Anyone remember when Obama told US that NASA and space travel was a thing of the past and needed more Muslim outreach?


Or course then those same Muslims started reaching out to US and murdered many who were just trying to live their lives in peace.

Today i got to watch the Falcon rocket soar up into space from northern Florida. You can bet the progs and their Green New Deal will put NASA back in mothballs.

Sorry. Here is a more accurate view from space.com. You Obama haters slay me. Half of you being "Flat Earthers" anyway. :auiqs.jpg:
President Obama's Space Legacy: Mars, Private Spaceflight and More
LOL! Private spaceflight really took off because Obama gutted our manned space program.

That's one way of pathetically giving him credit, I suppose.
There is no private spaceflight.......................

Tesla gets ridiculous government subsidies that you pay for, so Space X is government funded. This way the government will not be funding the missions, or so the masses of dopes think

Wake up
Yeah, I don't believe anyone thinks that. Meanwhile, we no longer have to pay another nation for rides into space.
The only reason that Tesla exist is the government subsidies, so it seems that you are the only one who does not know


If you're asking me to defend subsidies given for expensive toys, you're going to be disappointed.
Again without Tesla subsidies there is no space x
Tesla's being paid for the service it provides -- lifting mass to orbit.

You can call it a subsidy but you'll have to create a new definition of the word.
Tesla is getting government subsidies for every tesla they produce and tesla is providing nothing for that money
Yeah, in case you didn't notice, Tesla's vehicle and space launch operations are separate business lines.
Why is tesla wasting money landing boosters upright that need to be 100 percent rebuilt anyway meaning there is no advantage to letting them fall into the ocean.

Looks cool right? With massive expenditure that yields no increased performance
Really? Dry-landing means far less turnaround time.

It works. And it works pretty good. And we don't have to buy airfare to Baikonur. Not being dependent on another nation for access to space is a good thing. No, really.
It does not decrease turnaround time, unless there are not enough parts, it's a parlor trick that achieves absolutely nothing in performance, while adding weight that actually decreases performance.
I'm curious about the basis for your claim, since the US has no liquid-fueled boosters that soft-land in the ocean.
The USA has no boosters period, we were buying Russian ones. Again there is no reason to soft land as the work is 100 percent achieved in the burn stage, after separation the booster has no value to the mission so the soft landing is a wet fart worth nothing
SpaceX sets rocket booster reuse record in satellite launch
ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- SpaceX reused the same first-stage Falcon 9 rocket booster for the sixth time in a launch from Florida Tuesday morning, setting a record for the launch industry.
SpaceX also recovered the booster successfully by landing it on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean -- the sixth recovery of that booster. The Starlink satellites deployed into orbit about 46 minutes after launch.
Wow a totally useless record. Are they going to do this until everyone dies on the way up again?

Again kid the used boosters that land in the sea can be reused too and both need a 100 percent rebuild and I will guarantee you that the old boosters are simpler and as such have thousands less parts that can fail. Landing these things upright is so stupid that it is retarded
You're irrationally angry about this. It works, and it works well. Your approval is neither sought nor required.
What works, landing a spent booster that has thousands more parts prone to failure. Sure it works but how much more powerful does it make for the mission?

Answer power is reduced by the thousands of parts that all have weight and reduce thrust.

Play on
Nothing's going to change because you're stamping your feet and pouting on the internet.
But when one of these over complex boosters goes boom you will remember where you heard of the issue first
OH MY GOSH UR RIGHT NOBODY EVER THOUGHT THAT HUGE TANKS OF EXPOLOSIVE CHEMICALS MIGHT BLOW UP WE NEED TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW
Again kid, landing spent boosters adds zero thrust to the mission and actually reduces thrust by increasing weight. So the landing toys reduce max speed and altitude and or reduce the usable space payload.

Try and argue this instead of being amazed by something that has no purpose.
Hey, sure, let's just build everything from scratch every time. It's Other People's Money, right? Saving money is for losers.
The landing boosters do not save any money kid. For starters they cost twice to four times as much to produce, to test and to maintain. Turnaround time is also irrelevant as you just build more than you need so rebuilt or new boosters are on hand. LOL what was saved here

Crashes save money right? Whaaaaaa grow up child


This crash saved money too right?


A whole lotta cash saved here too huh kid

Do you own stock in the Russian space agency? Because you sure do hate it that NASA is buying American.

Suspect you are arguing with a chick named Star (as that is what the girl's name esalla means) or more aptly Star and Sickle. I was only half joking when I caller her Yuri, earlier in the thread. Good luck with her.
 

Or course then those same Muslims started reaching out to US and murdered many who were just trying to live their lives in peace.

Today i got to watch the Falcon rocket soar up into space from northern Florida. You can bet the progs and their Green New Deal will put NASA back in mothballs.

Sorry. Here is a more accurate view from space.com. You Obama haters slay me. Half of you being "Flat Earthers" anyway. :auiqs.jpg:
President Obama's Space Legacy: Mars, Private Spaceflight and More
LOL! Private spaceflight really took off because Obama gutted our manned space program.

That's one way of pathetically giving him credit, I suppose.
There is no private spaceflight.......................

Tesla gets ridiculous government subsidies that you pay for, so Space X is government funded. This way the government will not be funding the missions, or so the masses of dopes think

Wake up
Yeah, I don't believe anyone thinks that. Meanwhile, we no longer have to pay another nation for rides into space.
The only reason that Tesla exist is the government subsidies, so it seems that you are the only one who does not know


If you're asking me to defend subsidies given for expensive toys, you're going to be disappointed.
Again without Tesla subsidies there is no space x
Tesla's being paid for the service it provides -- lifting mass to orbit.

You can call it a subsidy but you'll have to create a new definition of the word.
Tesla is getting government subsidies for every tesla they produce and tesla is providing nothing for that money
Yeah, in case you didn't notice, Tesla's vehicle and space launch operations are separate business lines.
Why is tesla wasting money landing boosters upright that need to be 100 percent rebuilt anyway meaning there is no advantage to letting them fall into the ocean.

Looks cool right? With massive expenditure that yields no increased performance
Really? Dry-landing means far less turnaround time.

It works. And it works pretty good. And we don't have to buy airfare to Baikonur. Not being dependent on another nation for access to space is a good thing. No, really.
It does not decrease turnaround time, unless there are not enough parts, it's a parlor trick that achieves absolutely nothing in performance, while adding weight that actually decreases performance.
I'm curious about the basis for your claim, since the US has no liquid-fueled boosters that soft-land in the ocean.
The USA has no boosters period, we were buying Russian ones. Again there is no reason to soft land as the work is 100 percent achieved in the burn stage, after separation the booster has no value to the mission so the soft landing is a wet fart worth nothing
SpaceX sets rocket booster reuse record in satellite launch
ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- SpaceX reused the same first-stage Falcon 9 rocket booster for the sixth time in a launch from Florida Tuesday morning, setting a record for the launch industry.
SpaceX also recovered the booster successfully by landing it on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean -- the sixth recovery of that booster. The Starlink satellites deployed into orbit about 46 minutes after launch.
Wow a totally useless record. Are they going to do this until everyone dies on the way up again?

