old Nazi science Nasa that got us to the moon.

nu-Nasa even lost its own pictures of the moon landing.
We are living in the planet of apes.
>>
File: faiJMmV_d.jpg (61 KB, 640x931)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>67599487
>>
>>67600820
>Venezuela
>socialist state
pick one
>>
>>67600523
>I'm done
Well... cya!
>>
File: 1534430526577.jpg (149 KB, 811x730)
149 KB
149 KB JPG
>>67601694
>listen to (((certain analysts))) telling you that Tesla is a failure
>their plan to ruin Tesla fails
>blame Musk
You got exacly what you deserve.
>>
There's nothing wrong with SpaceX tech. It's WAY WAY cheaper than using taxpayer dollars to launch stuff. Obviously, it's not the greatest or safest way to launch shit into space, and clearly, they had a lot of problems they needed to solve. But lately, they've made great progress. Tesla is great too; they've got their problems, but at least they are spurring innovation and progress in the energy and automotive sectors.

The problem is retarded investor scumbags who want to tank Tesla stock so they can profit from the disaster. They continuously make personal attacks on him, pay lobbyists to rally against him, encourage media attacks on him, etc. Elon's own inability to handle the pressure doesn't help either. He's too much of a blabbermouth on social media. Like calling one of the cave divers a pedophile because you lost an argument? Dude, you are stressed, I get it, but there's a point where you need to just shut the fuck up before you slip up horribly. Announcing that he wanted to privatize Tesla before it was a done deal was also retarded, and played directly into his opponents' hands. Honestly, I am torn there. I'm tempted to say "Tesla should never have been made public" but then again, would they even have been able to raise the cash required if they hadn't done so?
>>
File: 1470578647561.png (561 KB, 544x492)
561 KB
561 KB PNG
>>67599487
You're behind the times faggot. /g/ now loves this selfdestruct-Elon
>>
>>67602741
Want to comment how all electric cars are equal to the idea of driving on square wheels?
https://youtu.be/CIN8Q_4iaxU
Out side of inch outlines (you can not emit CO2 in small closed environments with your cars) they are the bad solution.
>>
>>67602867
>they are the bad solution
care to elaborate? and not on the square wheels analogy you cling to, I mean electric cars
>>
>>67602890
Sure.
Why do you think electric cars are not a complete disaster only championed by ideological idiots (environmentalists) and scammers who want these idiots money?

in other words why do you think a electric car is any good? Or more correctly why is it any good for normal civilian driving.
>>
>>67602931
I didn't claim any of that tho. You're the one making claims and then not backing them, I'm just pondering what would make you claim they're 'the bad solution' in the first place.
I don't think electric cars are any better or any worse than the average ICE vehicle overall.
>>
>>67599487
I blame Grimes.
>>
>>67602958
>I don't think electric cars are any better or any worse than the average ICE vehicle overall.
Ok.
I wanted to know your angle because there are multiple angles for electric car shilling and outside of spectacularly narrow scenario they are the bad solution for practically everyone.

Essay inbound stay tight!
I tell you all about them now.
>>
>>67599487
>duck tape
>parashoot
https://vocaroo.com/i/s12Agrh5Mwj0
>>
>>67602979
this, it seems like he went completely off the rails when he started smoking crack and shooting heroin with that cunt
>>
File: grimes_azealia.jpg (205 KB, 1125x2436)
205 KB
205 KB JPG
>>67603064
>>
>>67602890
>they are typically powered by fossil fuels anyway, meaning they contribute about double the co2 as ICE cars
>batteries are inherently more dangerous than oxidizing fuels and can't really get better without becoming even more dangerous
>giant batteries aren't scalable to the level of ICE cars and are bad for the environment
>If you had a real "green" energy solution instead of the solar meme you could easily just synthesize chemical fuels for vehicles and not have to deal with any of this shit
>>
>>67599487
>seething ruski pig
You need to curb your ragefaggot
>>
>>67603100
Yikes.
>>
We need space zeppelins.

Prove me wrong.
>>
>>67603101
>bunch of baseless assertions
cringe
>>
>>67603209
what part of that is baseless?
>>
File: sge-ele4.gif (12 KB, 412x316)
12 KB
12 KB GIF
>>67602958
>>67602981

>>67602890
There are 2 schools of propaganda on this:
1) Electric cars don't make emissions
Sure however where do you get your electricity? From carbon energy like
Coal power plant -> Energy grid -> AC to DC -> battery
Every step loses energy. And simply turning the coal into diesel is far better energy wise.

Think energy sources not forms of energy.

So using electric cars if you don't have 99% of nuclear reactor or renewables or perpetual motion energy(more on this later) sources is insanity!

[to be continued]
>>
>>67603101
>typically powered by fossil fuels anyway
only if you live in an oil nigger society that doesn't give a fuck about co2 in the first place
>meaning they contribute about double the co2 as ICE cars
wat how do you even get that figure
>giant batteries aren't scalable to the level of ICE cars and are bad for the environment
debatable, a fuel tank carrying 10 joules of energy as gas going to an ICE will output roughly 3 or 4 of it as actual usable wheel movement best case scenario, electric motors can put around 9 of those joules as usable movement on average
>batteries are inherently more dangerous than oxidizing fuels
also debatable, you have no idea the ridiculous amount of safety regulations gas stations alone have to comply with, ICE cars have a ton of safety measures put in place to work around the dangers of fuel, you're making it sound as if lithium is some nuke tier shit
>If you had a real "green" energy solution instead of the solar meme
to be fair, PV cells have all the upsides of synthetic fuels and fewer donwsides
stuff like algae farms, some of the best tech for fuel synthesis require giant plots of land, seawater and a lot of infrastructure and running costs, PV cells you can slap on your roof and be done with it, generating power right where the demand is, also putting less stress on logistics and distribution systems
>>
>>67603209
electric being as good as or better than ICE is a baseless assertion
>>
>>67603318

2) Battery VS chemical fuel.
Lets now pretend we have some magical source of energy that will be sanctified by the church of ecology. Nuclear reactors everywhere can do it however lets say its a perpetual motion machine the size of a stadium.
And this energy source is fantastical and powerful and all the jazz.


Now we can
A) Charge a electric batteries from this magically spinning disc.
B) Actually create a chemical fuel like diesel from the mother fucking air!

That's right kids we can simply make diesel like chemical fuels from the mother fucking air, like plants!

Every organic compound is made out of H-O (that's water!) and C its in CO2 in the air.
We have the technology to extract carbon from the air.
Then its only a little refining to get diesel like chemical fuels.

Only you can not make this process self sustaining this is energy transfer not a source. So burning more fossil fuels to use this today is phenomenally stupid like in scenario 1. Nuclear reactors are immune from this and so is our magical energy source in this example.

So here is the question what is better chemical fuel or electric batteries?
Chemical fuel all the way benefits are:
>more energy dense
See how far you can drive on electric batteries VS diesel
>No degradation over time
batteries degrade over time and need replacement, diesel uses itself up and the tank will not degrade and have less charge etc
>No toxicity
Batteries are toxic and problematic to recycle. Diesel burns into H2O and CO2 harmless compounds that will be extracted from the air by a generator that uses synthesis to extract CO2 and H2O from the air to create diesel.

The real danger of this process is not to suck to much CO2 from the atmosphere since without CO2 every living thing on this planet will die! No joke!

