Trump taps Musk to lead 'government efficiency' task force If Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wins the election in November, he plans to create a "government efficiency commission" based on ideas from Tesla, SpaceX, and X CEO Elon Musk, who will also lead the body. Trump spoke of the plans publicly for the first time this week as rumors of such an idea circulated. The …
Trump's been following that plan for decades. When the US Government does that, the dollar will crash just like Trump wants to happen for his master Putin.
With the Dollar/Ruble at an all time low, Putin's billions of rubles are almost worthless. When the Ruble recovers then he'll disappear to somewhere like Cuba or N. Korea.
Accelerate the process: let's break up the world's monopoly of rich people into lots of smaller people and distribute the assets according to need
Maybe France had the right idea in 1789. Will "Let them eat bugs!" be the proverbial biodegradable straw that triggers the next wave of headcount reductions?
"Will "Let them eat bugs!"
If you like, you can buy foil pouches of bugs on Amazon for your dining enjoyment. Just take a close look at the cost/100g. I'll take the steak, thank you very much. (Yes, I've eaten bugs. Ginger fried crickets taste like ginger. Go figure)
is coming together....
Once in office, he'll use his leverage to get the vice president removed, and himself put in the vice presidency.... then give it a couple of months and use article 25 to declare trumpy is imcompetant (an easy task) and he'll be president.
At which point he'll start the process to become emperor of earth with his own outer space lair full of his idea of perfect human beings.....
Great Britain, circa 1640. No bill of rights. Star Chamber courts. Magna Carta a dead letter. Tax optional to the rich but penurious to the ordinary. Power distributed according to loyalty to the bloke at the top. Divided in two, but both parts beholden to the same person.
That was an interesting decade.
England and Wales, Shirley? Or was Wales just treated as part of England at the time? The "union of the three crowns" for James the VI+I was Scotland, England, and Ireland, with no mention of Wales as being in any sense separate from England. Yeah, I know Wales and England were "unified" by Henry VII back in the sixteenth, but these days Wales is described as "a country of the United Kingdom".
And, of course, James VI/I referred to himself as the ruler of "Great Britain and Ireland", even if Scotland stubbornly insisted on continuing to be a separate country with the same king. So I suppose there were probably still people in 1640 referring to the whole island as "Great Britain" politically as well as physically, even if that was rather a gloss.
Ah, the history of the British Isles — so gloriously unkempt. Makes that of the US seem positively straightforward.
Great Britain, circa 1640. No bill of rights. Star Chamber courts. Magna Carta a dead letter. Tax optional to the rich but penurious to the ordinary. Power distributed according to loyalty to the bloke at the top. Divided in two, but both parts beholden to the same person.
And the ever-popular phrase "as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb". Which is to say: the law is so draconian in punishments (somewhere the US is pretty close to already) that, if you are going to rob someone, you might as well kill them too because the punishment is scarely worse (hanging in both cases).
Which is why crime was so prevalent and deadly in Briain at the time. Rampant poverty and inequality where the rich had all the power and could do to the poor *whatever* they wanted.
Sounds familiar, no?
The Natural-Born Citizen clause is vague, inasmuch as it doesn't define what "natural-born" means; but no reputable Constitutional scholar doubts that it excludes Musk. (The main question is whether it excludes people who are born outside the country but had US citizenship from birth due to being born on diplomatically-US territory such as the grounds of an embassy, or for the various other reasons set out in USC 8 §1401.)
The current justices of the Supreme Court certainly have some contentious opinions, and I wouldn't trust Thomas or Alito on almost any question, but there's no way current SCOTUS would throw out the NBC. And even the justices appointed by Trump don't appear to particularly care for him or his ideas, and I wouldn't expect them to be fond of Musk either.
That may be the way an embassy is generally treated by convention, but in most countries it's not the actual legal position. So, "technically", no it it's not US soil. and most definitely not US "sovereign territory". The Vienna Convention describes it in full and being born inside an embassy does not make you automatically a citizen of that country.