Again kid the used boosters that land in the sea can be reused too and both need a 100 percent rebuild and I will guarantee you that the old boosters are simpler and as such have thousands less parts that can fail. Landing these things upright is so stupid that it is retarded
You're irrationally angry about this. It works, and it works well. Your approval is neither sought nor required.
What works, landing a spent booster that has thousands more parts prone to failure. Sure it works but how much more powerful does it make for the mission?

Answer power is reduced by the thousands of parts that all have weight and reduce thrust.

Play on
Nothing's going to change because you're stamping your feet and pouting on the internet.
But when one of these over complex boosters goes boom you will remember where you heard of the issue first
OH MY GOSH UR RIGHT NOBODY EVER THOUGHT THAT HUGE TANKS OF EXPOLOSIVE CHEMICALS MIGHT BLOW UP WE NEED TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW
Again kid, landing spent boosters adds zero thrust to the mission and actually reduces thrust by increasing weight. So the landing toys reduce max speed and altitude and or reduce the usable space payload.

Try and argue this instead of being amazed by something that has no purpose.
Hey, sure, let's just build everything from scratch every time. It's Other People's Money, right? Saving money is for losers.
The landing boosters do not save any money kid. For starters they cost twice to four times as much to produce, to test and to maintain. Turnaround time is also irrelevant as you just build more than you need so rebuilt or new boosters are on hand. LOL what was saved here

Crashes save money right? Whaaaaaa grow up child


This crash saved money too right?


A whole lotta cash saved here too huh kid

Do you own stock in the Russian space agency? Because you sure do hate it that NASA is buying American.

Suspect you are arguing with a chick named Star (as that is what the girl's name esalla means) or more aptly Star and Sickle. I was only half joking when I caller her Yuri, earlier in the thread. Good luck with her.

Dave you are so bright that it is really amazing.
 

Or course then those same Muslims started reaching out to US and murdered many who were just trying to live their lives in peace.

Today i got to watch the Falcon rocket soar up into space from northern Florida. You can bet the progs and their Green New Deal will put NASA back in mothballs.

Sorry. Here is a more accurate view from space.com. You Obama haters slay me. Half of you being "Flat Earthers" anyway. :auiqs.jpg:
President Obama's Space Legacy: Mars, Private Spaceflight and More
LOL! Private spaceflight really took off because Obama gutted our manned space program.

That's one way of pathetically giving him credit, I suppose.
There is no private spaceflight.......................

Tesla gets ridiculous government subsidies that you pay for, so Space X is government funded. This way the government will not be funding the missions, or so the masses of dopes think

Wake up
Yeah, I don't believe anyone thinks that. Meanwhile, we no longer have to pay another nation for rides into space.
The only reason that Tesla exist is the government subsidies, so it seems that you are the only one who does not know


If you're asking me to defend subsidies given for expensive toys, you're going to be disappointed.
Again without Tesla subsidies there is no space x
Tesla's being paid for the service it provides -- lifting mass to orbit.

You can call it a subsidy but you'll have to create a new definition of the word.
Tesla is getting government subsidies for every tesla they produce and tesla is providing nothing for that money
Yeah, in case you didn't notice, Tesla's vehicle and space launch operations are separate business lines.
Why is tesla wasting money landing boosters upright that need to be 100 percent rebuilt anyway meaning there is no advantage to letting them fall into the ocean.

Looks cool right? With massive expenditure that yields no increased performance
Really? Dry-landing means far less turnaround time.

It works. And it works pretty good. And we don't have to buy airfare to Baikonur. Not being dependent on another nation for access to space is a good thing. No, really.
It does not decrease turnaround time, unless there are not enough parts, it's a parlor trick that achieves absolutely nothing in performance, while adding weight that actually decreases performance.
I'm curious about the basis for your claim, since the US has no liquid-fueled boosters that soft-land in the ocean.
The USA has no boosters period, we were buying Russian ones. Again there is no reason to soft land as the work is 100 percent achieved in the burn stage, after separation the booster has no value to the mission so the soft landing is a wet fart worth nothing
SpaceX sets rocket booster reuse record in satellite launch
ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- SpaceX reused the same first-stage Falcon 9 rocket booster for the sixth time in a launch from Florida Tuesday morning, setting a record for the launch industry.
SpaceX also recovered the booster successfully by landing it on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean -- the sixth recovery of that booster. The Starlink satellites deployed into orbit about 46 minutes after launch.
Wow a totally useless record. Are they going to do this until everyone dies on the way up again?

Again kid the used boosters that land in the sea can be reused too and both need a 100 percent rebuild and I will guarantee you that the old boosters are simpler and as such have thousands less parts that can fail. Landing these things upright is so stupid that it is retarded
You're irrationally angry about this. It works, and it works well. Your approval is neither sought nor required.
What works, landing a spent booster that has thousands more parts prone to failure. Sure it works but how much more powerful does it make for the mission?

Answer power is reduced by the thousands of parts that all have weight and reduce thrust.

Play on
Nothing's going to change because you're stamping your feet and pouting on the internet.
But when one of these over complex boosters goes boom you will remember where you heard of the issue first
OH MY GOSH UR RIGHT NOBODY EVER THOUGHT THAT HUGE TANKS OF EXPOLOSIVE CHEMICALS MIGHT BLOW UP WE NEED TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW
Again kid, landing spent boosters adds zero thrust to the mission and actually reduces thrust by increasing weight. So the landing toys reduce max speed and altitude and or reduce the usable space payload.

Try and argue this instead of being amazed by something that has no purpose.
Hey, sure, let's just build everything from scratch every time. It's Other People's Money, right? Saving money is for losers.
The landing boosters do not save any money kid. For starters they cost twice to four times as much to produce, to test and to maintain. Turnaround time is also irrelevant as you just build more than you need so rebuilt or new boosters are on hand. LOL what was saved here

Crashes save money right? Whaaaaaa grow up child


This crash saved money too right?


A whole lotta cash saved here too huh kid

Do you own stock in the Russian space agency? Because you sure do hate it that NASA is buying American.

Have fun on the trip Dave



No but I actually own a developing market mutual fund that owns a stake in the Micex. I have a lot more in Apple, Google, Netflix and Raytheon however

What do you own?

Micex. Russians. That explains a lot.

I really have no idea what my retirement fund is invested in, except it's only American companies.

But Apple? You're benefitting from slavery.
 
