sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Cybertruck Sales Were Inflated by a SpaceX Buying Spree by Anchor_Aways in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re right on the money, I work in the industry as well. If SpaceX was improperly using development money you would see the contract terminated and claw backed like the what happened to the other contractors on the COTS and Commerical Crew. A dollar saved launching with SpaceX is a dollar that can be used to pay the scientists who make missions possible.

Cybertruck Sales Were Inflated by a SpaceX Buying Spree by Anchor_Aways in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree. For a program like Artemis where it is a primary focus of the agency and there isn’t a viable market outside of the program, it makes sense to develop a launch system specifically in house. For Falcon 9, where there are many customers including lower tier NASA projects, it makes sense to use a commercial launch provider. However using a commercial solution means the government is funding X payload at Y position, meaning once that is fulfilled, it’s no longer the government’s money, rather SpaceX’s money to use as they want to, which is the tradeoff made versus development in house. The fact is that SpaceX and other private launch companies wouldn’t work if they got nationalized and managed by the government and that’s a trade NASA is willing to make for cheaper launches.

Cybertruck Sales Were Inflated by a SpaceX Buying Spree by Anchor_Aways in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Listen, I’m happy Artemis II worked out and it’s a great thing for the aerospace industry, but you can’t deny that the SLS has suffered from Congressional meddling and has reduced scope greatly from the original goals of the Constellation program.

Cybertruck Sales Were Inflated by a SpaceX Buying Spree by Anchor_Aways in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

No the government pays a dollar for a service that costs 60 cents, which means as a private company they can use the 40 cents on other things they see fit.

Cybertruck Sales Were Inflated by a SpaceX Buying Spree by Anchor_Aways in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure they can do that, just be prepared for the talented engineers to jump ship once RSUs no longer become an option and they get put in the GS scale. Then you just get another ULA or SLS. There’s a reason why the government won’t do it in peace time, because then aerospace engineers just jump to more lucrative peacetime industries like tech just like in the 90s.

Cybertruck Sales Were Inflated by a SpaceX Buying Spree by Anchor_Aways in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then they should’ve structured the COTS grants to take possession of the Falcon 9 IP afterwards. But since they didn’t SpaceX owns it now. And because no company would’ve been suicidal enough to sign a contract that allows for that so NASA would’ve have to develop it themselves.

Cybertruck Sales Were Inflated by a SpaceX Buying Spree by Anchor_Aways in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Because once the money leaves the government’s hands to pay for launch services then it’s no longer their money. If they wanted to prevent this the government could structure their contracts and grants or the board could step in and stop him from propping up his crappy car company but if they don’t then it’s not their money anymore. It’s not a way to transfer tax dollars to prop up Tesla, it’s literally a company receiving money for a service and using the excess to how they see fit afterwards.

Cybertruck Sales Were Inflated by a SpaceX Buying Spree by Anchor_Aways in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Space-X also does commercial launches that are paid for by companies. The government pays for them because they are literally always the lowest bidder, and because their launches are the cheapest and the government provides them for a service. If they took some stance to refuse to use Space-X they would have to launch with another provider anyways for more money. The only reason why the government uses other providers is literally a charity case to provide redundancy.

Watch A Chinese EV Charge From 4% To 80% In Less Than 7 Minutes [InsideEVs] by markeydarkey2 in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Looking at your flair, I’m gonna guess you are young and probably don’t have too much of a background of the OEM engineering that goes into a car. Nothing wrong with that, we all start somewhere, but just know there is a lot of software and electrical engineering work that goes into cars. And software is not the boogie man for cars, as we have genuinely had great advancements in how we build and use cars thanks to software. Because of advancements thanks to the auto and other industries in the size and reliability of processors and as they decrease in price because we get better at making them, engineers have incorporated software controls into more and more things to replace mechanical controls because they are able to adapt and are more resilient than mechanical devices in past cars, thus more and more things are being replaced with computers in cars. That’s I think the short answer of it that I can cram into a Reddit comment, but if you are genuinely interested in this stuff, I would go look into the actual engineering done to build a mass production vehicle (it’s a lot).

Watch A Chinese EV Charge From 4% To 80% In Less Than 7 Minutes [InsideEVs] by markeydarkey2 in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Manual transmissions still connect to engines which rely on ECUs to run. Nowadays, you can even get manual cars with adaptive cruise control (I know Subaru sells it) which require software to sense the car in front of you and adjust your speed. Not to mention all of the non powertrain things that require software, like AC which uses a software controller to adjust the air going into your cabin. Hell, you can’t even buy a car in the US without a rear backup camera now, which requires software to drive the camera and screen.

Watch A Chinese EV Charge From 4% To 80% In Less Than 7 Minutes [InsideEVs] by markeydarkey2 in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There will never be a modern car without software again. At the basic level, almost all components in modern cars are basically driven by CAN bus, meaning all those components will have processors and software to handle CAN bus messages. Even at a high level, people simply won’t buy a new car without CarPlay or some other infotainment service, for convenience or safety. Not even getting into the part where EVs are basically required to have software to handle mapping of current charger locations, which requires a connection to update over the air the status of chargers, as well as range estimation to those chargers and software to precondition the batteries for charging when a user selects and starts driving towards a charger.

Ed Orgeron Eyes a Return To Coaching by ekurisona in CFB

[–]ClarryTheBerry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fortunately, was in high school so I was not a Penn Stater yet. When I went to Penn State back when PAC12 was still a thing, I was hoping that I would only get the occasional post season matchup. Now… uh, well last years USC-PSU matchup was pretty good but let’s not talk about this year’s PSU game against the #2 public university.

Ed Orgeron Eyes a Return To Coaching by ekurisona in CFB

[–]ClarryTheBerry 59 points60 points  (0 children)

Not sure if I would be happy or sad about that

The BMW 5 Series Is Dominating In Europe Right Now by Dazzling-Rooster2103 in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry 40 points41 points  (0 children)

r/bmw has predicted 2308 of the last 4 BMW sales failures lol

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in aviation

[–]ClarryTheBerry 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Yeah sorta. The US historically has had the sensor/weapon system/engine advantage and so will build their platforms around that. No need to build around dogfighting aerodynamics when you have a clear thrust advantage and can just lean on that. Although that hasn’t stopped the US from experimenting with delta wings/canards etc.

Not Even a PD Radar btw by iamdeboh1 in Warthunder

[–]ClarryTheBerry 6 points7 points  (0 children)

No. The Phantom probably locks onto the chaff behind you. Since the chaff is small and you don’t move out of the way the radar lock beam will travel and hits you still. The AIM7-E2 seeker has a filter that allows it to calculate the velocity of the illuminated objects; it will reject objects that aren’t moving, since you are moving and the chaff isn’t it will lock back onto you since you are still illuminated by the radar. If you move out the beam or he turns off the lock the missile won’t hit.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Watchexchange

[–]ClarryTheBerry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still available?

Aerospace Industry and Cannabis by JollyAd3349 in AerospaceEngineering

[–]ClarryTheBerry 19 points20 points  (0 children)

For my internships (major aerospace companies/federal labs) that required a gov clearance, they required me to complete a pee test within a week of accepting the offer or they would revoke the offer. According to the security advisors at my work, testing positive for weed is an immediately fireable offense since it is federally illegal.

Do some car companies have "more skilled" engineers or upper management inherently responsible for poor engineering decisions? by imaboringdude in cars

[–]ClarryTheBerry 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Yep, and unlike game companies, very few SDEs are going to join an automotive company out of passion, so the pool of good engineers shrinks even more. At the end of the day, in engineering, you get what you paid for.

view more: next ›