A school friend, on a school exchange visit to Germany with me, had a passport showing he was born in Malaysia (in the UK embassy) and he told me his parents, both British and working at said embassy, had to apply for British citizenship for him as he was, by default and place of birth, Malaysian. That application was pretty much a formality, but still had to be done because of the way the UK and Malaysian law and how the Vienna convention works
is to tear up the Constitution, make himself POTUS for life with Elon his nominated successor.
These moves have been on the cards for months.
The way to make MAGA cult members to explode is to ask.
As 'If you say that 'the Donald' won the 2020 election, we can't run again. Why is he running? Isn't that against the law?
Ahhh,
I knew that applied to the President, but not the VP as well.
Otherwise I could definitely see the Musky one slipping into that post, invoking the 25th and become "acting" Pres whille things are "sorted out."
Which could take some time.
Your hatred of Musk is entirely justified but please get your reasons right. Try pricing up SpaceX government contracts.
Europa Clipper was going to launch on SLS for $2B (service module and Orion not needed so a considerable saving on the >$4B full stack). Instead it is going on Falcon Heavy for about $150M.
Compare Starliner and Soyuz to Dragon. Starliner is double the development cost and still isn't ready. Roscosmos were really price gauging NASA until Dragon became operational. Dragon has taken the orbital tourist industry from Roscosmos. 4x Soyuz does not even match 3x Dragon (launches for 12 crew) because Dragon has considerably higher cargo mass. The only ways to get a significant amount of cargo down from ISS are Dragon - or send up multiple empty Soyuzs.
Pre Falcon Heavy a Delta IV Heavy would cost $450M. Competition with SpaceX dropped the price down to $300M. Atlas V is $110M-$153M (was "how big is your budget?") because of competition with Falcon 9 at under $70M. Competition with Falcon caused ULA to replace Deilta IV Heavy and Atlas V with Vulcan ($100M-$200M). Vulcan is still not commercially competitive and is only used when people are willing to pay through the nose for anything but SpaceX. Note Delta and Atlas riquired an extra $1B/year for ground support equipment which is included in the price of Falcon. Falcon has driven Ariane out of the commercial launch business and eaten most of ISRO's lunch. (JAXA and Roscosmos both shot themselves in the foot so are not directly comparable on commercial success.)
SpaceX did not bid on the ISS de-orbit vehicle until NASA made firm fixed price an option. Before that there were no viable bids even with cost plus.
SpaceX will be doing a fixed price uncrewed demo Moon landing and two crewed landings for less than the cost of a single SLS+Orion launch. The nearest competitor (Blue Origin) bid double for a less capable vehicle. Jeff's lobbyists got congress to fund half Blue's Moon lander by chipping in for half the cost himself. Some of that tax payer money is extra NASA budget but some is causing NASA to cancel other projects.
SpaceX's government subsidies came from service contracts. Getting those services elsewhere would have been either far more expensive or not possible. SpaceX only exists because of the commercial cargo program but SpaceX delivered on that firm fixed price contract and US tax payers have benefited massively from the investment. (Rocketplane Kistler ran out of money before delivering. Cygnus works fine - when it can find a ride - but cannot return cargo.) SpaceX has demonstrated what it can deliver while Musk is busy running Twitter into the ground. I dread to think what Musk would do to US government services if he were let loose on them.
Flocke:
Pre Falcon Heavy a Delta IV Heavy would cost $450M. Competition with SpaceX dropped the price down to $300M
cow:
What about the billions that Musk has received in grants ?
Pretty easy to slash $150M a flight when you get a few Billion...
Flocke: Atlas V is $110M-$153M (was "how big is your budget?") because of competition with Falcon 9 at under $70M.
cow:
Same question is it honest to say that Falcon flights ONLY cost 70M ?
"What about the billions that Musk has received in grants ?"
I consider every dime of the billions of "plus" in cost plus contracts collected by the other launch/service providers as grants. They are funded by American tax payers of which I am one. Luckily for us, but not for Boeing the Starliner contract is fixed price and they have to eat the overruns, at least for now.
There is no lying going on at all? Those are the prices that SpaceX charges customers (not just the US government either).