Suspect you are arguing with a chick named Star (as that is what the girl's name esalla means) or more aptly Star and Sickle. I was only half joking when I caller her Yuri, earlier in the thread. Good luck with her.
Dave you are so bright that it is really amazing.
I'm bright enough to know to whom I'm responding. Your mileage may vary.
 

Or course then those same Muslims started reaching out to US and murdered many who were just trying to live their lives in peace.

Today i got to watch the Falcon rocket soar up into space from northern Florida. You can bet the progs and their Green New Deal will put NASA back in mothballs.

Sorry. Here is a more accurate view from space.com. You Obama haters slay me. Half of you being "Flat Earthers" anyway. :auiqs.jpg:
President Obama's Space Legacy: Mars, Private Spaceflight and More
LOL! Private spaceflight really took off because Obama gutted our manned space program.

That's one way of pathetically giving him credit, I suppose.
There is no private spaceflight.......................

Tesla gets ridiculous government subsidies that you pay for, so Space X is government funded. This way the government will not be funding the missions, or so the masses of dopes think

Wake up
Yeah, I don't believe anyone thinks that. Meanwhile, we no longer have to pay another nation for rides into space.
The only reason that Tesla exist is the government subsidies, so it seems that you are the only one who does not know


If you're asking me to defend subsidies given for expensive toys, you're going to be disappointed.
Again without Tesla subsidies there is no space x
Tesla's being paid for the service it provides -- lifting mass to orbit.

You can call it a subsidy but you'll have to create a new definition of the word.
Tesla is getting government subsidies for every tesla they produce and tesla is providing nothing for that money
Yeah, in case you didn't notice, Tesla's vehicle and space launch operations are separate business lines.
Why is tesla wasting money landing boosters upright that need to be 100 percent rebuilt anyway meaning there is no advantage to letting them fall into the ocean.

Looks cool right? With massive expenditure that yields no increased performance
Really? Dry-landing means far less turnaround time.

It works. And it works pretty good. And we don't have to buy airfare to Baikonur. Not being dependent on another nation for access to space is a good thing. No, really.
It does not decrease turnaround time, unless there are not enough parts, it's a parlor trick that achieves absolutely nothing in performance, while adding weight that actually decreases performance.
I'm curious about the basis for your claim, since the US has no liquid-fueled boosters that soft-land in the ocean.
The USA has no boosters period, we were buying Russian ones. Again there is no reason to soft land as the work is 100 percent achieved in the burn stage, after separation the booster has no value to the mission so the soft landing is a wet fart worth nothing
SpaceX sets rocket booster reuse record in satellite launch
ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- SpaceX reused the same first-stage Falcon 9 rocket booster for the sixth time in a launch from Florida Tuesday morning, setting a record for the launch industry.
SpaceX also recovered the booster successfully by landing it on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean -- the sixth recovery of that booster. The Starlink satellites deployed into orbit about 46 minutes after launch.
Wow a totally useless record. Are they going to do this until everyone dies on the way up again?

Again kid the used boosters that land in the sea can be reused too and both need a 100 percent rebuild and I will guarantee you that the old boosters are simpler and as such have thousands less parts that can fail. Landing these things upright is so stupid that it is retarded
You're irrationally angry about this. It works, and it works well. Your approval is neither sought nor required.
What works, landing a spent booster that has thousands more parts prone to failure. Sure it works but how much more powerful does it make for the mission?

Answer power is reduced by the thousands of parts that all have weight and reduce thrust.

Play on
Nothing's going to change because you're stamping your feet and pouting on the internet.
But when one of these over complex boosters goes boom you will remember where you heard of the issue first
OH MY GOSH UR RIGHT NOBODY EVER THOUGHT THAT HUGE TANKS OF EXPOLOSIVE CHEMICALS MIGHT BLOW UP WE NEED TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW
Again kid, landing spent boosters adds zero thrust to the mission and actually reduces thrust by increasing weight. So the landing toys reduce max speed and altitude and or reduce the usable space payload.

Try and argue this instead of being amazed by something that has no purpose.
Hey, sure, let's just build everything from scratch every time. It's Other People's Money, right? Saving money is for losers.
The landing boosters do not save any money kid. For starters they cost twice to four times as much to produce, to test and to maintain. Turnaround time is also irrelevant as you just build more than you need so rebuilt or new boosters are on hand. LOL what was saved here

Crashes save money right? Whaaaaaa grow up child


This crash saved money too right?


A whole lotta cash saved here too huh kid

Do you own stock in the Russian space agency? Because you sure do hate it that NASA is buying American.

Have fun on the trip Dave



No but I actually own a developing market mutual fund that owns a stake in the Micex. I have a lot more in Apple, Google, Netflix and Raytheon however

What do you own?

Micex. Russians. That explains a lot.

I really have no idea what my retirement fund is invested in, except it's only American companies.

But Apple? You're benefitting from slavery.

California still has slaves in the fields.
 
Suspect you are arguing with a chick named Star (as that is what the girl's name esalla means) or more aptly Star and Sickle. I was only half joking when I caller her Yuri, earlier in the thread. Good luck with her.
Dave you are so bright that it is really amazing.
I'm bright enough to know to whom I'm responding. Your mileage may vary.
LOL, the fact is that all you kids are the same to me anyway.

So what is it that you feel that you can achieve here?

I am just wasting time
 

Or course then those same Muslims started reaching out to US and murdered many who were just trying to live their lives in peace.

Today i got to watch the Falcon rocket soar up into space from northern Florida. You can bet the progs and their Green New Deal will put NASA back in mothballs.

Sorry. Here is a more accurate view from space.com. You Obama haters slay me. Half of you being "Flat Earthers" anyway. :auiqs.jpg:
President Obama's Space Legacy: Mars, Private Spaceflight and More
LOL! Private spaceflight really took off because Obama gutted our manned space program.

That's one way of pathetically giving him credit, I suppose.
There is no private spaceflight.......................

Tesla gets ridiculous government subsidies that you pay for, so Space X is government funded. This way the government will not be funding the missions, or so the masses of dopes think

Wake up
Yeah, I don't believe anyone thinks that. Meanwhile, we no longer have to pay another nation for rides into space.
The only reason that Tesla exist is the government subsidies, so it seems that you are the only one who does not know


If you're asking me to defend subsidies given for expensive toys, you're going to be disappointed.
Again without Tesla subsidies there is no space x
Tesla's being paid for the service it provides -- lifting mass to orbit.

You can call it a subsidy but you'll have to create a new definition of the word.
Tesla is getting government subsidies for every tesla they produce and tesla is providing nothing for that money
Yeah, in case you didn't notice, Tesla's vehicle and space launch operations are separate business lines.
Why is tesla wasting money landing boosters upright that need to be 100 percent rebuilt anyway meaning there is no advantage to letting them fall into the ocean.