This is basically the hydrogen economy only hydrogen is worse
>Hydrogen corrodes tanks reactive!
>Difficult to keep in one place
>Less energy dense then diesel
>>
>>67599487
>Elon a MEME
spacex is not about recreating NASA's programs you fuckwad... the goal is to make space travel more efficient, something that takes a lot of trial and error to perfect.
If Elon Musk is a meme then thats a good thing, more companies need to compete against him, which is what he wants btw.
>>
>>67603101
>>If you had a real "green" energy solution instead of the solar meme you could easily just synthesize chemical fuels for vehicles and not have to deal with any of this shit
AW snap! I was about to write basically the same only with more words and while writing did not see yours here is my >>67603318 >>67603333 you are great keep up your great work.
>>
>>67603322
Which magical elf land do you live in that actually has significantly less co2 per unit energy than anywhere else? Protip: If your answer isn't France, you're wrong.

>wat how do you even get that figure
Just spitballing based on the efficiency of ICE cars vs electric generation. I was even just assuming electric cars were 100% efficient.

Storing large amounts of usable energy is small spaces is inherently dangerous but oxidizing fuels have a safety feature in that you can simply deprive them of oxygen and they will stop. When batteries vent they are impossible to stop.

>algae
I'm not talking about your retard elf shit, if you had enough energy you could synthesize designer fuels from water, air, dirt, whatever.
>>
I think the theory is that the electric cars charge from a generator much larger and more efficient and ecologically friendly than they would from decentralized, privately owned cars or generators

I have a buddy with an electric hybrid that used a gas generator to charge a small onboard battery bank that powered the all electric drivetrain. I was amazed at the fuel economy he was getting by driving on gas, but not using a gas driven drivetrain. I cant remember the make or model but its a popular one in the US. just my .02
>>
File: Untitled.jpg (469 KB, 1170x626)
469 KB
469 KB JPG
lol@this cope
>>
>>67599487
The fact that you need to use the word "literally" to explain your points already tell me what kind of a person you are lol.
>>
>>67603464
>I think the theory is that the electric cars charge from a generator much larger and more efficient and ecologically friendly than they would from decentralized, privately owned cars or generators
This is just fucking obvious. If it wasn't true power plants would be made up of hundreds of little generators
>>
>>67603483
reddit tier
>>
>>67603322

Hello I like you do talk to me I'm >>67603318 and >>67603333 not >>67603101
>debatable, a fuel tank carrying 10 joules of energy as gas going to an ICE will output roughly 3 or 4 of it as actual usable wheel movement best case scenario, electric motors can put around 9 of those joules as usable movement on average
Factually wrong theorizing.
Take the best electric car and put 1000kg to transport on it, the same for liquid fuels see who will go farther on the same road.

> electric motors
No we are not debating electric motors its batteries VS diesel its the energy storage system.
>>
File: EV-Range.png (81 KB, 1000x708)
81 KB
81 KB PNG
>>67603483
>0-60 mph
And this is why we know all electric car arguments are bullshit.
Are you building race cars?
Do you need to accelerate so fast in the city?
Electric cars on batteries can drive far shorter distances then conventional vehicles using liquid chemical fuels like diesel.
Something more important then fast acceleration especially in cities with speed limits all over the place.
You know they are even building speed bumps to decrease speeding?
However the electric car shills need to gloat with something, only pointless distraction.

Lett's have some data
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/26/electric-vehicle-ranges-exceed-gasoline-powered-vehicles-chart/
>>
>>67599601
Hey Musky, you should delete you're facebook account.
Done. Didn't actually know I had one.
>presses hidden secret button under desk.
>satellite explodes.
>>
>>67603448
>Which magical elf land do you live in that actually has significantly less co2 per unit energy than anywhere else? Protip: If your answer isn't France, you're wrong.
there are like 10 different countries with literally 0 fossil fuel power plants, and all other 180 have varying degrees of non fossil fuel power, you seem fixated with nuclear
>efficiency of ICE cars vs electric generation
as in an efficiency of ~30% of usable energy for an ICE vs 90% for electric motors? or are you being dumb enough to compare an ICE to the ENTIRE logistics of producing electric power? because that's comparing apples to horses
go ahead and compare the efficiency of ICE when you have to account for refining, transporting, managing and storing the fuel
>When batteries vent they are impossible to stop
false, firefighting companies all around the world have been training their firefighters to deal with lithium batteries, and even then, battery tech is advancing
>I'm not talking about your retard elf shit
you mean the best way to go from CO2+H2O to hydrocarbons that we know of today? Surely you have some other, better wa-
>if you had enough energy you could synthesize designer fuels
oooh, right, once you have infinite energy you can then use it to synthetise fuel and then burn it, losing all kinds of power in the process, that's fun
I'm going to propose that electric vehicles are the best kind of vehicle if we just find a miraculous battery, that's an absolute fantasy but not too far off from what you're proposing
>>
>parashoot
You're phone posting too. How the fuck do you still spell it wrong with autocorrect
>>
>>67603523
>No we are not debating electric motors its batteries VS diesel its the energy storage system.
oh, conveniently ignores the whole process with which vehicles turn their stored power into kinetic energy hahaha
you could invent a car that runs on antimatter, with the highest specific energy known in the universe, but if the efficiency of the motor is 0,0001% you're not going to go anywhere
engines are not a trivial thing that you can just shrug off and use fuel density exclusively
you were talking about vehicles in the beginning, you can't just get rid of 90% of what composes a vehicle and focus exclusively on that last 10%

the sole fact that Elon Musk is making the few things Russia was relevant for completely obsolete, like oil and space makes it a nice bonus lmao
>>
>>67603730
Hey why are you talking to him and not me?
>oooh, right, once you have infinite energy you can then use it to synthetise fuel and then burn it, losing all kinds of power in the process, that's fun
That's the best solution to create fuel see >>67603333 its not like you can drive with a nuclear reactor around. And using electricity to make diesel is a great idea.

You seam to be confused with the difference between ICE VS electric motor and battery VS diesel.
If you are confused think Trolleybus it uses electric motors and is basically like running around with the power cord to power your electric motor and not using battery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus
Or think bumper cars
https://youtu.be/M6oD5lnhWTM

The real problem of batteries is how toxic they are and recycling them is creating pollution in the air and water.
Oh and batteries suck for holding energy.
>>
>>67603730
>there are like 10 different countries with literally 0 fossil fuel power plants, and all other 180 have varying degrees of non fossil fuel power
and none of them have significantly less co2 per unit energy. Solar + Wind don't work, Hydro isn't scalable, and Nuclear isn't widely deployed.

>compare an ICE to the ENTIRE logistics of producing electric power?
I was comparing the efficiency of ICE to fossil power plant generation and transmission.

>firefighting companies all around the world have been training their firefighters to deal with lithium batteries
That doesn't contradict anything I said
>battery tech is advancing
Battery tech can't overcome basic thermodynamics

>wow synthesizing hydrocarbons could never work because algae needs too much land
>you could just do it without algae or land if you had enough energy
>wow why the fuck would you ever even consider doing that when you could just do it with algae?!?!?
kys

And the technology for practically infinite nuclear energy already exists, the only thing we're missing is production models and public will, but the faggot elves hate it for some reason. Meanwhile significantly better batteries are basically impossible based on back of an envelope calculations.
>>
>>67603838
Are you insane?
I gave you a holistic test and electric cars fail the test its irrelevant what part of the battery powered electric car is the problem (hint hint its the battery) it fails the objective test.
> runs on antimatter,
What are you even on?
Is your proposition that diesel is some SF energy storage system like antimatter? Or what? Because you need to be insane to actually argue that there are no diesel engines and we don't have diesel.
>you can't just get rid of 90% of what composes a vehicle and focus exclusively on that last 10%
You are literally responding to a holistic test.