It's also normal not to include (amortised) development cost in the price of the product. If they did that we'd have been seeing a steady decline in launch prices. It's also a stupid and non-transparent way of calculating things.
And where do you think all that money went? That they just put it in a bankaccount and just use it to pay for a bit of each rocket they launch so they can do it below cost?? In reality, that money paid for lots and lots of engineers, buildings, machinery and parts. And the US government is now profiting (richly) from that investment by spending a fraction of what it was before on launching people into space. It's profiting richly on the taxes levied on those well paid engineers too.
iman: There is no lying going on at all? Those are the prices that SpaceX charges customers (not just the US government either).
cow: Glad to see you didnt deny that SPACEX has received Billions in government grants which explains how they can charge less for their services.
iman: And where do you think all that money went? That they just put it in a bankaccount and just use it to pay for a bit of each rocket they launch so they can do it below cost??
cow:Do i really have to explain how research costs money and research costs are built into the price when eone sells a product.
iman:
In reality, that money paid for lots and lots of engineers, buildings, machinery and parts. And the US government is now profiting (richly) from that investment by spending a fraction of what it was before on launching people into space.
cow:
Dont get off your knees while you are giving Elon a BJ.
THe cost for kilo to space is hardly any different when compared to the old days.
Hmmm, let's compare apples to apples (inflation adjusted numbers for all. Source right here
Space Shuttle (STS) cost per KG to LEO, aprox $65400
Delta IV Heavy cost per KG to LEO, aprox $11600
Atlas V cost per KG to LEO, aprox $8100
Saturn 5 cost per KG to LEO, aprox $5400
Falcon 9 cost per KG to LEO, aprox $2100
Falcon Heavy cost per KG to LEO, aprox. $1900
yeah, hardly any difference when compared to the old days... It's only half. Nothing to see here. And then I'm the one calling himself an idiot...
imanidiot.
Strange because the numbers on wiki are significantly higher than your costs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
> This equates to a price of US$2,350 per kg to LEO and US$5,620 per kg to GTO.
Thats 25% more than your claim... and it doesnt include the billions the US Gov gave to Musk for rocket developments.
> The contract was awarded to SpaceX for a price of under 30% of that of a typical Delta IV Heavy launch (US$440 million). Payload includes two separate satellites and at least three additional rideshare payloads (including TETRA-1)[135] and weighed roughly 3.7 t (8,200 lb) at launch.[
4000kgs cost $440M
thats not $2000 per kilo but 5.5x more.
Yup im sure your figures are completely honest.
Bare launch cost does not equal full contract price. The prices you list include all sorts of extra handling and fueling charges that are not included in the bare 1:1 comparison of the launch price (for any of the systems/launchers). Yes, it's a fair comparison. And even in your quote it's clearly shown that the contract price, even if it's higher than my link, is not even a third of a typical Delta IV H contract. Which also more or less tracks. Delta IV Heavy is just higher cost overall and likely has less added cost.
I don't know where Wikipedia gets it's prices from but taking the CURRENT prices it would be even LESS than what my link states. And 2 lines down from your quote:
"The nearest competing U.S. rocket was ULA's Delta IV Heavy with a LEO payload capacity of 28.4 t (63,000 lb) costs US$12,340 per kg to LEO and US$24,630 per kg to GTO.[99] The Delta IV Heavy was retired in 2024"
So again, the numbers don't support your argument. SpaceX Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are FAR cheaper than anything that came before. Ariane Space and ISRO were doing good business with their launchers until SpaceX showed up and their launch customer portfolio has fallen off a cliff. If SpaceX was really that expensive, they'd still be competitive and getting customers. They're barely getting commercial customers unless it's for political, not economic reasons. Again, reality doesn't support your argument.
IMA: Bare launch cost does not equal full contract price.
cow: SO you just admitted your numbers are complete bullshit and not anywhere near your claims.