Looks cool right? With massive expenditure that yields no increased performance
Really? Dry-landing means far less turnaround time.

It works. And it works pretty good. And we don't have to buy airfare to Baikonur. Not being dependent on another nation for access to space is a good thing. No, really.
It does not decrease turnaround time, unless there are not enough parts, it's a parlor trick that achieves absolutely nothing in performance, while adding weight that actually decreases performance.
I'm curious about the basis for your claim, since the US has no liquid-fueled boosters that soft-land in the ocean.
The USA has no boosters period, we were buying Russian ones. Again there is no reason to soft land as the work is 100 percent achieved in the burn stage, after separation the booster has no value to the mission so the soft landing is a wet fart worth nothing
SpaceX sets rocket booster reuse record in satellite launch
ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- SpaceX reused the same first-stage Falcon 9 rocket booster for the sixth time in a launch from Florida Tuesday morning, setting a record for the launch industry.
SpaceX also recovered the booster successfully by landing it on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean -- the sixth recovery of that booster. The Starlink satellites deployed into orbit about 46 minutes after launch.
Wow a totally useless record. Are they going to do this until everyone dies on the way up again?

Again kid the used boosters that land in the sea can be reused too and both need a 100 percent rebuild and I will guarantee you that the old boosters are simpler and as such have thousands less parts that can fail. Landing these things upright is so stupid that it is retarded
You're irrationally angry about this. It works, and it works well. Your approval is neither sought nor required.
What works, landing a spent booster that has thousands more parts prone to failure. Sure it works but how much more powerful does it make for the mission?

Answer power is reduced by the thousands of parts that all have weight and reduce thrust.

Play on
Nothing's going to change because you're stamping your feet and pouting on the internet.
But when one of these over complex boosters goes boom you will remember where you heard of the issue first
OH MY GOSH UR RIGHT NOBODY EVER THOUGHT THAT HUGE TANKS OF EXPOLOSIVE CHEMICALS MIGHT BLOW UP WE NEED TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW
Again kid, landing spent boosters adds zero thrust to the mission and actually reduces thrust by increasing weight. So the landing toys reduce max speed and altitude and or reduce the usable space payload.

Try and argue this instead of being amazed by something that has no purpose.
Hey, sure, let's just build everything from scratch every time. It's Other People's Money, right? Saving money is for losers.
The landing boosters do not save any money kid. For starters they cost twice to four times as much to produce, to test and to maintain. Turnaround time is also irrelevant as you just build more than you need so rebuilt or new boosters are on hand. LOL what was saved here

Crashes save money right? Whaaaaaa grow up child


This crash saved money too right?


A whole lotta cash saved here too huh kid

Do you own stock in the Russian space agency? Because you sure do hate it that NASA is buying American.

Have fun on the trip Dave



No but I actually own a developing market mutual fund that owns a stake in the Micex. I have a lot more in Apple, Google, Netflix and Raytheon however

What do you own?

Micex. Russians. That explains a lot.

I really have no idea what my retirement fund is invested in, except it's only American companies.

But Apple? You're benefitting from slavery.

California still has slaves in the fields.

How much you got in them?
 

Or course then those same Muslims started reaching out to US and murdered many who were just trying to live their lives in peace.

Today i got to watch the Falcon rocket soar up into space from northern Florida. You can bet the progs and their Green New Deal will put NASA back in mothballs.

Sorry. Here is a more accurate view from space.com. You Obama haters slay me. Half of you being "Flat Earthers" anyway. :auiqs.jpg:
President Obama's Space Legacy: Mars, Private Spaceflight and More
LOL! Private spaceflight really took off because Obama gutted our manned space program.

That's one way of pathetically giving him credit, I suppose.
There is no private spaceflight.......................

Tesla gets ridiculous government subsidies that you pay for, so Space X is government funded. This way the government will not be funding the missions, or so the masses of dopes think

Wake up
Yeah, I don't believe anyone thinks that. Meanwhile, we no longer have to pay another nation for rides into space.
The only reason that Tesla exist is the government subsidies, so it seems that you are the only one who does not know


If you're asking me to defend subsidies given for expensive toys, you're going to be disappointed.
Again without Tesla subsidies there is no space x
Tesla's being paid for the service it provides -- lifting mass to orbit.

You can call it a subsidy but you'll have to create a new definition of the word.
Tesla is getting government subsidies for every tesla they produce and tesla is providing nothing for that money
Yeah, in case you didn't notice, Tesla's vehicle and space launch operations are separate business lines.
Why is tesla wasting money landing boosters upright that need to be 100 percent rebuilt anyway meaning there is no advantage to letting them fall into the ocean.

Looks cool right? With massive expenditure that yields no increased performance
Really? Dry-landing means far less turnaround time.

It works. And it works pretty good. And we don't have to buy airfare to Baikonur. Not being dependent on another nation for access to space is a good thing. No, really.
It does not decrease turnaround time, unless there are not enough parts, it's a parlor trick that achieves absolutely nothing in performance, while adding weight that actually decreases performance.
I'm curious about the basis for your claim, since the US has no liquid-fueled boosters that soft-land in the ocean.
The USA has no boosters period, we were buying Russian ones. Again there is no reason to soft land as the work is 100 percent achieved in the burn stage, after separation the booster has no value to the mission so the soft landing is a wet fart worth nothing
SpaceX sets rocket booster reuse record in satellite launch
ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- SpaceX reused the same first-stage Falcon 9 rocket booster for the sixth time in a launch from Florida Tuesday morning, setting a record for the launch industry.
SpaceX also recovered the booster successfully by landing it on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean -- the sixth recovery of that booster. The Starlink satellites deployed into orbit about 46 minutes after launch.
Wow a totally useless record. Are they going to do this until everyone dies on the way up again?

Again kid the used boosters that land in the sea can be reused too and both need a 100 percent rebuild and I will guarantee you that the old boosters are simpler and as such have thousands less parts that can fail. Landing these things upright is so stupid that it is retarded
You're irrationally angry about this. It works, and it works well. Your approval is neither sought nor required.
What works, landing a spent booster that has thousands more parts prone to failure. Sure it works but how much more powerful does it make for the mission?

Answer power is reduced by the thousands of parts that all have weight and reduce thrust.

Play on
Nothing's going to change because you're stamping your feet and pouting on the internet.
But when one of these over complex boosters goes boom you will remember where you heard of the issue first
OH MY GOSH UR RIGHT NOBODY EVER THOUGHT THAT HUGE TANKS OF EXPOLOSIVE CHEMICALS MIGHT BLOW UP WE NEED TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW
Again kid, landing spent boosters adds zero thrust to the mission and actually reduces thrust by increasing weight. So the landing toys reduce max speed and altitude and or reduce the usable space payload.

