all 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 27 points 1 year ago

Does a ketamine-coke combo make everyone sound like this?

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If the economic success of your product involves mining the moon, you might be in a bubble

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Is that a fake tweet? If not, what is he even talking about here? Starship, a cargo rocket, is going to be delivering.... electricity.... to orbit? And we have have to ship that electricity off the moon with a rail gun/mass driver?

    Exactly how does elon think electricity works? Is he planning on shipping the electrons directly, or in a convenient chemical storage tank? And if the latter, does that mean hes just loading starship with extremely heavy low energy density batteries? And wtf does AI have to do with any of this?

    The solution is simple. Nuclear. If you want to go sci-fi or are willing to wait about a hundred years, well start getting solar powered satellites that beam their energy through microwaves back down to Earth, or more likely to an orbiter that massively tones it down then sends it to mulitple power farms on the ground since you dint want a cosmic microwave death ray pointing directly at Earth.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Nuclear is cool, but I like the independence solar panels bring to individuals :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Ok upon rereading, im still utterly baffled by the AI part, but yes, mass producing satellites on the moon and shooting them into Earth orbit or a close sun orbit via a mass driver is pretty likely in the future. We WILL be making satellites that will form the basis of a dyson swarm, and its very unlikely we will make them on Earth as almost anywhere else in the solar system is going to be easier. The moon is an excellent starting point, but in the long term the moon is primarily just going to be a refueling station for deeper space trips. Most of our soace manufacturing and shipping is going to be primarily handled in the asteroid belt, and then in the much further future there will be more people living in the Keiper belt than has ever existed on Earth.

    Edit: in case its not obvious, my passion is futurology, this is literally the shit i spend all day reading and researching about every single day. My passion used to be AI but since the creation of LLMs most of the itneresting research has been sidelined.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not so sure that the belt will be our manufacturing base, at least in the beginning. It's awful far away, and the moon already has a lot of the base resources we need

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah def not in the beginning. Itll probably be moon->trojan asteroids-> skimming jupiter & asteroid belt ->outer planets & Keiper belt -> oort cloud

    I dont know if humanity would ever get to where people are living and working in the oort cloud, even if you gave us infinite time to do so. I do like the thought of generational ships in deep space though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    The issue is power transmission. Wireless transmission has repeatedly been shown to be highly energy intensive and prone to severe loss the further you're sending it, plus you still have to have a way to pick it up and convert it to electricity at a useful rate on the ground.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Solar irradiance above the atmosphere (i.e., in orbit) is 1360 W/m^2. At ground level, it's 1120, so a loss of ~18% due to the atmosphere.

    If transmission losses plus the massive costs of launch, keeping the panels cool (no conduction/convection in space), and maintenance add up to greater than 18%, it's more efficient on the ground.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It's a lot more than that.

    First, the best place for them is GEO. In that orbit, they're only in the earth's shadow for small chunks of time throughout the whole year. The extra delta-v to go from LEO to GEO is generally worth it.

    Second, never have to worry about cloud cover.

    Third, 1120 W/m^2 is an average that changes substantially depending on where and when you're talking about. The 1360 W/m^2 in GEO is constant.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Nuclear has very high up front costs. There are estimates that with reasonable transmission losses, putting solar satalites into orbit with Falcon 9 would already be cost competitive with nuclear. Starship should bring this down even more, perhaps even an order of magnitude. At which point there would be zero use case for new nuclear fission plants.

    Now, this is comparing a hypothetical satellite system with actually built nuclear projects. That said, nuclear fission power is an economic dead end. Advocates have been so caught up in talking about the safety aspects (mostly talking points built in the 90s against Greenpeace and never changed) that they haven't addressed the actual reason nobody wants to build them: they suck copious amounts of money in the build out and blow their construction schedule.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    So 100 GW of production capacity a year? That's a number for sure, but why des it have to be in space? And somehow I doubt this would be in addition to the current 600 GW being installed per year around the world.

    I'm not even going to get into the Lunar ketamine-powered AI satellites.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    It's astroturing at its finest. What happens when the corporation that runs the station on the moon no longer wants to send that energy down to Earth? Furthermore, what happens when the colony on the moon that operates the station and/or facility rebels and becomes a new nation?

    I've had a hunch for some time that Musk 'turned evil,' would be one of the first people to capitalize on his popularity, wealth, and opportunity to form his own mega corp nation on Mars. This seems like a great opportunity to put that in motion. Plus, if he and other billionaires decided to fund this tech and patent it, they would for sure use it against us in any way they could. Gatekeeping humanities progress is at stake if any of this comes true.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    He's gonna need a big ol' cable

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I can build a Perpetuum Mobile, if I only solve the other parts of the equation.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Is this a guy who stole someone's tweet, put a pic of themself in the background and the posted it without comment? If so, can we call it low-effort coattails?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Bro it's called a meme.

