If we look at the stated goals (as inconsistent as they have been):
Unconditional surrender -> nope
Regime change via popular uprising -> nope
Destruction or removal of enriched uranium -> nope
Destruction of drones and ballistic missile capability -> nope
Final goal of getting back to the pre-war state (which is admitting loss in itself):
Reopen in the straight of Hormuz -> nope
So no objectives have been achieved, and although you could argue they will be in the future, this seems increasingly unlikely in the short timeline the Trump admin has given themselves. It any of them were possible at all, which seems doubtful.
> What criteria are you using for this assessment?
We lost the moment we started because we went on a whim and without a cohesive strategy. This was a stupid stupid thing to do, and the longer it goes on the more obvious it becomes that this administration has no idea what it is doing.
> BUG 2: every time you use --resume, your entire conversation cache rebuilds from scratch. one resume on a large conversation costs $0.15 that should cost near zero.
I use it with an api key, so I can use /cost. When I did a resume, it showed the cost from what I thought was first go. I don't think it's clear what the difference is between api key and subscription, but am I believe that simply resuming cost me $5? The UI really make it look like that was the original $5.
It's certainly about their lives, but it's also about not tanking the program due to catastrophic failure. The astronauts are going to do it regardless of the risk.
I'm pretty much with you. The fraud and waste is infuriating. But, frankly, what is the point of this program? At the risk of not being skeptical, can't we say that we conquered lunar orbit in the 1960s? I don't understand why this is some enormous scratch R&D project.
I don't know anything about this program, so here's a basic question: why does manufacturing need to be easier? Are they intending to mass produce these craft?
Yeah that's the second part. So do they intend manufacture these en masse? If not, why not bite the bullet and manufacture it to spec, since it seems like the honeycomb is integral to the performance? Even if they do, what are we going to do with some number of deeply flawed craft?
Just manufacturing enough to cover a single craft is something you want keep as consistent as possible. Either way, I don't think the second real-world test ever should be with a crew, given the results of the first.
Just out of curiosity, do we know if the honeycomb method worked before it was deemed too labor intensive? Because I'm told that using this block method results in chunks blowing out.
I'm also having a problem with this set-up: Apollo is at the upper size limit for avcoat; Orion is way bigger; use avcoat.
Reading a real front-fell-off aura from this project. It makes me wonder if spending 6% of GDP to develop and run a crewed lunar program 60 years ago and then immediately destroying the evidence, r&d artifacts, and materials fab capabilities was a good idea.
Apparently, it worked too well in Lockheed Martin opinion.
>Temperatures on re-entry “were lower than we expected” on EFT-1, Hawes told reporters here during Lockheed Martin’s annual media day.
>That data supports a Lockheed Martin proposal to scrap the current heat-shield design, which features a 5-meter-diameter honeycombed frame, in favor of an alternative composed of rectangular heat-resistant tiles glued together with a silicone-based adhesive, Hawes said.
I stumbled across this video a few years ago and recently found it again from my history. It's got under 30,000 views and about 500 likes. Just sharing because, in my opinion, it deserves some attention. In about 30 minutes you'll understand the essentials of the OSI model.
It's not apparent that this apple mdm will do internal distribution or just provide for encouraging a set of installed apps already on the app store. If it does, that would be the biggest reason for me to jump to the free product.
What criteria are you using for this assessment?
reply