Try and argue this instead of being amazed by something that has no purpose.
Hey, sure, let's just build everything from scratch every time. It's Other People's Money, right? Saving money is for losers.
The landing boosters do not save any money kid. For starters they cost twice to four times as much to produce, to test and to maintain. Turnaround time is also irrelevant as you just build more than you need so rebuilt or new boosters are on hand. LOL what was saved here

Crashes save money right? Whaaaaaa grow up child


This crash saved money too right?


A whole lotta cash saved here too huh kid

Do you own stock in the Russian space agency? Because you sure do hate it that NASA is buying American.

Have fun on the trip Dave



No but I actually own a developing market mutual fund that owns a stake in the Micex. I have a lot more in Apple, Google, Netflix and Raytheon however

What do you own?

Micex. Russians. That explains a lot.

I really have no idea what my retirement fund is invested in, except it's only American companies.

But Apple? You're benefitting from slavery.

California still has slaves in the fields.

How much you got in them?

Never invested in avocado fields
 
Suspect you are arguing with a chick named Star (as that is what the girl's name esalla means) or more aptly Star and Sickle. I was only half joking when I caller her Yuri, earlier in the thread. Good luck with her.
Dave you are so bright that it is really amazing.
I'm bright enough to know to whom I'm responding. Your mileage may vary.
LOL, the fact is that all you kids are the same to me anyway.

So what is it that you feel that you can achieve here?

I am just wasting time
I have no illusions that I'm winning hearts and minds here. I just like to point out idiocy when I see it. What you do with the information is totally up to you.

But you've made it plain you want to bitterly cling to your idiocy.
 

Or course then those same Muslims started reaching out to US and murdered many who were just trying to live their lives in peace.

Today i got to watch the Falcon rocket soar up into space from northern Florida. You can bet the progs and their Green New Deal will put NASA back in mothballs.

Sorry. Here is a more accurate view from space.com. You Obama haters slay me. Half of you being "Flat Earthers" anyway. :auiqs.jpg:
President Obama's Space Legacy: Mars, Private Spaceflight and More
LOL! Private spaceflight really took off because Obama gutted our manned space program.

That's one way of pathetically giving him credit, I suppose.
There is no private spaceflight.......................

Tesla gets ridiculous government subsidies that you pay for, so Space X is government funded. This way the government will not be funding the missions, or so the masses of dopes think

Wake up
Yeah, I don't believe anyone thinks that. Meanwhile, we no longer have to pay another nation for rides into space.
The only reason that Tesla exist is the government subsidies, so it seems that you are the only one who does not know


If you're asking me to defend subsidies given for expensive toys, you're going to be disappointed.
Again without Tesla subsidies there is no space x
Tesla's being paid for the service it provides -- lifting mass to orbit.

You can call it a subsidy but you'll have to create a new definition of the word.
Tesla is getting government subsidies for every tesla they produce and tesla is providing nothing for that money
Yeah, in case you didn't notice, Tesla's vehicle and space launch operations are separate business lines.
Why is tesla wasting money landing boosters upright that need to be 100 percent rebuilt anyway meaning there is no advantage to letting them fall into the ocean.

Looks cool right? With massive expenditure that yields no increased performance
Really? Dry-landing means far less turnaround time.

It works. And it works pretty good. And we don't have to buy airfare to Baikonur. Not being dependent on another nation for access to space is a good thing. No, really.
It does not decrease turnaround time, unless there are not enough parts, it's a parlor trick that achieves absolutely nothing in performance, while adding weight that actually decreases performance.
I'm curious about the basis for your claim, since the US has no liquid-fueled boosters that soft-land in the ocean.
The USA has no boosters period, we were buying Russian ones. Again there is no reason to soft land as the work is 100 percent achieved in the burn stage, after separation the booster has no value to the mission so the soft landing is a wet fart worth nothing
SpaceX sets rocket booster reuse record in satellite launch
ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- SpaceX reused the same first-stage Falcon 9 rocket booster for the sixth time in a launch from Florida Tuesday morning, setting a record for the launch industry.
SpaceX also recovered the booster successfully by landing it on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean -- the sixth recovery of that booster. The Starlink satellites deployed into orbit about 46 minutes after launch.
Wow a totally useless record. Are they going to do this until everyone dies on the way up again?

Again kid the used boosters that land in the sea can be reused too and both need a 100 percent rebuild and I will guarantee you that the old boosters are simpler and as such have thousands less parts that can fail. Landing these things upright is so stupid that it is retarded
You're irrationally angry about this. It works, and it works well. Your approval is neither sought nor required.
What works, landing a spent booster that has thousands more parts prone to failure. Sure it works but how much more powerful does it make for the mission?

Answer power is reduced by the thousands of parts that all have weight and reduce thrust.

Play on
Nothing's going to change because you're stamping your feet and pouting on the internet.
But when one of these over complex boosters goes boom you will remember where you heard of the issue first
OH MY GOSH UR RIGHT NOBODY EVER THOUGHT THAT HUGE TANKS OF EXPOLOSIVE CHEMICALS MIGHT BLOW UP WE NEED TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW
Again kid, landing spent boosters adds zero thrust to the mission and actually reduces thrust by increasing weight. So the landing toys reduce max speed and altitude and or reduce the usable space payload.

Try and argue this instead of being amazed by something that has no purpose.
Hey, sure, let's just build everything from scratch every time. It's Other People's Money, right? Saving money is for losers.
The landing boosters do not save any money kid. For starters they cost twice to four times as much to produce, to test and to maintain. Turnaround time is also irrelevant as you just build more than you need so rebuilt or new boosters are on hand. LOL what was saved here

Crashes save money right? Whaaaaaa grow up child


This crash saved money too right?


A whole lotta cash saved here too huh kid

Do you own stock in the Russian space agency? Because you sure do hate it that NASA is buying American.

Have fun on the trip Dave



No but I actually own a developing market mutual fund that owns a stake in the Micex. I have a lot more in Apple, Google, Netflix and Raytheon however

What do you own?

Micex. Russians. That explains a lot.

I really have no idea what my retirement fund is invested in, except it's only American companies.

But Apple? You're benefitting from slavery.

California still has slaves in the fields.

How much you got in them?

Never invested in avocado fields

But you're in Apple, which uses slave labor in China.
 
Suspect you are arguing with a chick named Star (as that is what the girl's name esalla means) or more aptly Star and Sickle. I was only half joking when I caller her Yuri, earlier in the thread. Good luck with her.
Dave you are so bright that it is really amazing.
I'm bright enough to know to whom I'm responding. Your mileage may vary.
LOL, the fact is that all you kids are the same to me anyway.

So what is it that you feel that you can achieve here?