Here is the thing you are getting your talking points from electric car propaganda. They love to talk about electric motors however unless you are directly powering your motor from the grid that translates to having a cable attached to the motor all the time see >>67603953 you need to use batteries and they suck. Even if the electric motor is 100% efficient its meaningless if the batteries is 1% efficient in energy storage (made up numbers to demonstrate something).
Get the point?

No?
Let me say this to you electric motors are shit if you want the biggest power possible you are going for pneumatic engines and they even made a pneumatic powered car (compressed air) only there is no air tank that can hold enough pressure to give a long ride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxhlX4Ga0

You can do the same for springs like in clockwork toy cars and we can twist a spring.
Air pressure tank, spring, chemical reaction in diesel, electricity. The question is what holds more energy and its diesel. Because holistic tests demonstrate this.
>>
>actually shilling for the production of artificial diesel
>Immensely wasteful and inefficient process
>most rely on using non-renewable resources or taking up vast, vast swaths of farmland
>literally ONE bump in battery technology will push electric vehicle distance over gasoline/diesel vehicles thanks to efficiency disparity, and said technology already exists in labs
>And that's not even considering the comparison of energy spent producing the diesel vs directly powering the car
Go home GM shills
>>
>>67604226
>get BTFO

REEEEEEE SHILLS
>>
>>67604289
Thanks, but I haven't heard the diesel faggots reeeeing yet. Give them a chance though :)
>>
>>67604226
>>actually shilling for the production of artificial diesel
Is it like artificial diamonds? You know the diamonds industry attempt to label the synthetic superior in every category product as bad?
>>Immensely wasteful and inefficient process
Prove this.
>>most rely on using non-renewable resources or taking up vast, vast swaths of farmland
bullshit you can extract it from air you can even make plastics from air.
>>vast swaths of farmland
If you want to talk about farming why not talk about algae in tanks inside of buildings?
>>
>>67604226
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel
Imagine a world without environmentalists, a world with no pollution from their toxic batteries in their toxic electric cars.
>>
>>67599487
15 rubles were deposited to your account.
>>
>>67604331
I'm not saying synthetic diesel is any worse than normal diesel, just implying that it needs to be created.

>>Prove This.
By all means link this amazing highly efficient process of extracting CO2 from the air and converting it to diesel, please. I will actually change my opinion if you can.

Pro tip by the way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel isn't the answer. Electrolysis is ridiculously inefficient when the energy can just be used directly, and the CO2 is usually hard to condense in sufficient volumes. They have a good setup there because they NEED diesel power and have easy access to CO2 thanks to the nitrogen fertilizer production already being done.That doesn't mean or even suggest it's the most efficient use of the electricity.
>>
>>67604469
>Electrolysis is ridiculously inefficient
Yes and ?
I told you its the hydrogen economy only made intelligently.

So is having a electric light or any electronics.
If we are talking having more nuclear power plants then France why not?
I told you need a far greater energy source then what we are using today.

And I explained to you that using natural diesel to create synthetic diesel is a idiotic idea.
And what is the alternative here? You driving your coal powered electric car around that emits more CO2 then actually running a car on natural oil?

What is even your angle I asked for it and I still don't know what is your.

Is it the CO2 emissions? You thinking that batteries powered cars can drive longer distances? Fact they do not.
What even is it?
You only seam to repeat electric car propaganda without even having a point why you want them.

Most advocates talk about the CO2 and that factually wrong.

So what is it? Why even do you want electric cars?
Unless you come out with
>Electric cars give me erections
There is no reason whatsoever to implement electric cars.

[to be continued]
>>
File: musky.webm (2.67 MB, 960x540)
2.67 MB
2.67 MB WEBM
>>67599487
t. jeff bezos
>>
>>67604721
I think the point is pretty clear. Using electric energy as the starting point, electric cars use energy more efficiently than any other option we have. I'll wait for your other post before continuing though.
>>
>>67604721
>>67604469
Personally I don't believe in the global warming bullshit so for energy efficiency driving natural diesel cars is the best option, and if you believe in global warming then driving electric battery cars its the worst solution since you will increase CO2 emissions from all the power plants.

I'm also someone who wants to advance in the available energy that we have and nuclear is the best way to go. Only you can not drive around with nuclear reactors (car accidents and stuff) so using nuclear energy to create e-diesel or whatever is a good idea since diesel is so energy dense and has none of the problems of the toxic batteries that only create pollution.

However the church of ecology says nuclear power is un-clean. So what is even your point? If you invent your magical energy source that dwarfs all others and is acceptable by the church of ecology and fuck it lets say its perpetual motion then the battery powered electric cars are still pointless diesel wins one more time. Why do you even want electric cars? There is no scenario, no reason to have them.
>>
>>67599984
>using racist terminology
>>
>>67604762
>if you believe in global warming then driving electric battery cars its the worst solution since you will increase CO2 emissions from all the power plants
Categorically wrong, even if every single power plant in the world switched over to diesel efficiency in a dedicated energy plant is waaay more efficient than in a car motor, and carbon capture/sequestering is more efficient too.
Where I live is entirely powered by nuclear and hydro power by the way, so using an electric car where I am produced essentially zero emissions.

And if you don;t believe in global warming, then cool, as I said aboveif you start with electric energy electric cars are still the most efficient way of using it. You're right that range is ultimately about 1/5 of the maximum range of diesel (assuming an immensely efficient vehicle and ideal testing conditions) but that gap is quickly closing and nothing stops electric cars from being viable today because it's as simple as charging the battery.

>I'm also someone who wants to advance in the available energy that we have and nuclear is the best way to go
I 100% agree actually. My ideal world would be, on the interim to something better/more stable, 100% nuclear with electric vehicles using the electricity directly.
>>
>>67604754
>Using electric energy as the starting point, electric cars use energy more efficiently than any
There are no electric cars that magically run on this magical electricity.
There are 2 things
A) Battery powered electric cars
B) Actually using a cable to get your electricity from the grid

And batteries have multiple problems. Saying "electric because electric and electric" is childishly naive thinking. And exactly what battery powered electric car manufacturers try to spin as propaganda.


However lets grant your assertion (why not?)
>I think the point is pretty clear.
OK explain exactly why you want to phase out (natural) diesel vehicles? Today? Like you really need to build your electric source infrastructure before introducing the worlds most inefficient coal powered car.

You build the infrastructure first. Then we even talk if e-diesel or batteries powered cars are the better solution.
Do you see how silly this even is? Trying to implement battery powered cars before you can even generate this electricity to sustain them? And getting your electricity from from burning more Coal?

I assume you think nuclear reactors are the way to go... However you never explained this...
However its irrelevant if you think solar or wind or magical unicorn farts or the perpetual motion machine will be the solution if you don't have this infrastructure you don't even get to wanting to force electric cars on everyone or try to scam everyone into using electric cars.
>>
File: 1303289695779.jpg (132 KB, 310x440)
132 KB
132 KB JPG
>>67604762
>Personally I don't believe in the global warming bullshit

we're actually running out of time to fix the earth because of people like you
>>
>>67604862
>world switched over to diesel efficiency
What? What is even this sentence? I don't understand.

> dedicated energy waaay more efficient than in a car motor,
What? I don't even understand this sentence. And if i interpret this correctly its wrong the best way to extract energy from coal is to turn it into diesel in a chemical process.

>carbon capture/sequestering is more efficient too.
What are we debating CO2 or pure energy numbers? There is a difference.