~
IMA: I don't know where Wikipedia gets it's prices from but taking the CURRENT prices it would be even LESS than what my link states. And 2 lines down from your quote:
"The nearest competing U.S. rocket was ULA's Delta IV Heavy with a LEO payload capacity of 28.4 t (63,000 lb) costs US$12,340 per kg to LEO and US$24,630 per kg to GTO.[99] The Delta IV Heavy was retired in 2024"
cow:
If you look at all the gov launches NONE of the costs are anywhere near the numbers you claim per KG or launch. Every single launch is 5x or 10x more, and if you divide the cost by the payload weight its no where near $2K.
When you then divide the billions in grants by the number of governent launches, the prices basically doubles again. After all that the numbers for SPACEX are hardly any different to any other provider.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches
> First launch of Phase 2 US Air Force contract. US$316 million cost for the fiscal year of 2022, for the first flight,[30] mostly includes the cost of an extended payload fairing, upgrades to the company's West Coast launch pad at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, and a vertical integration facility required for NRO missions, while the launching price does not increase.
$315M for 3750 kgs...
cow: doesnt sound like $2K a kg
~
Classified payload contract awarded in June 2018 for US$130 million,[217] increased to $149.2 million in August 2021, due to "a change in the contract requirements" and expected to be completed by 14 April 2022.
for 6350kg
cow: so again another flight thats no where near under $2K a kg.
Musk != SpaceX. I have no idea how much Tesla gets in grants. I will leave that for someone with a strong interest in the auto industry. Moving money from publicly traded Tesla to privately owned SpaceX would leave Musk open to share holder litigation. The board and majority of investors might well support it with joy and enthusiasm but a few Tesla investors are not clueless fanboys. There would have been litigation that hit the news. Part of getting a government contract is the government checking you can deliver (or you are Boeing). If SpaceX prices were significantly lower than from their costs it would show up in the source selection documents (and a different source would be selected). As an example US tax payers are mostly paying for adapting Starship into a Luna lander. The bulk of Starship development (ground support equipment, heat shield, landing and propellant transfer) is funded by SpaceX. SpaceX has/had two expensive projects: Starship and Starlink. They had two big sources of funding: investors and Falcon. To the extent that we can see financials of a private company the numbers matched up - until SpaceX scaled back on seeking investors and Starlink became revenue positive.
Of course $70M cost for a Falcon 9 is a massive lie. I was talking about the price (which is $69.75M until the end of the year according to their capabilities and services document). That is a base price and it can easily increase if for example you require SpaceX to load up your satellite with toxic propellants. The same goes for other launch providers. There are various estimates for the internal cost based on observation and at least two occasions where financials leaked. Every detail SpaceX is watched obsessively by space enthusiasts (this will include some Musk fanboys but most I am talking about people with a strong interested in space and rockets who find Musk's presence in the industry to be extremely distasteful.) There is satellite photography, aerial photography, continuous live streaming cameras and people trekking through swamp to get the best pictures which are examined and discussed in fine detail by a baying horde that includes some real aerospace professionals. Some numbers come from the cost of raw materials and others from the number of cars in the employee car parks. Between them the cost of a Falcon 9 launch comes out to $18M-$25M.
I can state with complete certainty that SpaceX launch prices are not significantly subsidised by US tax payers. NASA/DoD are not even SpaceX's biggest Falcon customers. Payments directly to SpaceX show up in government documents. Payments through Tesla would result in shareholder litigation. The money is not moving under the table either. Half the US's elected representative hate Musk's politics and both halves prefer funding Boeing. Find some evidence or accept that you are wrong. You would get paid lots if you show it to the right Tesla investors. Musk might actually buy you a pony if you can prove SpaceX lied on bids for government contracts.
Yes Apollo did. With a carte-blanche "and damn the expense" push that killed several astronauts, took massive risks and in some cases succeeded by sheer luck. You really don't want to put Apollo on a pedestal as an efficiently run and cost-effective program, because it really REALLY wasn't. It was successful and an engineering masterpiece but it had it's fair share of drawbacks that became apparent as soon as Apollo 11 landed and the US went "OK, now what".
"You really don't want to put Apollo on a pedestal as an efficiently run and cost-effective program"
A s-ton of money was also spent on development that didn't go into the final hardware. Luckily, pure science always pays off so that data on all sorts of things is available going forward. I see that sort of spending as a proper function of government. Going back to the moon as a government endeavor also needs to produce lots of knowledge to be disseminated to industry with the goal of having private industry setting up on/in the moon and the government can then pay for seats to go and do more science.
