They are capable of hitting aerial targets as well. They have recently been deployed by the US Navy as a cheaper way to counter cheap aerial drones launched by Iranian proxies (~$100k Hellfire vs a ~$1m SM2).
The top-heavy design didn't help things either. I'll be shocked if they don't go three-for-three on landing sideways given IM3 has the same tall design.
> At his press conference earlier today, Altemus defended the design, saying the spacecraft doesn’t have a high center of gravity because most of its cargo attaches to the base of the vehicle. He said there were no plans for a radical rethink of his company's design.
(We see this in returning F9 first stages, as well.)
Just wait for SpaceX to start trying to land starships on the moon. Also vertically. Also doomed to tip over whenever the surface is slightly out of spec.
We can send small probes to image the moon in incredibly high resolution. It's a big place I'm sure there is a perfectly flat rock somewhere they can use.
Have you ever seen a perfectly flat rock anywhere on earth? One capable of supporting a large rocket? Also, the moon doesn't have the various navigation systems (GPS/radar) that is used when bringing rocket stages back the pad.
SpaceX has repeatedly and reliably landed vertical stacks. On any body. Out of the engineering problems inherent to HLS, sticking the landing isn’t material because for them, for that team, it isn't as novel a problem as e.g. in-orbit refuelling or getting Raptors to relight on the Moon.
Put another way, just because SpaceX has done it doesn't mean the same problem carries the same risk for a team like IM's.
A moving barge with a known flat surface of a known hardness and stability is a whole different category of difficult than doing the same thing on naturally occurring terrain with unknown voids, hardness, roughness and consistency.
They also have the atmosphere, with drag that will make all velocities trend towards zero. Don’t have that on the moon, gotta do it all with fuel. More than half of the energy she’s by the returning falcon is aerobraking.
Yes, the moon has substantially less gravity but it’s also exponentially harder to get the fuel there.
Lol. SpaceX has landed on prepared surfaces, concrete pads on land or on large barges. They literally have a big X to mark the target. Let's see them land on some random beach, an uneven surface that may or may not subside. But that is still peanuts comparted to the moon's surface.
> that is still peanuts comparted to the moon's surface
Sure. I'm not trivialising the problem in an absolute sense. Just going from floating barge or chopsticks to Moon is a simpler set of problems than reïnventing the sort of translational velocity and attitude control needed to get to first base.
For selecting and touching down on an unprepared surface, rockets are not the stepping stone. Start with helicopters. It is the same problem: can I land there and what will happen when I put weight on the surface. Try programing a large helicopter to identify and land on a random chunk of rocky terrain. It is not easy. And the bigger/taller the craft, the more difficult it becomes. Then add a 10-second time limit.
> You say this based on your history of landing rockets on the moon?
Actually, mini propulsive landers in lunar regolith stimulant. Yes. In atmosphere and with Earth gravity, both of which make it more annoying and more difficult.
For any of these landings, it's a problem of 3d positional/velocity precision. SpaceX has prove that they can reliably land on a target, usually within meters, with negligibly delta velocity on contact.
In other words, they've proven they have the control systems in place for placing a craft at a precise location, with a precise velocity. What requirement do you see outside of this that are far outside of placement and velocity? Autonomous mapping and adjustments for approach maybe?
Let's not assume they're going to try to use their current earthly landing legs.
> land on some random beach,
They did this I believe two starships ago, when they landed in the ocean. Came to zero xyz velocity some target distance above the water, and hovered for a bit. Unfortunately, the surface tension of the sea couldn't support the weight once they lowered for touchdown.
Which is not the future. Optical/lidar/positioning radio is the future, to make it closed loop (NASA’s Laser Retroreflector Array for high, lidar/optical for low altitudes).
> On a very highly engineered landing surface.
As I mentioned, we shouldn't assume the earthy landing legs are used. That would be a very silly assumption.
From what I can extract from your comment, you believe that the positioning system and landing legs are the issue, rather than the control systems. I suspect both are somewhat related: positioning system to place it over predictable regolith with some, yet-undeveloped, landing legs that need to work at 1/6th gravity.
I'm of the opinion that it's possible/solvable, as is NASA. It would be helpful if you would answer why you think it's not possible: what requirement do you see that make positioning and landing on regolith unachievable for SpaceX?
It may be possible. It may also be that the regolith is too fluffy in that area to support such a large structure without a pad. I don't believe we know.
Athena had multiple laser altimeters on board: they failed to get a fix, perhaps because of the weird surface.
It's my opinion that this isn't something that's easy to do, even for a company that has landed on Earth.
i think this becomes somewhat less of an issue once SpaceX gets Starship fulfilling contracts at scale. they're limited in width by the max payload faring width for Falcon 9, which is like half that of starship. add to that an exec claimed it's tall but not necessarily top-heavy as mass isn't evenly distributed throughout.
Scott Manley posted an interesting video including some interviews and technical details on XB-1 (as well as some time in the XB-1 simulator near the end of the video).
> After 14 games of 4+ hours each It had gone from being a dead draw with him a big favourite in tie breaks to all over in a few seconds.
_Very_ casual chess follower here. Why was Ding a big favorite in the tie breaks? My takeaway from the match was that Ding seemed to always be worse on time, so wouldn't a shorter time control favor Gukesh?
The World Chess Championship uses rapid and blitz matches (much shorter time controls) for tie breaks. Gukesh is 46th in the world in rapid, and 82nd in blitz. Ding is 2nd and 6th.
Ding is rated over 100 points higher in rapid than Gukesh. The choice to spend time early was a choice by Ding and Ding's team. Ding is better at faster time controls than Gukesh, Gukesh was better prepared.
UHG had $22B in profits last year. They did it in part by having the highest claim denial rate of any major insurer, and things like (allegedly) using an AI based claim evaluation tool with a 90% error rate. UHG also includes other "middleman" companies that are purely extractive, like Optum.
"Profiteering" doesn't seem like that tough a claim to make here...
Yea... "complicated resource allocation issues" is a really, really charitable way of describing "massively profiting from denial of health care, leading to the suffering and death of one's customers."
I'm actually kind of pleasantly surprised at the raw "FAFO" comments we're seeing. I was truly expecting the mainstream media to circle the wagons and treat this thing like a hero-has-died tragedy, with "respect the dead" and thoughts and prayers and everything, but the public's cynicism actually seems to be overtaking all the corporate whitewashing. This was a truly evil person, and although nobody should call for someone to die, one is allowed to "read an obituary with great pleasure," as the saying goes.
Considering insurance companies are bound by Medical Loss Ratio rules, if they approved all those claims, all it would do is cause everyone's premiums to skyrocket.
With revenue of $372B that is a profit margin of 5.9%. Which is frankly terrible.
I suppose ideally they would have 0% margin, but 5.9% is a shitty business to be in. The owners could just buy treasuries and get 4.5% with no work and no risk.
Where are you seeing that the UHG executive team still held their meeting the same day? Everything I've read said they cancelled it.
"Thompson, 50, led UnitedHealthcare, the largest private health insurer in the U.S. He was on the way to UnitedHealth Group’s investor day set for Wednesday at 8 a.m. ET at the Hilton, the NYPD said. The company canceled that event after the shooting."
Yeah, as a resident of NY apple country (I'm ~20 minutes from Beak & Skiff, frequently voted one of the best orchards in the country), SnapDragon is the way to go.
How do you know that this is the only spy that was caught? It seems in the west's best interest from a propaganda perspective to paint the FSB in a poor light (to discourage cooperation), and they are obviously selective about what gets disclosed.
Because our intelligence agencies do fail (the Trump assassination attempt is the most recent). We can choose to construct epicyclic explanations for this or we can update our priors broadly. Only outcomes will determine which is right. I think our intelligence orgs are probably not uniquely immune to the quality failures the rest of our government orgs are experiencing.
Someone who only really decided to shoot Trump like the week of the rally, and didn't have to do anything that a normal american doesn't do in order to obtain a rifle, a bunch of ammo, an aerial view of the location, and practice time firing said gun.
A reminder that if you want to live in a country where it is normal to buy a brand new assault rifle, 200 rounds of ammo, and go shoot it all in the same weekend, you CANNOT preemptively stop a mass shooter or wannabee assassin. Nothing he did should put up red flags in a private gun ownership country.
A finite number of failures absolutely does not imply that they never caught any spy except this one. What kind of logic is that?
Looking at the regular expulsions of embassy employees all over the world it should be rather obvious that there is a lot going on about which “we” never hear anything.
(By “we”, I mean normal people having other activities than following closely geopolitics. There is a lot of information to find if you are dedicated enough. A lot of misinformation as well.)
I don't disagree that intelligence agencies fail, but I don't think that the attempted assassination of former-President Trump counts. The shooter appears to have acted completely alone, and so far it seems that he did not give obvious signs online before committing this (yes, he looked up some things about JFK's assassination, but that does not seem enough to raise real flags).
So there was no conspiracy, let alone a foreign one, for the intelligence agencies to have triggered on. This very much looks like a failure of the Secret Service agency, and it will be interesting to see what the final failure analysis looks like, and what they determine can be done better in the future.
And I think the "quality failures the rest of our government orgs are experiencing" is you projecting a bias. If you really think that things are going down hill, please find quantifiable metrics to show that.
> so far it seems that he did not give obvious signs online before committing this
It is suspicious that person who was radicalized enough to organize an attack on a president would have never said anything radical on the internet and not left a manifesto. A good guy that turned a killer overnight. Sometimes you wake up on the wrong foot ey.
I'm not surprised. Wanting to assassinate a high-profile person to "fix things" is a very common conception. While I can see how the lacking security is taken as suspicious, the existence of lone wolfs should not be.
Wow, with that amount of driving you're going to be stuck with ICE cars for a while. I suspect you're a significant outlier though in terms of long trips per month.
With a 22kW (default European 3-phase) charger, it would be easy to have a full battery every morning. A large EV charges from empty to full in 5-8 hours.
In some places 3-phase power is very common (e.g. my small apartment in Copenhagen has a 3-phase supply), though in the UK it's less common. The upgrade might be £1000, or considerably more.
With 7kW (1-phase) it will be OK for a lot of trips — charging in 11-12 hours. This is more power than a normal domestic socket provides. In some countries there's a higher-power socket in the garage already, otherwise it's something the electrician needs to install.
Maybe, but I've got quite a few friends in that do similar amounts of driving so I might not be as far out there as you think. But I agree we are at the higher end.
https://www.twz.com/sea/littoral-combat-ship-can-now-rapidly...