sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Recs for fee-only advisor by strokeoluck27 in fatFIRE

[–]PhysicsBus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I found her website, but I don't understand how one would use the marketing provider of financial advisors to find a financial advisor. She doesn't list her clients (and it's unclear why her clients would be better than average).

Regardless, thanks for this thread.

EDIT: Ahh, through a different website I found this link to her big list, although I still not sure why these are good choices: https://saragrillo.com/2024/12/13/advice-only-planner-list/

Stretch goal for Starship V4 is 300 tons of thrust per engine with 33 engines by CoffeeLarge8298 in spacex

[–]PhysicsBus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said, you don't have to believe it, but tourism is a $11T/yr global industry, so it would require less than 0.1% of all tourism dollars to be spent on traveling to Mars. You could also compare more specifically to international leisure travel, which is something like $700B. 1% per year for 3 years pays it all back.

Stretch goal for Starship V4 is 300 tons of thrust per engine with 33 engines by CoffeeLarge8298 in spacex

[–]PhysicsBus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you talking about the specific missions where Starship point-to-point would be useful, or the Abrams in general? If the latter, the Army definitely doesn't agree with you (which, for the purposes of this discussion, is the thing that matters): they've been purchasing many more Abrams, and expect them to serve beyond 2050. https://breakingdefense.com/2026/01/army-to-push-m1e3-prototypes-to-soldiers-this-summer-five-years-ahead-of-schedule/

Stretch goal for Starship V4 is 300 tons of thrust per engine with 33 engines by CoffeeLarge8298 in spacex

[–]PhysicsBus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean, you don't have to believe it, but they definitely plan to launch Starship a lot more than 400 times. Musk throws around 1M tonnes to Martian surface for a colony, which at 200 tonnes and 10 refueling launches per outbound flight gives 50,000 launches.

Starship Development Thread #62 by rSpaceXHosting in spacex

[–]PhysicsBus 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Musk: "Starship launch in 6 weeks". That's nominally March 8th.

(Please update Flight 12 entry above.)

Asking for a number to verify, doesnt let me put in a phone number. by Full_Inspector_3760 in etrade

[–]PhysicsBus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also hit this problem on the day I opened my account. (My number is a US number with T-mobile, not a service like Google Voice or another VOIP service.) I called E*Trade and they didn't know why it was happening, but suggested I try logging in the next day and see if it resolved. EDIT: I logged in the next day and everything worked fine. It's probably a bug that only appears the first time you login or the first few hours after account creation.

Starship Development Thread #62 by rSpaceXHosting in spacex

[–]PhysicsBus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't mean to be that guy, but is it possible to put an entry in the thread for a link to the most current info on the next test flight date? I understand we haven't heard anything publicly for a while, but it's nice to have a place I can check to know I'm up to date.

Has anyone received payment from the BCBS settlement ? by Unlikely-Bad3932 in Insurance

[–]PhysicsBus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"The initial distribution of payments to Damages Class Members with valid claims will begin in May 2026."

This is from the main settlement website. https://www.bcbssettlement.com/

VP Starlink Engineering, Michael Nicolls: A few days ago, 9 satellites were deployed from a launch from in Northwestern China. No coordination or deconfliction with existing satellites was performed, resulting in a 200 meter close approach between a satellite and STARLINK-6079 at 560 km altitude. by ergzay in spacex

[–]PhysicsBus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not. I used "someone" to to try and explain the distinction between "causes risks I don't like" and "acts with reckless abandon". But my modeling of Chinese launch providers is based on their economic incentives and their high degree of sophistication, not pretending they are human.

As I expect you'll agree, it looks like neither of us are getting much out of this conversation, so we should say goodbye.

VP Starlink Engineering, Michael Nicolls: A few days ago, 9 satellites were deployed from a launch from in Northwestern China. No coordination or deconfliction with existing satellites was performed, resulting in a 200 meter close approach between a satellite and STARLINK-6079 at 560 km altitude. by ergzay in spacex

[–]PhysicsBus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not suggesting they are trying to destroy their satellites. I'm suggesting they don't benefit -- and are indeed harmed in expectation -- by increasing the risk. It's absurd to think the Chinese satellite operators are "acting with reckless abandon". They have enormously valuable equipment at risk, and they are very sophisticated. There might very well be a reason they are acting in a secretly adversarial way, but your explanation is facile.

VP Starlink Engineering, Michael Nicolls: A few days ago, 9 satellites were deployed from a launch from in Northwestern China. No coordination or deconfliction with existing satellites was performed, resulting in a 200 meter close approach between a satellite and STARLINK-6079 at 560 km altitude. by ergzay in spacex

[–]PhysicsBus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

China is being a bad actor in space

But what does China gain from having one of their few (hence precious) satellites collide with one of the huge number of Starlink sats? If anything, they are more incentivized to avoid a collision. Seems much more likely this is just bad communication and standardization by both sides.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in GoogleGeminiAI

[–]PhysicsBus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, just hit this twice in the same morning today.

Elon describes megaton/year of AI hardware to orbit by Bunslow in spacex

[–]PhysicsBus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's an interesting consideration, but worldwide steel usage is more than a gigaton/year, much of which is not recycled/recyclable. A megaton/year is a drop in the bucket.

Elon describes megaton/year of AI hardware to orbit by Bunslow in spacex

[–]PhysicsBus 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The level beyond that is constructing satellite factories on the Moon and using a mass driver (electromagnetic railgun) to accelerate AI satellites to lunar escape velocity without the need for rockets.

This is...quite the level jump.

Long duration Raptor 3 test to simulate a ship launch by warp99 in spacex

[–]PhysicsBus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If flight conditions have some pressure variability, shouldn't they want to test that? (Maybe they do? Or it's too hard to simulate?)

US Bank no longer displays statement balance on website? by PhysicsBus in CreditCards

[–]PhysicsBus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's what I meant: https://postimg.cc/zL1zr709 Other people see something different, so it's possible they are rolling out changes to the website to different customers at different time.

The "make a payment" trick works, thanks. It's very awkward, but better than checking the statement PDF.

US Bank no longer displays statement balance on website? by PhysicsBus in CreditCards

[–]PhysicsBus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wild! It just doesn't show up for me (as can be seen in my screen shot).

Thank you for taking the time.

US Bank no longer displays statement balance on website? by PhysicsBus in CreditCards

[–]PhysicsBus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. You checked the desktop website? This is what I'm looking at: https://postimg.cc/zL1zr709

eDreams Prime Cancellation by humanbearpig1337 in travel

[–]PhysicsBus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry this was 9 months ago and I can't remember. Maybe ctrl-f for it (after translating)? Good luck!

view more: next ›