I'd rather see more spending on science than yet another expensive fighter jet that doesn't work
iman: Killed several astronauts ?
cow: Thousands of American kids die today because they cant afford medicines, so please dont pretend americans care about americans.
iman: Yes Apollo did.
cow: THe way things are going Musk there will be NOTHING on the moon as required by the deadline.
Apollo only had one mistake Apollo 1, every other launch after that was a success except for the Tom Hanks mission.
imanidiot: Except for all the other less publicized closed calls that you're conveniently ignoring.
cow: I did not ignore anything i gave a very brief and honest overview. Your last statement doesnt prove anything because it does not give any examples.
Apollo did all their goals and only Apollo1 had any fatalities.
Musk has yet to achieve a single goal for the moon mission and has continues to restart with new ideas and remains stuck at nothign achieved.
The only Starship HLS milestones with dates lightly penciled in the sand are for Artemis 3 and 4. No-one with a clue believes those dates. NASA has been playing schedule chicken hoping either the space suits or the human landing system would turn out to be a longer pole than SLS/Orion (all three will be later than currently scheduled). Orion heat shield is looking like the biggest problem which is delaying Artemis 2 with knock on effects for 3. There are so many issues with 4 that it is hard to pick a winner at this time. Starship HLS will remain on budget from the point of view of US tax payers. I am not sure if SpaceX investors will be paying more than they expect. SLS has blown its budgets again recently and I expect more of the same.
If you are looking for subsidised launch prices start with SLS then try to figure out who is in second place between ULA and Ariane. Boeing/Lockheed cannot find a buyer for ULA at a price they consider reasonable and Ariane 6's budget was based on 50% of launches being commercial. (Kuiper is only a temporary partial rescue for both.)
"cow: Musk starship has also missed all its moon mission goals..."
Schedules often slip in aerospace but, there seems to be fundamental design issues with Starship that may mean it will never work. NASA is questioning Elon's statements that the Raptor engine is fit for purpose. No power plant means no mission. Using the Starship as a lunar lander is more than just a lander, it's an entire launch system that has yet to be worked out. The v1 Starships they've blown up thus far will need to be replaced by a v2 and maybe a v3 before it might be viable. The Raptor engines need to perform at spec for multiple missions to meet the cadence of what Elon has proposed and been contracted to deliver.
The design for a space mission moves in two directions, downward from the payload and upward from the engines. Virgin Galactic boxed themselves in with their HTPB rubber engine before it was fully developed. Moving to Nylon as a fuel meant adding Helium to blend down the Nitrous Oxide for stability which cost two passenger seats and blew the profitability model out of the window. Solution: Go back to the old definition of space and shut down the HTPB rubber engine before the thrust becomes too rough for delicate meatsacks. SpaceX (Elon) have been touting how advanced their engines are but they have problems on every flight and can't lift the needed payloads.
mach: chedules often slip in aerospace but, there seems to be fundamental design issues with Starship that may mean it will never work. NASA is questioning Elon's statements that the Raptor engine is fit for purpose. No power plant means no mission
cow: No the problem is SpaceX keeps changing far too much every few months.
The catcher will never work and is useless because one will never be built on the moon or anywhere else. The idea of Starship landing an entire rocket of that size on the Moon or Mars is broken, because it will be a gamble to hope it can take off again.
Then we have the problem of storing the methane etc fuels for long periods of time. Again this is a major unproven gamble that nobody knows can be solved. Apollo kept things simple with hypogolic fuels, its basically impossible for them to fail.
"The catcher will never work and is useless because one will never be built on the moon or anywhere else."
The catcher can work. There's nothing that makes it impossible. That said, there's a lot of risk for the reward of not needing landing legs on the booster. Getting the required accuracy in all weather conditions with minimal propulsion is the problem. If you have several meters to play with, the 'cost' of the landing legs might be a good exchange for the propellants that could be necessary to have enough margin to correct position at the last moments. With differential GPS, it's theoretically possible to get 2cm accuracy. Trying to position a huge mass quickly with a crosswind negates the theory.