>energy plant is waaay more efficien
Here is the problem you don't see the whole picture.

Let me picture this (fictional numbers):
Lets say 1 unit of coal has 10 units of energy

Coal power plant 10 -> Energy grid 6-> AC to DC 3 -> battery 0.5
VS
diesel 10 -> Transportation 7 -> tank 7

Now how effective do you need the power planet to be get the same 7 units of energy like diesel? See the problem? the electric grid is AC and AC can never be used in batteries you need to convert it to DC and this is so inefficient!
You know the bricks in the cables to your Phone that charge it? They convert AC to DC or your phone can not accept them.
>>
>>67604936
Here let me spell it out for you:
Biodiesel production has, at best (and you NEVER get best) 70-80% energy loss from hydrolysis. I can't really find any numbers on reverse water-gas shift efficiency but I can essentially guarantee that it's under 90%. Further, the actual combustion of biodiesel in a car engine is only 15%. No, that's not a typo, 15 percent. That all is nearly entirely offset however by the increased energy density in diesel however, which is literally orders of magnitude higher. Electricity however is comparatively extremely efficient. Losses, all the way from the power plant to spinning the wheels of your car end up at about 70%. And on the topic of infrastructure, ironically, we could massively increase perceived efficiency of an otherwise wasted energy with battery swapping and using solar charge stations.

>You build the infrastructure first. Then we even talk if e-diesel or batteries powered cars are the better solution.
Do you see how silly this even is? Trying to implement battery powered cars before you can even generate this electricity to sustain them? And getting your electricity from from burning more Coal?
Dude, what the FUCK are you talking about? Are you actually trying to pretend that we have trouble generating electricity? What's even you're argument? The world as a whole has mostly phased out coal so I don't even know why you're bringing that up. And all your same arguments go against the production of biodiesel too, which requires MORE electricity than directly powering cars does.
>>
>>67605095
Forgot to add a quote mark to the one of the lines there if it seems a bit confusing to read.
And this goes for you too >>67605087
biodiesel production isn't nearly as efficient as you think it is.
>>
>>67604862
>>67605095
Forgot to mention this is why I'm opposed to using the phrase "electric car" or "its all electric" the electricity in your wall is AC and in the battery powered car and phone is DC they are not even the same electricity type!!!!

I move to your other ideas now.
>>
>>67605095
Oh, and another slight typo. Electric car losses aren't 70%, the the energy left after all the conversion and transmission is 70%
>>
>>67599487
>exploding rockets
trial and error often leads a solution and if not his own then someone elses

also, what's it to you?
you just sit at the keyboard and bitch about other people
>>
>>67605095

>Dude, what the FUCK are you talking about?
>What's even you're argument?
This is my question. Why do you want electric cars now without the infrastructure? You never explained it and I asked and asked and asked. I'm thinking you want to reduce CO2.

>The world as a whole has mostly phased out coal so I don't even know why you're bringing that up.
>The world as a whole has mostly phased out coal
Lets look at some hard data
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/energysnapshots/oecd-electricity-production-by-source-1974-2016.html
Dang coal is on top however gas is about to overtake it I did not realize gas was getting so prominent, still fossil fuel so CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation

With the exception of a handful of places its the same story everywhere. Coal generates(ed) most of the electricity. I was surprised to know that gas is taking over coal.

And where exactly do you live that you get your electricity from something else then coal or gas?
>>
>>67605180
>you just sit at the keyboard and bitch about other people
Why do others sit at the keyboard and metaphorically suck his cock with their words?
>>
>>67599487
Old news and try to hide your seething dumbassness
>>
>>67605263
Alright, since it seems I've confused you a bit let me break down my arguments simply:
1. The production of biodiesel uses more electricity than biodiesel eventually gives the driver of a diesel car relative to just using the energy to power the car directly with an electric motor.

2. The same sources of energy that would be producing synthetic diesel are what would be powering cars, so arguments around the infrastructure not existing are meaningless, (and also false)

3. Coal use has significantly declined in every first world nation, and a majority of countries have continued plans to shift away from it. Even in the case of needing to supply more energy, coal plants would not be built.

And I live in Ontario.
>>
>>67605410
>first world nations
China dude
>>
>>67605410
>Coal use has significantly declined in every first world nation
OK this is factually wrong. Where are you getting your data from?
Are you not seeing my graphs?

Also what is your argument for electric cars? Efficiency or CO2 reduction? Because you can not beat simply using the stuff that flows from the ground.

The US is on coal and gas.
>>
>>67605467
fusion reactors are prototype phase
once their out all these methods of energy production will go the way of the dodo bird.

Coal isn't all that effective at all
Also if that doesn't work tidal generators are also going to be a thing very soon.

and of course, wind/solar power is still growing,

but for the time being its Coal.
china is way ahead of the US when it comes to power and also way ahead of NZ too.
>>
>>67605410
>2. The same sources of energy that would be producing synthetic diesel are what would be powering cars, so arguments around the infrastructure not existing are meaningless, (and also false)
What is even this sentence? How exactly is lets say the US going to charge the electric batteries if over 50% of the electricity is generated from coal or gas?

>1. The production of biodiesel uses more electricity than biodiesel eventually gives the driver of a diesel car relative to just using the energy to power the car directly with an electric motor.
>car directly with an electric motor.
>electric motor.
>electric motor.
>electric motor.
>electric motor.

i told you to stop talking about electric cars and start only talking about battery powered cars.
>electric motor.
What electric motor AC or DC?
Not the same type of electricity bro!
Because you only get AC from the grid you can get a AC motor that will be more efficient then a DC motor that needs to convert AC to DC. And this will be more efficient then AC to DC -> battery -> DC out ->DC motor
>>
>>67605429
Ya, china's a huge problem. Still, from 2013-2016 coal use decreased, I hadn't know it jumped back up a bit in 2017, that's unfortunate. Still, china does have massive sweeping reforms in place to decrease coal use, and everyone else is rapidly lowering use. As per https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/coal/coal-consumption.html

>>67605467
>Also what is your argument for electric cars? Efficiency or CO2 reduction? Because you can not beat simply using the stuff that flows from the ground.
Ahhh, so you've given up on artificial diesel and have resorted to arguing for harvesting it from the ground have you? I made my argument extremely clear in the post you quoted: it is more efficient to use electricity directly rather than to use it to produce diesel. If you can't see the downsides of use harvest natural diesel then I don't know what to say other than that you're a moron, and it would STILL be more efficient to burn that diesel in a plant and ship the electricity to an electric car rather than burn it in the car directly.
>>
Elon Musk did not engineer or assemble any of those rockets. He had nothing to do with it.
>>
>>67605673
As I said above, I'm talking about from the plant to spinning the wheels of the car itself, including both transmission and conversion. Did you not read my other posts?
>>
>>67605326
why do you care
were you hoping they'd suck your cock for sitting in your room like a fat blob jacking off to anime preteen girls?

go fuck yourself
>>
>>67605673
Oh, and just for completeness sake:
>What is even this sentence? How exactly is lets say the US going to charge the electric batteries if over 50% of the electricity is generated from coal or gas?
Over 50% of the charging would be done with coal or gas in the US.
The alternative of having that same amount of energy be used to produce synthetic diesel is even more inefficient, and uses the same bad sources of power.
>>
>>67605677
>Ahhh, so you've given up on artificial diesel and have resorted to arguing for harvesting it from the ground have you?
dude answer the question simply is it:
A) CO2 reduction
B) efficiency.

Simply answer it. Don't dance around it.