    The dude in the background is a well known viral celebrity who makes joke videos that mocks those people who make "quick hack" videos with convoluted solutions to mundane problems that already have mundane solutions.

    Superimposing Musky's tweet over him doing his bit is the whole joke.

  • source
  • parent
  • 29 comments in c/memes@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    "GW per year" and "TW per year" is nonsense.
    Watts is a unit of power, which is energy per second.
    Im not sure Musk even understands what a Watt is, he just wants to sound smart.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's watts multiplied by time, aka energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    As much as I'd like to shit on him, I believe he talks about building energy generation capacity (aka GW or TW) in a certain time period (i.e. one year). Like building 1000 100MW power stations every year, but in space.

    Can't tell if it makes any sense economically though, getting anything in scale to space is still kinda very expensive.

    And if you try to make whatever you need to get to space light, compact and efficient, it usually quickly becomes very expensive itself.

    So "solve other parts of equation" probably means "give me money".

    Later edit: if you ever played Factorio, this is equivalent of amount of solar panels crafted and delivered to space platform per hour.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Watt is an Energy unit, period, as electrical unit, as in this case, it's W=VA(δ), only as work/kinetic unit it's W = J/s = Nm/s = kgm²*s^-^³

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Classic tech bro solution. All bullshit and jargon. Razzle, dazzle the mark to buy into a sham investment.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Living in Texas, the land of massive, scorching hot, sun drenched parking lots, I just cannot understand why solar awnings like that have not become the standard.

    Oh wait, oil lobbyists.... that's why....

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    "solar-powered AI satellites"
    I mean I get the picture, but that picture is driven by buzzwords.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Yeah it's all possible when you asspull nonexistent tech. Oh wait, USA tried to make railgun but failed. In making a gun. In Murica. Let that sink in about how cooked tech research there is if they can't even make a gun.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Uh, what? Railguns are a tech as old as time, i highly doubt the US was the first to create one. I could throw a railgun together in about 30 minutes with the stuff i have laying around the house. They are INCREDIBLY simple, literally 1 moving part and no circutry whatsoever. Just hook your positive to one rail, negative to the other. Right hand rule tells you which direction your projectile will fire.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The issue is that large scale railguns tend to self destruct, either from the heat or from the immense forces, so it can only fire a few shots before it needs extensive maintenance, and the time it takes to recharge is quite long in most practical applications (warships and such) which is why the american military has given up on the concept.

    For launching stuff you have the same issues, except you now the payload isn't a solid piece of metal but an intricate component which somehow needs to survive the insane acceleration (unless you use a really long barrel)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The first issue is definitely solvable, thats just a material science issue. The second one is also definitely possible, but depending on the payload it might be very difficult. Seems easier to just accelerate a tungsten sphere to mach 4 than to bother with a warhead.

    For the intense heat, thats a waste product. Get rid of it by not producing it in the first place. Which means your rails are now cryocooled superconductors.

    For the immense forces, i might need to look into railguns again. Afaik the only force that isnt being counteracted is the force on the projectile. I might be wrong at those power levels, while the net force should be zero the force on the arms could be opposite, ripping the railgun apart or crushing it. The solution i would think is coiling your rails around the barrel, now the rails effectively act as their own support with a minor bracing.

    For the record, i didnt put it together that he was referring specifically to the large models. I just knew i made a rail gun back in high school and its wasnt difficult, so the idea that the US govt cant copy my project struck me as absurd.

    Finally, im a hobby electrician with my passions lying more in technology and futurism, so i have looked into railguns in passing but I do not work for the military nor have i looked into the specifics of the large scale models, so corrections are more than welcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Yeah the first issue is in theory solvable, but they never managed to do it, not in a practical manner at least (huge cryocooled superconductors is probably not very practical)

    The forces are from the immense magnetic fields, two parallel wires with current in opposite directions will repel eachother, so the rails are trying to move apart from eachother

    This plus the heat causing material expansion plus the rails needing to be very straight for it all to work, and you end up having a bit of an engineering headache on your hands

    But yeah it's mainly when you build large ones meant to fire things at really really high speeds, maybe we'll find a way to improve it one day, but for now it's sadly dead in the water (in the military sector at least, but they tend to be the main driving force behind technology that fires things)

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    We need more open source faster

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments