• davel [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    34·
    7 months ago

    This sounds completely unhinged, and I’m struggling to understand why/how Reuters published this uncritical piece that just seems to be a press release.

    • Wheaties [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
      28·
      7 months ago

      China did a speed run of a housing bubble so fast, they’ve caught up to our venture capital bubble in under a year.

      :angry-hex: we can’t let them usurp our capacity for novel investment bubbles! That’s our thing!

      • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        13·
        7 months ago

        Rocket deliveries have been around the corner for the past 20 years, like how the Mars landing is eternally 10 years away.

        Rocket and space shit is always going to be exorbitantly expensive, and because the reasons are physics-related, that will never, ever change. It will always cost a lot of money to put anything into space.

        I’ll never forget when half the site credulously bought into this marketing hype bullshit like a year ago and suggested that the laws of physics might not be real because “have you checked every atom to see they behave in the same way?”

        • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          5·
          7 months ago

          I’ll never forget when half the site credulously bought into this marketing hype bullshit like a year ago and suggested that the laws of physics might not be real because “have you checked every atom to see they behave in the same way?”

          Wait, what?

          • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            10·
            7 months ago

            Back in the days when UlyssesT was still around there was some mini struggle session over whether sending stuff into space would ever be cheap and over the pentagon UFO bullshit with obviously physically impossible feats. It won’t for reasons I’ve already stated, but I distinctly remember being lambasted as closed-minded for suggesting that violating the laws of thermodynamics and basic laws of physics isn’t possible. In addition to this argument, there was also the “have you considered that future bazinga tech might be able to break the laws of physics?” and “how do you know that inertia is actually real when you haven’t observed all possible actions? Just because it seems real doesn’t mean it is!” “Just because we haven’t been able to break the laws of physics doesn’t mean we can’t in the future!”

            Literal “just because you haven’t seen evidence for a unicorn hiding in my gaping asshole doesn’t mean it’s not there” type “arguments”

            People with obviously didn’t know shit about fuck talking out their ass.

            • Smeagolicious [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
              2·
              7 months ago

              I’m no expert in the physical nor economic factors necessary for space transport, but even the best theoretical ways to reduce the cost of space travel (like support infrastructure the US will never invest in) still requires an absurd upfront cost to at best help mitigate some of the cost of future launches. The Elon “spacex reusable rockets and floating platforms will get us to mars” grift bullshit could only put a miniscule dent in the costs necessary for regular transport if it worked as advertised, the “if” being critical. Unless I’ve gravely misinterpreted what I’ve read lol.

      • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        9·
        7 months ago

        Yes, with the big rocket they’re developing. But there were people predicting it in the 60s. And I’m sorry but rockets use more energy than planes which use more energy than boats! Rocket freight isn’t happening