>Ahhh, so you've given up on artificial diesel and have resorted to arguing for harvesting it from the ground have you?
I'm covering all possible bases with you. from the CO2 to eficiency.

>2013-2016
>coal use decreased
This conflicts with my data where it actually increased see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#/media/File:Electricity_production_in_the_World.PNG

>it is more efficient to use electricity directly
And I explained to you how utterly retarded this is.
What part of power plants only give AC and use AC generators, you CAN NEVER USE AC IN BATTERIES don't you understand?
Holy fuck can you even acknowledge that AC and DC exist? And are totally different things?

>use electricity directly rather than
How about you learn electricity 101.
Your statement makes no sense.
>>
>>67600889
>payed less then zero.

this is literally slavery.
>>
>>67605845
Cover this. The case for electric cars is easy: electricity is relatively easy to produce from a vast number of different sources all over the globe (and beyond). Oil is not. You don't need oil, you don't need to invade middle east over and over and countries that have big influence mostly due to their oil supply will loose most of that influence.
>>
>>67605845
>dude answer the question simply is it:
Ya I did, it's both you moron. Please actually read the posts you are responding to.

>I'm covering all possible bases with you. from the CO2 to eficiency.
No, you were specifically arguing that we should use artificial diesel to power vehicles because it's more efficient than electric cars. I proved you wrong again and again so now you've moved the goal post.

>This conflicts with my data where it actually increased see:
You;re link does not disprove anything I said, and conveniently hides coal in "natural gas" AND doesn't even go PAST 2013 you fucking moron. Not only does it not debate anything I said, it actually has nothing to DO with what I said.

>And I explained to you how utterly retarded this is.
AC and DC can be arbitrarily converted from one another with relatively little loss, and as I've already said twice all my arguments above factor in conversion losses.
>>
>>67605807
I seriously need you to answer why you even want electric cars, do you believe in global warming and want to reduce CO2? OR are we talking about energy efficiency without the concern for CO2 emissions?

>The alternative of having that same amount of energy be used to produce synthetic diesel is even more inefficient, and uses the same bad sources of power.
I quote myself:
>>67603333
>Only you can not make this process self sustaining this is energy transfer not a source. So burning more fossil fuels to use this today is phenomenally stupid like in scenario 1. Nuclear reactors are immune from this
>So burning more fossil fuels to use this today is phenomenally stupid
>So burning more fossil fuels to use this today is phenomenally stupid
>So burning more fossil fuels to use this today is phenomenally stupid

I never suggested to do this.
>Over 50% of the charging would be done with coal or gas in the US.
Why do this?

My plan:
1) Drive cars on natural diesel
2) Build nuclear plants
3) After all is nuclear start generating e-diesel for cars

So are you suggesting everyone get electric cars even if the electricity is 99% from coal?
Why?
>>
>>67605873
>this is literally slavery.
No anon its worse a slave master needs to give food to his slaves or they will die in this scam you don't need to so you pay less then zero (the worker pays you, its his car and he pays for the repairs on it etc).
If you are not retarded you(worker) terminate this arrangement immediately.
>>
File: 1*JPISO-1UFxTG3GYrACkEiw.jpg (399 KB, 2000x1125)
399 KB
399 KB JPG
>>67599487
ya'll low lifers talk shit while he gets called the irl "ironman", "genius" and score chicks not to mention he's a fuckin billionaire

fuck i got baited
>>
>>67605949
I don't particular want or care about electric cars, or any cars for that matter. That's not a factor in my arguments. I've purley been arguing for efficiency. I understand now that you're arguing that we should use natural diesel as a hold over until nuclear plants exist. I consider this wrong, but perhaps necessary, because while energy plants create energy far more efficiently than burning inside a vehicle, even after all losses are considered, it would be difficult to switch all power generators to cleaner burning fuels. But if we are talking about magicly getting everyone to switch to more environmentally friendly diesel vehicles
why not just have them magically switch to diesel generators with electric cars? Hell, why not magically switch to pure solar power? Having everyone switch over to diesel is just as magical as having everyone switch to electric out of nowhere.

You're second point, using nuclear power to generate e-diesel, is so wrong it's not even funny anymore. It's what I've been arguing against this whole time. Generating e-diesel is extremely inefficient, with numerous losses in production and the absolute largest being in when it;s combusted in a car. Even after all the conversion and transmission losses electricity would go through to power a car, it's efficiency dwarfs the end result of biodiesel when considering the energy put in. If you think otherwise, as I said above:
>By all means link this amazing highly efficient process of extracting CO2 from the air and converting it to diesel, please. I will actually change my opinion if you can.
>>
>>67605922
>Ya I did, it's both you moron.
Impossible, they are exclusive and on efficiency natural extraction wins over electric every day.
Extracting oil naturally is always the more efficient choice if we are not talking about CO2 emissions.

>No, you were specifically arguing that we should use artificial diesel to power vehicles because it's more efficient than electric cars
Creating diesel is the better option for all the reasons I have written then charging batteries.
Only using chemical process to convert other fossil fuels to diesel is cheaper (you are interested in these CO2 emissions or not?) and simply extracting natural oil is the even simpler and more energy efficient solution.

>You;re link does not
What are you even on? Are you interested in CO2 emissions or not? For the last time.
Is it important for you that the CO2 is coming from coal or gas? Then why obsess over coal use?
>>
>>67606164 .. >>67605886
>>
>>67606091
HelIo reddit
>>
>>67606126
>I consider this wrong, but perhaps necessary
What why?
For the last time are you interested in CO2 emissions?

>why not just have them magically switch to diesel generators with electric cars? Hell, why not magically switch to pure solar power? Having everyone switch over to diesel is just as magical as having everyone switch to electric out of nowhere.
Your statements make no sense.

>You're second point, using nuclear power to generate e-diesel, is so wrong it's not even funny anymore
Why not? it works. And once more I quote myself
>>67603333
>Chemical fuel all the way benefits are:
>>more energy dense
>See how far you can drive on electric batteries VS diesel
>>No degradation over time
>batteries degrade over time and need replacement, diesel uses itself up and the tank will not degrade and have less charge etc
>>No toxicity
>Batteries are toxic and problematic to recycle. Diesel burns into H2O and CO2 harmless compounds that will be extracted from the air by a generator that uses synthesis to extract CO2 and H2O from the air to create diesel.

And I think I need to repeat things for you to understand so here you go:
batteries are polluting
batteries are polluting
batteries are polluting
batteries are polluting


Because you know unlike the unproven assertion of global warming we know batteries are god dam toxic and pollute. Unlike diesel.
You get this point? That you will destroy the biosphere with your battery pollution? And not using batteries is the main point here?
>>
>>67606164
>Impossible, they are exclusive and on efficiency natural extraction wins over electric every day.
>Extracting oil naturally is always the more efficient choice if we are not talking about CO2 emissions.
Burning extracted oil in a power plant and then transferring the electric power to vehicles will give net more power than burning the diesel in the car, even after all power transmission and conversion losses. We are talking double the efficiency here. Car engines are immensely inefficient when compared to power generators thanks to wasted heat. And that's not even including the reduced emissions thanks to more efficient scrubbers. I already said all this though, again: read my posts before responding.

>Creating diesel is the better option for all the reasons I have written then charging batteries.
>Only using chemical process to convert other fossil fuels to diesel is cheaper (you are interested in these CO2 emissions or not?) and simply extracting natural oil is the even simpler and more energy efficient solution.
You have at no point demonstrated why or even suggested a reason for creating diesel being more efficient than charging batteries. Go ahead and do so though.