I am just wasting time
I have no illusions that I'm winning hearts and minds here. I just like to point out idiocy when I see it. What you do with the information is totally up to you.

But you've made it plain you want to bitterly cling to your idiocy.
LOL, now if your could only explain why boosters that land are worth reducing both maximum thrust and maximum payload capacity.

And in some demented world you also believe boosters that cost 5 times the price of the previous ones are less expensive

Wheeeeeeeeee
 

Or course then those same Muslims started reaching out to US and murdered many who were just trying to live their lives in peace.

Today i got to watch the Falcon rocket soar up into space from northern Florida. You can bet the progs and their Green New Deal will put NASA back in mothballs.

Sorry. Here is a more accurate view from space.com. You Obama haters slay me. Half of you being "Flat Earthers" anyway. :auiqs.jpg:
President Obama's Space Legacy: Mars, Private Spaceflight and More
LOL! Private spaceflight really took off because Obama gutted our manned space program.

That's one way of pathetically giving him credit, I suppose.
There is no private spaceflight.......................

Tesla gets ridiculous government subsidies that you pay for, so Space X is government funded. This way the government will not be funding the missions, or so the masses of dopes think

Wake up
Yeah, I don't believe anyone thinks that. Meanwhile, we no longer have to pay another nation for rides into space.
The only reason that Tesla exist is the government subsidies, so it seems that you are the only one who does not know


If you're asking me to defend subsidies given for expensive toys, you're going to be disappointed.
Again without Tesla subsidies there is no space x
Tesla's being paid for the service it provides -- lifting mass to orbit.

You can call it a subsidy but you'll have to create a new definition of the word.
Tesla is getting government subsidies for every tesla they produce and tesla is providing nothing for that money
Yeah, in case you didn't notice, Tesla's vehicle and space launch operations are separate business lines.
Why is tesla wasting money landing boosters upright that need to be 100 percent rebuilt anyway meaning there is no advantage to letting them fall into the ocean.

Looks cool right? With massive expenditure that yields no increased performance
Really? Dry-landing means far less turnaround time.

It works. And it works pretty good. And we don't have to buy airfare to Baikonur. Not being dependent on another nation for access to space is a good thing. No, really.
It does not decrease turnaround time, unless there are not enough parts, it's a parlor trick that achieves absolutely nothing in performance, while adding weight that actually decreases performance.
I'm curious about the basis for your claim, since the US has no liquid-fueled boosters that soft-land in the ocean.
The USA has no boosters period, we were buying Russian ones. Again there is no reason to soft land as the work is 100 percent achieved in the burn stage, after separation the booster has no value to the mission so the soft landing is a wet fart worth nothing
SpaceX sets rocket booster reuse record in satellite launch
ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- SpaceX reused the same first-stage Falcon 9 rocket booster for the sixth time in a launch from Florida Tuesday morning, setting a record for the launch industry.
SpaceX also recovered the booster successfully by landing it on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean -- the sixth recovery of that booster. The Starlink satellites deployed into orbit about 46 minutes after launch.
Wow a totally useless record. Are they going to do this until everyone dies on the way up again?

Again kid the used boosters that land in the sea can be reused too and both need a 100 percent rebuild and I will guarantee you that the old boosters are simpler and as such have thousands less parts that can fail. Landing these things upright is so stupid that it is retarded
You're irrationally angry about this. It works, and it works well. Your approval is neither sought nor required.
What works, landing a spent booster that has thousands more parts prone to failure. Sure it works but how much more powerful does it make for the mission?

Answer power is reduced by the thousands of parts that all have weight and reduce thrust.

Play on
Nothing's going to change because you're stamping your feet and pouting on the internet.
But when one of these over complex boosters goes boom you will remember where you heard of the issue first
OH MY GOSH UR RIGHT NOBODY EVER THOUGHT THAT HUGE TANKS OF EXPOLOSIVE CHEMICALS MIGHT BLOW UP WE NEED TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW
Again kid, landing spent boosters adds zero thrust to the mission and actually reduces thrust by increasing weight. So the landing toys reduce max speed and altitude and or reduce the usable space payload.

Try and argue this instead of being amazed by something that has no purpose.
Hey, sure, let's just build everything from scratch every time. It's Other People's Money, right? Saving money is for losers.
The landing boosters do not save any money kid. For starters they cost twice to four times as much to produce, to test and to maintain. Turnaround time is also irrelevant as you just build more than you need so rebuilt or new boosters are on hand. LOL what was saved here

Crashes save money right? Whaaaaaa grow up child


This crash saved money too right?


A whole lotta cash saved here too huh kid

Do you own stock in the Russian space agency? Because you sure do hate it that NASA is buying American.

Have fun on the trip Dave



No but I actually own a developing market mutual fund that owns a stake in the Micex. I have a lot more in Apple, Google, Netflix and Raytheon however

What do you own?

Micex. Russians. That explains a lot.

I really have no idea what my retirement fund is invested in, except it's only American companies.

But Apple? You're benefitting from slavery.

California still has slaves in the fields.

How much you got in them?

Never invested in avocado fields

But you're in Apple, which uses slave labor in China.

Might be if chinks were humans
 
Suspect you are arguing with a chick named Star (as that is what the girl's name esalla means) or more aptly Star and Sickle. I was only half joking when I caller her Yuri, earlier in the thread. Good luck with her.
Dave you are so bright that it is really amazing.
I'm bright enough to know to whom I'm responding. Your mileage may vary.
LOL, the fact is that all you kids are the same to me anyway.

So what is it that you feel that you can achieve here?

I am just wasting time
I have no illusions that I'm winning hearts and minds here. I just like to point out idiocy when I see it. What you do with the information is totally up to you.

But you've made it plain you want to bitterly cling to your idiocy.
LOL, now if your could only explain why boosters that land are worth reducing both maximum thrust and maximum payload capacity.

And in some demented world you also believe boosters that cost 5 times the price of the previous ones are less expensive

Wheeeeeeeeee
You keep saying things.

You never offer any proof.

What, are we supposed to believe it just because you say it?

How's that working out for you?
 

Or course then those same Muslims started reaching out to US and murdered many who were just trying to live their lives in peace.

Today i got to watch the Falcon rocket soar up into space from northern Florida. You can bet the progs and their Green New Deal will put NASA back in mothballs.

Sorry. Here is a more accurate view from space.com. You Obama haters slay me. Half of you being "Flat Earthers" anyway. :auiqs.jpg:
President Obama's Space Legacy: Mars, Private Spaceflight and More
LOL! Private spaceflight really took off because Obama gutted our manned space program.

That's one way of pathetically giving him credit, I suppose.
There is no private spaceflight.......................

Tesla gets ridiculous government subsidies that you pay for, so Space X is government funded. This way the government will not be funding the missions, or so the masses of dopes think

Wake up
Yeah, I don't believe anyone thinks that. Meanwhile, we no longer have to pay another nation for rides into space.
The only reason that Tesla exist is the government subsidies, so it seems that you are the only one who does not know


If you're asking me to defend subsidies given for expensive toys, you're going to be disappointed.
Again without Tesla subsidies there is no space x
Tesla's being paid for the service it provides -- lifting mass to orbit.

You can call it a subsidy but you'll have to create a new definition of the word.
Tesla is getting government subsidies for every tesla they produce and tesla is providing nothing for that money
Yeah, in case you didn't notice, Tesla's vehicle and space launch operations are separate business lines.
Why is tesla wasting money landing boosters upright that need to be 100 percent rebuilt anyway meaning there is no advantage to letting them fall into the ocean.

Looks cool right? With massive expenditure that yields no increased performance
Really? Dry-landing means far less turnaround time.

It works. And it works pretty good. And we don't have to buy airfare to Baikonur. Not being dependent on another nation for access to space is a good thing. No, really.
It does not decrease turnaround time, unless there are not enough parts, it's a parlor trick that achieves absolutely nothing in performance, while adding weight that actually decreases performance.
I'm curious about the basis for your claim, since the US has no liquid-fueled boosters that soft-land in the ocean.
The USA has no boosters period, we were buying Russian ones. Again there is no reason to soft land as the work is 100 percent achieved in the burn stage, after separation the booster has no value to the mission so the soft landing is a wet fart worth nothing
SpaceX sets rocket booster reuse record in satellite launch
ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- SpaceX reused the same first-stage Falcon 9 rocket booster for the sixth time in a launch from Florida Tuesday morning, setting a record for the launch industry.
SpaceX also recovered the booster successfully by landing it on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean -- the sixth recovery of that booster. The Starlink satellites deployed into orbit about 46 minutes after launch.
Wow a totally useless record. Are they going to do this until everyone dies on the way up again?

Again kid the used boosters that land in the sea can be reused too and both need a 100 percent rebuild and I will guarantee you that the old boosters are simpler and as such have thousands less parts that can fail. Landing these things upright is so stupid that it is retarded
You're irrationally angry about this. It works, and it works well. Your approval is neither sought nor required.
What works, landing a spent booster that has thousands more parts prone to failure. Sure it works but how much more powerful does it make for the mission?

Answer power is reduced by the thousands of parts that all have weight and reduce thrust.

Play on
Nothing's going to change because you're stamping your feet and pouting on the internet.
But when one of these over complex boosters goes boom you will remember where you heard of the issue first
OH MY GOSH UR RIGHT NOBODY EVER THOUGHT THAT HUGE TANKS OF EXPOLOSIVE CHEMICALS MIGHT BLOW UP WE NEED TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW
Again kid, landing spent boosters adds zero thrust to the mission and actually reduces thrust by increasing weight. So the landing toys reduce max speed and altitude and or reduce the usable space payload.

Try and argue this instead of being amazed by something that has no purpose.
Hey, sure, let's just build everything from scratch every time. It's Other People's Money, right? Saving money is for losers.
The landing boosters do not save any money kid. For starters they cost twice to four times as much to produce, to test and to maintain. Turnaround time is also irrelevant as you just build more than you need so rebuilt or new boosters are on hand. LOL what was saved here

Crashes save money right? Whaaaaaa grow up child


This crash saved money too right?


A whole lotta cash saved here too huh kid

Do you own stock in the Russian space agency? Because you sure do hate it that NASA is buying American.

Have fun on the trip Dave



No but I actually own a developing market mutual fund that owns a stake in the Micex. I have a lot more in Apple, Google, Netflix and Raytheon however

What do you own?

Micex. Russians. That explains a lot.

I really have no idea what my retirement fund is invested in, except it's only American companies.

But Apple? You're benefitting from slavery.

California still has slaves in the fields.

How much you got in them?

Never invested in avocado fields

But you're in Apple, which uses slave labor in China.

Might be if chinks were humans

Wow. Racist. What a piece of shit.
 
Suspect you are arguing with a chick named Star (as that is what the girl's name esalla means) or more aptly Star and Sickle. I was only half joking when I caller her Yuri, earlier in the thread. Good luck with her.
Dave you are so bright that it is really amazing.
I'm bright enough to know to whom I'm responding. Your mileage may vary.
LOL, the fact is that all you kids are the same to me anyway.

So what is it that you feel that you can achieve here?

I am just wasting time
I have no illusions that I'm winning hearts and minds here. I just like to point out idiocy when I see it. What you do with the information is totally up to you.

But you've made it plain you want to bitterly cling to your idiocy.
LOL, now if your could only explain why boosters that land are worth reducing both maximum thrust and maximum payload capacity.

And in some demented world you also believe boosters that cost 5 times the price of the previous ones are less expensive

Wheeeeeeeeee
You keep saying things.

You never offer any proof.

What, are we supposed to believe it just because you say it?

How's that working out for you?
So you can not answer a physical question

LOL, now if your could only explain why boosters that land are worth reducing both maximum thrust and maximum payload capacity.

And in some demented world you also believe boosters that cost 5 times the price of the previous ones are less expensive

Wheeeeeeeeee
 

Or course then those same Muslims started reaching out to US and murdered many who were just trying to live their lives in peace.

Today i got to watch the Falcon rocket soar up into space from northern Florida. You can bet the progs and their Green New Deal will put NASA back in mothballs.

Sorry. Here is a more accurate view from space.com. You Obama haters slay me. Half of you being "Flat Earthers" anyway. :auiqs.jpg:
President Obama's Space Legacy: Mars, Private Spaceflight and More
LOL! Private spaceflight really took off because Obama gutted our manned space program.

That's one way of pathetically giving him credit, I suppose.
There is no private spaceflight.......................

Tesla gets ridiculous government subsidies that you pay for, so Space X is government funded. This way the government will not be funding the missions, or so the masses of dopes think

Wake up
Yeah, I don't believe anyone thinks that. Meanwhile, we no longer have to pay another nation for rides into space.
The only reason that Tesla exist is the government subsidies, so it seems that you are the only one who does not know


If you're asking me to defend subsidies given for expensive toys, you're going to be disappointed.
Again without Tesla subsidies there is no space x
Tesla's being paid for the service it provides -- lifting mass to orbit.

You can call it a subsidy but you'll have to create a new definition of the word.
Tesla is getting government subsidies for every tesla they produce and tesla is providing nothing for that money
Yeah, in case you didn't notice, Tesla's vehicle and space launch operations are separate business lines.
Why is tesla wasting money landing boosters upright that need to be 100 percent rebuilt anyway meaning there is no advantage to letting them fall into the ocean.

Looks cool right? With massive expenditure that yields no increased performance
Really? Dry-landing means far less turnaround time.

It works. And it works pretty good. And we don't have to buy airfare to Baikonur. Not being dependent on another nation for access to space is a good thing. No, really.
It does not decrease turnaround time, unless there are not enough parts, it's a parlor trick that achieves absolutely nothing in performance, while adding weight that actually decreases performance.
I'm curious about the basis for your claim, since the US has no liquid-fueled boosters that soft-land in the ocean.
The USA has no boosters period, we were buying Russian ones. Again there is no reason to soft land as the work is 100 percent achieved in the burn stage, after separation the booster has no value to the mission so the soft landing is a wet fart worth nothing
SpaceX sets rocket booster reuse record in satellite launch
ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 18 (UPI) -- SpaceX reused the same first-stage Falcon 9 rocket booster for the sixth time in a launch from Florida Tuesday morning, setting a record for the launch industry.
SpaceX also recovered the booster successfully by landing it on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean -- the sixth recovery of that booster. The Starlink satellites deployed into orbit about 46 minutes after launch.
Wow a totally useless record. Are they going to do this until everyone dies on the way up again?

Again kid the used boosters that land in the sea can be reused too and both need a 100 percent rebuild and I will guarantee you that the old boosters are simpler and as such have thousands less parts that can fail. Landing these things upright is so stupid that it is retarded
You're irrationally angry about this. It works, and it works well. Your approval is neither sought nor required.
What works, landing a spent booster that has thousands more parts prone to failure. Sure it works but how much more powerful does it make for the mission?

Answer power is reduced by the thousands of parts that all have weight and reduce thrust.

Play on
Nothing's going to change because you're stamping your feet and pouting on the internet.
But when one of these over complex boosters goes boom you will remember where you heard of the issue first
OH MY GOSH UR RIGHT NOBODY EVER THOUGHT THAT HUGE TANKS OF EXPOLOSIVE CHEMICALS MIGHT BLOW UP WE NEED TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW
Again kid, landing spent boosters adds zero thrust to the mission and actually reduces thrust by increasing weight. So the landing toys reduce max speed and altitude and or reduce the usable space payload.

Try and argue this instead of being amazed by something that has no purpose.
Hey, sure, let's just build everything from scratch every time. It's Other People's Money, right? Saving money is for losers.
The landing boosters do not save any money kid. For starters they cost twice to four times as much to produce, to test and to maintain. Turnaround time is also irrelevant as you just build more than you need so rebuilt or new boosters are on hand. LOL what was saved here

Crashes save money right? Whaaaaaa grow up child


This crash saved money too right?


A whole lotta cash saved here too huh kid

Do you own stock in the Russian space agency? Because you sure do hate it that NASA is buying American.

Have fun on the trip Dave



No but I actually own a developing market mutual fund that owns a stake in the Micex. I have a lot more in Apple, Google, Netflix and Raytheon however

What do you own?

Micex. Russians. That explains a lot.

I really have no idea what my retirement fund is invested in, except it's only American companies.

But Apple? You're benefitting from slavery.

California still has slaves in the fields.

How much you got in them?

Never invested in avocado fields

But you're in Apple, which uses slave labor in China.

Might be if chinks were humans

Wow. Racist. What a piece of shit.

Do you cook dogs alive?

Chinks do?
 
Suspect you are arguing with a chick named Star (as that is what the girl's name esalla means) or more aptly Star and Sickle. I was only half joking when I caller her Yuri, earlier in the thread. Good luck with her.
Dave you are so bright that it is really amazing.
I'm bright enough to know to whom I'm responding. Your mileage may vary.
LOL, the fact is that all you kids are the same to me anyway.

So what is it that you feel that you can achieve here?

I am just wasting time
I have no illusions that I'm winning hearts and minds here. I just like to point out idiocy when I see it. What you do with the information is totally up to you.

But you've made it plain you want to bitterly cling to your idiocy.
LOL, now if your could only explain why boosters that land are worth reducing both maximum thrust and maximum payload capacity.

And in some demented world you also believe boosters that cost 5 times the price of the previous ones are less expensive

Wheeeeeeeeee
You keep saying things.

You never offer any proof.

What, are we supposed to believe it just because you say it?

How's that working out for you?
So you can not answer a physical question

LOL, now if your could only explain why boosters that land are worth reducing both maximum thrust and maximum payload capacity.

And in some demented world you also believe boosters that cost 5 times the price of the previous ones are less expensive

Wheeeeeeeeee
Wtf is a "physical question"?

Meanwhile, it's simple. You claim I said that boosters that cost five times the previous ones are less expensive. I didn't, but I'll join you for a moment in pretending I did.

If you launch it six times, it's more economical than buying 5 sacrificial boosters. Do you go buy a new car when your current car needs an oil change?

You're really not very good at this. Perhaps you should just stop.
 

Or course then those same Muslims started reaching out to US and murdered many who were just trying to live their lives in peace.

Today i got to watch the Falcon rocket soar up into space from northern Florida. You can bet the progs and their Green New Deal will put NASA back in mothballs.

Nope, and neither do you because that never happened.
 
Suspect you are arguing with a chick named Star (as that is what the girl's name esalla means) or more aptly Star and Sickle. I was only half joking when I caller her Yuri, earlier in the thread. Good luck with her.
Dave you are so bright that it is really amazing.
I'm bright enough to know to whom I'm responding. Your mileage may vary.
LOL, the fact is that all you kids are the same to me anyway.

So what is it that you feel that you can achieve here?

I am just wasting time
I have no illusions that I'm winning hearts and minds here. I just like to point out idiocy when I see it. What you do with the information is totally up to you.

But you've made it plain you want to bitterly cling to your idiocy.
LOL, now if your could only explain why boosters that land are worth reducing both maximum thrust and maximum payload capacity.

And in some demented world you also believe boosters that cost 5 times the price of the previous ones are less expensive

Wheeeeeeeeee
You keep saying things.

You never offer any proof.

What, are we supposed to believe it just because you say it?

How's that working out for you?
So you can not answer a physical question

LOL, now if your could only explain why boosters that land are worth reducing both maximum thrust and maximum payload capacity.

And in some demented world you also believe boosters that cost 5 times the price of the previous ones are less expensive

Wheeeeeeeeee
Wtf is a "physical question"?

Meanwhile, it's simple. You claim I said that boosters that cost five times the previous ones are less expensive. I didn't, but I'll join you for a moment in pretending I did.

If you launch it six times, it's more economical than buying 5 sacrificial boosters. Do you go buy a new car when your current car needs an oil change?

You're really not very good at this. Perhaps you should just stop.
A physical question is this genre would be a question concerning rocket physics

Something that eludes you completely

Rocket Principles (mit.edu)

Rocket Physics (real-world-physics-problems.com)
 

Forum List

Back
Top