>What are you even on? Are you interested in CO2 emissions or not? For the last time.
>Is it important for you that the CO2 is coming from coal or gas? Then why obsess over coal use?
We were specifically talking about coal there friendo, stop trying to move the goal post.

You want to talk about over all CO2 emissions? Nuclear power is the option. And don't go "But diesel on the interim!" We've been over this already, if we are going to magically have the entire world switch over to a specific energy why not have it be solar or something else?
>>
>>67605886
>electricity is relatively easy to produce from a vast number of different sources
So is diesel and everything else.
>Oil is not. You don't need oil
Learn what an energy source is.
>>
>>67606322
You have not answered the question if you are even interested in CO2 emissions, the rest of your post is equally incoherent answer it.

>You want to talk about over all CO2 emissions?
Are you interested in them?
>>
>>67606400
Ahahahah so when so thoroughly proven wrong and pushed outside your predefined talking points the only comeback is that my post is "incoherent". Trying to slide my arguments into your own specific positions so that you can bat down a straw man? Listen bub, if you can't understand what that post is saying, (and I'm sure you actually can, you just have no arguments against it), maybe you should take a few lessons in reading comprehension and actually read up on the efficiency of car motors vs power plants, and the efficiencies of electric vehicles and power transmission. You might learn something! Then you can come back and, if you see a flaw, you start shooting down the arguments I put up above and we can have an actual debate.
>>
>>67599601
unironically this
>>
>>67606322
>electric power to vehicles
Point and laugh its impossible to send AC or "electric power" to vehicles however lets ignore this and talk about:
>electric power to vehicles
,and then everyone dies because batteries polluted the water and soil of this planet.

I mean these vehicles are not using some magical static electricity holding device they are toxic batteries who will go bad and will need to be recycled and this creates pollution like you have never seen before.
>>
>>67606510
Lithium mining pollutes far less after restorative efforts than natural gas extraction does, and lithium is endlessly reusable. Try another talking point shill.
>>
>>67606377
>So is diesel and everything else.
Oh, so that is why we've been warring over the middle east for the past century. Because it's easy to produce anywhere on earth. Sure thing, buddy.
>>
>>67606492
Look you obviously have nothing other then idiotic and moronic electric car propaganda.
Can you even answer what your position on global warming and CO2 is?
You failed this miserably.
And its really showing that you refuse to answer this simple question.
Answer the question
"Are you interested in CO2 emissions or not?"

Why do you refuse to even answer the question?
Why not show show me wrong and answer this one simple question?
I don't even need to point to your incoherent writings I can simply say "look he refuses to answer simple questions"

The only possible answers to this post for you are
>I'm concerned with reducing CO2 emissions
or
>No I'm not interested in reducing CO2 emissions

Any other answer will only show how desperate you are to shill propaganda.
>>
>>67606592
Hey dude, looks like you continue to forget to address aaaany of the arguments I made above. Damn, dude, what a pity. I'd recommend giving what i said in
>>67606492
a try and then get back to my. None of my arguments has been based on CO2 emissions by the way, just relative efficiencies :)
>>
>>67606526
>Lithium mining
>Lithium mining
>Lithium mining
>Lithium mining
Do you have a mental disorder?
I was talking about lithium recycling and the pollution it creates.
lithium recycling
lithium recycling
lithium recycling
lithium recycling
lithium recycling
not
>Lithium mining
>Lithium mining
>Lithium mining
>Lithium mining
I don't know if you instinctive repeat electric carp propaganda and are simply unintelligent or if you are trying to shill this shit and change the subject and hope everyone else is an idiot who will not notice.

However you are the guy who refused to say his position on global warming and CO2 emissions.
>>
>>67606630
You are not answering the question with the allowed answers.
What are you trying to hide?
>I'm concerned with reducing CO2 emissions
or
>No I'm not interested in reducing CO2 emissions

Any other answer will only show how desperate you are to shill propaganda.
>>
>>67599498
/ourguy/
>>
>>67606638
Damn straight I refuse to say, it has nothing to do with my arguments which you STILL have yet to refute :)

And lithium recycling is also non-polluting, any pollution that results from it is a failure in containment and would affect nuclear, oil, diesel, anything else equally. Unless you have some sources that talk about an aspect of it I don't know?

>>67606651
I'm not arguing for against emissions my dude, respond to my arguments
>>
>>67606688
All this writing and not copy pasting one of the possible answer.

Copy past your position.

The only possible answers to this post for you are
>I'm concerned with reducing CO2 emissions
or
>No I'm not interested in reducing CO2 emissions

Any other answer will only show how desperate you are to shill propaganda.
>>
>>67599627
you're jealous because you are most likely a NEET
>>
>>67606716
curses I'm Philip Mason and I like to larp a scientist on youtube on my channel thunderf00t however I'm a NEET, you got me there dude.
>>
>>67606706
So that's it then. You've entrily run out of arguments. In a desperate attempt to get me to follow on of your scripts ( actually get the impression you're a real life shill, it's kinda exciting!) you demand i answer an entirely unrelated question so you can try and not argue the apparently rock solid point I put up above. I already said that my arguments above, and I myself am not taking a position on the matter. I have a feeling it's just going to be you copy and pasting that reponse over and over, which seems lazy. I hope your boss sees that you can't keep up with an autistic neckbeard who does it for free and gives you a pay decrease :)
>>
>>67606688
>>67606767
I wrap this up, you refuse to answer because you painted yourself into a corner where of epic proportions where you can not escape from (and are not even that intelligent to even think of how to escape).
You can not answer this question because it makes most of your incoherent ramblings like mystery quotes about
>>67606126
>I consider this wrong
contradictory.

I needed to do the song and dance about arguing 2 positions at the same time and if I asked for a clarification on this simple subject you dodged it like you dodged everything.

And its a simple question or twisted the discussion like in >>67606638 you presented nothing and factually wrong assertions(most of the worlds electricity is not from coal) that are impossible to escape without contradicting yourself.

The rest of your statements are baseless assertions and dismissals and the key point of your talking is childish stupidity like
"nuclear power plants make electricity so electricity to electric cars YEY"
This is childishly stupid because its a AC to DC conversion.
And its not a trivial can you provide some facts to back this up?
Or are you going to try to spin doctor it? like you did the coal question? And this is another impossibility for you if CO2 emissions are bad then why are you obsessed over coal CO2 and not gas CO2? and what is
>>67606126
>I consider this wrong
???

To wrap this up you posted meaningless nonsense and factually wrong information, your posts are incoherent and you refuse to clarify.
AC to DC conversions are 20% wasteful, batteries even more. Show your battery retention efficiency or you have nothing.

Or at least answer this
Copy past your position.
>I'm concerned with reducing CO2 emissions
or
>No I'm not interested in reducing CO2 emissions

This is my last post to you.
>>
>>67606934
I'm just going to jump in here and point out that if people where smart and had electric cars and solar roofs you can eliminate the AC to DC for charging and get direct DC from the solar panels and their energy storage system which is also DC.

Main line AC power needs to move from being primary power source to backup if your own power runs out, there is literally no reason to not solar power every building and have everything run on DC and get rid of all these damn AC to DC converters for everything.
Pretty much everything is running off DC now anyway besides large wasteful appliances and transmission distance isn't really an issue unless we start getting into large skyscraper buildings.
>>
>>67606934
You're still refusing to refute the argument that most of the wars in the middle east could be avoided if we used electric cars.
>>
>>67606934
I'm in no corner, I've countered every argument you've posted with facts: The fact that
the much greater efficiency of electric cars vs both traditional diesel burning engines, and the notion that producing e-diesel is a less efficient use of power than charging batteries with that same energy instead. Further, I've said that diesel would be better burned in power plants because they are better able to sequester carbon and generate far more energy than car engines do, which also far overcompensates for the losses that would be incurred in transmission. You have argued against none of these points and are instead trying to get me to fight in a meaningless side debate. If that's your last post then good riddance.
>>
>>67606934
I'm still amused by the fact that you were retarded enough to sink your $ into short-term stock market operations based on a long term prediction of sustainability of electric cars.
>>
File: 1536541433670.jpg (24 KB, 507x507)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
4chan rocket program when?
>>
>>67599487
>duck tape.

kek nice b8
>>
>>67599498
>one of Zuckerberg's satellites
That's the only satellite they've blown up though, fucking flawless.
>>
>>67599487
You don't get to call people retarded when you can't spell parachute.
>>
>>67600395
How the hell do you "exploit" volunteers that can simply turn off the ride sharing app with zero repercussions?
>>
File: 1500101838709.gif (1.23 MB, 800x667)
1.23 MB
1.23 MB GIF
>>67602667
>>
File: FHQFHO3GBVJH04Q.LARGE.jpg (47 KB, 1024x401)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
>>67607038
>solar roofs
You know this is technically true however solar panels are inefficient you can equally ask the people to simply have dynamo bike to use to charge their cars the question is will it finish in a reasonable time.

All solar ideas use the grid and are reselling to the grid and you get into AC DC problems.
Once more you need the infrastructure first.

Note the example picture is fantastically inefficient and the first best picture I found because its
DC (I fucken hope) to DC battery -> DC to AC -> AC to DC (the power brick on the laptop you are seriously doing this) ->laptop battery
its the rube goldberg machine written seriously!
>>
>>67607139
>You're still refusing to refute the argument that most of the wars in the middle east
Nice conspiracy theory you have there.
However I don't give a shit about wars. Muslims are absolute shit and deserve a real extermination not the water pistol plays named "wars" the US engages in.
>>
File: 1fbfm7.jpg (136 KB, 671x500)
136 KB
136 KB JPG
>>67611498
>How the hell do you "exploit"
I love to get you into a ponzi scheme or make you work for me and when its payday I simply say
>LEL I'm not paying you! You can stop working for me if you don't like it.
>No exploitation you see
>Not my fault you are to stupid to understand our overcomplicated contract that lets me do this.

Teabagger are simply retards.
>>
File: 1460228707839.jpg (27 KB, 300x392)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>67611911
Ponzi scheme is fraud, getting someone to cough up money/resources/time and not delivering (actually, being demonstrably impossible to deliver) what was promised. Your employer refusing to pay wages is similarly in violation of a contract. Uber does not fail to deliver on what people sign up for. It's not for everyone. Some people value flexible hours over nominal wage. Some people underestimate the costs of driving and the difficulty of being where and when they're needed. The Mises folks will set you straight.
https://mises.org/power-market/sharing-economy-exploitative
>>
Just out of interest, which professional shilling agency is paying you?
>>
>>67612012
>mises.org
Retarded propaganda center.
>money/resources/time
Oh the irony so did Uber. If you have negative profit you are paying Uber with your own car repairs.

>actually, being demonstrably impossible to deliver
Let me sit your down here and defend every single word I have written.
You are going to sit down and explain to everyone with your mises.org shills how me having an paragraph in the actual contrast saying
"pay is dependent on me wanting to pay you and can be revoked on my discretion" is somehow "fraud" or
>not delivering (actually, being demonstrably impossible to deliver) what was promised
Its in the contract. Pay is dependent on my mood and I'm not in the mood to pay you, you agreed to this!

Teabaggers like you are not only the worst for society you are self contradictory with your libertarian/ancap (you linked to mises.org so you are not simply a republican or neocon idiot you are a libertarian/ancap human cancer) propaganda.
Explain within your libertarian/ancap ideology how me creating a contract like this is wrong from a libertarian/ancap perspective in ancapistan/ibertopia.
>>
>>67612117
You are the clearly only one that's been propagandized. No one agrees to "contracts" where payment for services rendered is dependent on the employer's feels at the end of the term. That's the whole point of libertarian philosophy, it takes at least two parties to form a contract and exploitative contracts are selected against by market participants.
>>
>>67599627
>unironically linking a video from that retard
>>
>>67612160
>No one agrees to "contracts" where payment for services rendered is dependent on the employer's feels at the end of the term
The fuck?

No.
1) Show me how this is fraud or wrong from a libertarian/ancap perspective in ancapistan/ibertopia. Bring it on.
2) Demonstrate that I can not find multiple people who will agree to contracts without reading them or understanding all the paragraphs (I can hide this under layers of legal terminology).

You failed miserably with your fraud assertion.
>>
Elon Musk is just a glorified ambulance chaser leveraging gubbermint handouts to hide the fact that none of his companies are self sustainable
>>
>>67599526
Starting to think the scam artist meme was created by (((them))), elon is the real deal it is too bad they'll have the company he built very soon and I think elon is coming to terms with that
>>
>>67612294
>>
File: 1535397001618.webm (2.95 MB, 608x336)
2.95 MB
2.95 MB WEBM
>>67612207
It's not fraud, but you won't be successful even if you do find a few suckers -- and the suckers will run dry once your fly-by-night bullshit gets a known bad rep. Turnover is immensely costly for employers and your weekly turnover rate will be pretty much 100%. You're not the king of conmen and you really can't sell someone a bridge in Brooklyn.
>>
>>67599487
>Mr. Burns
More like Hank Scorpio. He even made a fucking consumer flamethrower.
>Parashoot, obnoxious overuse of caps and the word meme, and repeating yourself several times as if it reinforces your point without any new data
The minimum age for 4chan is 18, sweetie.
>>
musk is just a modern day jack parsons

a closeted homo weirdo obsessed with cults who lets other dudes fuck his girls
>>
>>67612367
>It's not fraud,
Thank you, its quite impossible to argue its fraud or wrong from a libertarian/ancap perspective in ancapistan/ibertopia.
Maybe you now understand why liberterianism/ancapism are terrible ideas for humans because humans are not perfect or know everything about legal contracts and perfect beings simply understand why its bullshit and refuse to participate in it.

And most people who are intelligent simply don't want to check all contracts for these exploits.

>few suckers
Uber keeps on going however.

>and the suckers will run dry once your fly-by-night bullshit gets a known bad rep
I agree with this see:
>>67600700
>Now back to Uber, its so cheap everyone will get into it no more taxis, only one problem you need to hope you will have a stream of idiots who you can trick to work for you with less pay then slaves (negative profits!) if there will be no more idiots or all your idiots realize it and quit or simply go bankrupt (negative profits!) then you will have no one to drive you around.

You are finally starting to get why the whole thing is a terrible idea and needs to be regulated away, congratulations you are starting to understand why socialism is objectively superior.
>>
File: 1431710431995.png (168 KB, 1200x1200)
168 KB
168 KB PNG
>>67612459
Libertarianism is the best known idea for humans because while we're not perfect, we're capable enough to take care of ourselves, cooperate with others, and select against those who would trespass against us. Putting coercive power into a handful of also imperfect humans tasked with the duty of regulating the rest of us inevitably only worsens the problems. I have ceded no ground to you. Uber is not exploitative and your fantasy that they're somehow sucking helpless victims dry through their phone would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic and obviously driven by envy.
>>
why the fuck does this clueless retard get credit for achievements he didn't do? every other clueless scifitards worship him
>>
>>67612538

>I have ceded no ground to you.
Are you the same guy who literally admitted he was wrong?
>>67612012
>Your employer refusing to pay wages is similarly in violation of a contract.
>>67612367
>It's not fraud,

>Libertarianism is the best known idea
It only works for a special kind of idiot, because only the most retarded will fail to understand why its bad after they are exploited in a libertarian/ancap system.

Its demonstratively wrong with facts and all you have is child like propaganda
>we're capable enough to take care of ourselves, cooperate with others, and select against those who would trespass against us.
What lala fantasy land is this?

Want to demonstrate this? want to have a debate or demonstrate how you can detect extremely exploitative paragraphs in contracts? in like you make a contract to buy a car and there is a a paragraph that lets the seller take all your property and make you his slave if he wants?

Here have it visualized
http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad#source=6154fc40-b7a3-4387-94cc-fc42fc47376e:25eec0b8-ed8e-11e0-aca6-0026b9414f30&position=1&sort=!airdate

Can you demonstrate you can detect this? Oh wait you admitted you can not:
>we're not perfect,

Want to talk about establishing a sane way of conduct instead of demanding that everyone is perfect or knows every legal maneuver perfectly?
All you have is fantasy land propaganda of
>People coming together and cooperation and rainbows and unicorns and dancing and cooperation and good and therefore liberterianism

The only think libertarian is good for are simple animals who don't have contracts or live in a advanced society or civilization and lack the power to influence their environment.
In like I have 2 bananas and he has 2 fish if I exchange 1 fish for 1 banana.
>>
File: 1501872261662.png (278 KB, 341x341)
278 KB
278 KB PNG
>>67612661
You've been reduced to using South Park as an argument. Sad! And in case you didn't know Matt & Trey are themselves libertarian.
>>
>>67612538
Libertarianism is just giving power to the few and then not even having a rigged democractic system, you just get nothing.
>>
>>67612538
We tried libertarianism before in the bronze age. It took thousands of years before people stopped being treated like property.
>>
>>67612538
basic history knowledge will show how retarded you are. basically without the regulations and laws that the spooky "deep state" has made, you would be working your ass now in a coal mine to earn money barely enough to eat
>>
https://mises.org/library/ethics-liberty
Try this book if you're curious enough, or intellectually honest enough, to grapple with your opponent's position.
>>
>>67612695
>giving power to the few
>libertarianism
What?
>>
https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition
Or this one.
>>
>>67612713
>>67612725
>implying all the anons here that argue against libertarianism have ever opened a book
They could argue that Schumpeter (sort of) warns us against unchecked libertarianism, but they wouldnt even know who he is
They could quote Hayek's views on government meddling and borders, but they don't know them, much less their refutations
>>
>>67612689
Nice derail try to talk about exploitative contracts and how they are allowed under liberterianism.
>Matt & Trey are themselves libertarian.
I know.
Funny thing is libertarians are often to stupid that they rave exactly against the exploits that liberterianism creates if implemented.
>South Park as an argument
No its a individualization, like a picture for children the scenario is still valid and beats me writing walls of text of the same thing.

Paragraph that is basically like in the episode want to talk about it in libertopia?
>>
>>67612737
How do you get exploited if you aren't force to sign the contract?
>>
>>67612705
>basic history knowledge
This, neocons melt down the best.
>We can see how capitalism created a 8 hour work week and child safety laws..
Excuse me want to back this up with data?
Because the 8 hour work week was fought by workers socialists, marxists, communists to be made into law.
Did you mean
"We can see how SOCIALISM created a 8 hour work week and child safety laws"?
Because this is a demonstrative fact of history.
>>
>>67599498
Based and redpilled.
>>
>>67612782
>socialism created the 8 hour week because they made it into law
Except they didn't because most people work more than 8 hours a week
>>
Came for rocket science discussions, stayed for south park posting.
>>
File: 6290806492_d23534d54a_b.jpg (237 KB, 1024x640)
237 KB
237 KB JPG
>>67612765
>How do you get exploited
I decide what the meaning of exploitation is and use it in my context to describe socially bad arrangements.
>[playing word games]
So you love to be a slave right? I mean liberterians are the best argument for slavery we should simply enslave them all forever, they definitively should not own property or have voting privileges.

I mean you don't mind if another private person takes all your property and makes you his slave?
And have no fear we will ensure that the government will never regulate libertarian slaves. And only private citizens will own you and can do everything they want with you.

I think we should immediately make a law that allows everyone to create slavery clauses in contracts if the person is of the libertarian ideology only. I mean this is what libertarians want right? We have the slave equivalent of what a cuck is for sex, they are named libertarians.

Lets cut this red tape and get big government out of libertarian lives only the rest of us like our government oppression or not having the right to be turned into slaves.

After all
>How do you get exploited if you aren't force to sign the contract?
Exactly my friend how exactly can you be exploited by me as a slave when you agreed to be turned into one?
Go contracts!
>>
File: 1520969691424.jpg (55 KB, 303x311)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>>67612870
>>
File: ddb.gif (1 MB, 500x368)
1 MB
1 MB GIF
>>67612897
You want to answer the question?
Why not make a opt out clause from exploitative contracts that everyone can submit to the government to remove all this unnecessary government regulation from libertarian lives? You want this right? Less government regulation to have more flexible employment contracts?

I don't see the harm in letting you do this.

I'm willing to let you do this.I personally think its needed there will always be a natural retard population that needs to be enslaved and this is the natural way to improve everyone lives, we get slaves, libertarians are enslaved from contracts like they wanted, we don't get libertarian propaganda on line, libertarians get to experience more freedom as slaves (actual libertarian argument) its a win win for everyone.
And like you did write:

>How do you get exploited if you aren't force to sign the contract?
Exactly my friend how exactly can you be exploited by me as a slave when you agreed to be turned into one?
Go contracts!
>>
>>67604798
A mongoloid is a caveman you dimwit, how would it be racist
>>
>>67601593
The aproach of musk is more iterative and prone to risk.
Is much faster and efficient too, as far as lives are not involved the only different it makes it how much the satellites insurance cost. Their service is cheaper, the insurance is expensier than lets say ariane5, companies make the choice taking into account this and development cost (disclosure, is still much cheaper) and while blowing some satellites spacex gets much valuable experience.
>>
>>67599841
You dont seen to even comprehend the difficulty of what the deorbiting and landing of the rocket implies.
First, rockets are fucking fragile, if you made a rocket size smoke the paper will me much thicker than the aluminium wall of the rocket. When moving they must be presurized in order for them not to bend.
Second, speed, the rocket is moving fucking fast (several kilometers per second) when they disengage. Landing from 0 speed like the grasshoper is easy, but going from 6-10km/s to 0 without breaking such fragile frame is something amazing.
>>
>>67614025
>You dont seen to even comprehend the difficulty of what the deorbiting and landing of the rocket implies.
Yes and apparently the solution to this is maximizing meme landings over everything else.
And not using solutions developed by NASA decades ago.
>>
>>67614052
Which ones? What spacex is doing is ground breaking, there is no similar existing technology that comes close.
>>
>>67605034
>Implying we still have time
Sorry to tell you, but we already fucked it.
>>
>>67612782
you didn't understand my point. i said that in a capitalist place with freedom and no regulations, no state and no laws you would be working +10 hours to earn money barely enough to eat.
yeah and the "Capitalist" USA is no longer capitalist and it's starting to look more like social democracy probably because they realized the scary spooky socialists had a point.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.