Trying to catch the second stage after re-entry into the atmosphere may not be financially viable. It's been technically possible for decades to use rockets over and over, but the finances didn't support reuse-ability. The cadence was so low that just splashing them at Pt Nemo was cheaper. Blue Origin has plans to keep production running on New Glenn even while reusing vehicles. Jeff's comments have been very enlightening. Check out Dim Todd's tour of Blue in Florida. I would have asked if Blue had plans for a fully expendable first stage to launch even more mass when necessary. Maybe even a plan to put boosters into LEO and link them up for other duties after they've sent cargo to the moon.
Mach: The catcher can work. There's nothing that makes it impossible.
cow: First things first.
How are they going to build a catcher on the moon/mars ?
Theres an army of equpiment and people building the current one in TX, how are they going to build such a large thing away from earth ?
SpaceX will need a 1000 rockets to transport the material to build the catcher there.. again i ask how will this be done ?
The fact they need a catcher over there proves my other question whether its possible to land a starship on the Moon or Mars in the first place.
You don't need a catcher at 1/6th earth gravity. The lunar lander version of Starship will have landing legs and likely will have engines mounted higher up on the fuselage. How they will do it on Mars is currently an open question. Likely the first bunch of landings will not be returning anyway. (Iirc the plan is for at least 10 to 20 one way cargo missions to deliver supplies ahead of any human landing attempt.) Those landings could include enough equipment and supplies to build a simplified landing and takeoff pad.
"The lunar lander version of Starship will have landing legs and likely will have engines mounted higher up on the fuselage."
Really? That's not been in any design Elon has made public. Did I miss something?
Elon's plan is to launch an orbiting fuel depot and a whole bunch of rockets to tank it up. There's no talk of cargo missions to the moon to pre-position supplies. Building a landing pad would take people. Too much is unknown about doing anything more than walking about on the surface to automate it.
Again Apollo didnt land a rocket because NASA believed it was a risk to try and land a full rocket on the moon because it might tip over or the legs might get damaged together with the uneven-ness of the moon.
As i said before SpaceX keeps trying to do things different away from past successes. In this case the landing a rocket on the moon is a real risk. THere is no time in the schedule for a test unmanned flight to try and land a rocket on the moon. Apollo didnt want to take that risk of a rocket tipping over which is why the designed the lunar lander thing. Musk has yet again introduced a new risk, and the timetable does not allow this.
I'm not saying there is going to be cargo missions to the moon. I'm saying there's going to be cargo missions to MARS! Pay attention please. I also never said there was plans to build a landing pad on the moon. On Mars, with the cargo capacity of Starship they might (and this is speculation currently) include enough robotic systems to pre-pave an area for a human landing system, or they might do without. Experience with HLS will probably sway what method they'll go for.
As to the engine location, because I'm lazy right now here's quote from the HLS wiki page
"Like other Starship variants, Starship HLS has six Raptor engines mounted at the tail, which are used during launch and the majority of landing and ascent.[5]
When within 100 meters of the lunar surface, the variant will use high‑thrust RCS thrusters located mid‑body to avoid plume impingement with the lunar regolith"
The debate is still ongoing on whether the RCS thrusters are needed but CURRENTLY it's in the plans.
imanidiot: When within 100 meters of the lunar surface, the variant will use high‑thrust RCS thrusters located mid‑body to avoid plume impingement with the lunar regolith"
cow: How do we know this will work ?
What guarantee is there that the rockets will work again to life off the astronauts ?
We all know Apollo took the safe option of the lunar module and ascent module and those worked. What guarantee and where in the schedule will SPACEX test the lunar return rocket ?
"How are they going to build a catcher on the moon/mars ?"
The premise behind catching the rocket is to decrease the time it takes to reuse the rocket along with saving the mass of the landing legs. Something going to the Moon or Mars is far less likely to be reused and it would take a lot of need to spend the time building the capability off-Earth.
"SpaceX will be doing a fixed price uncrewed demo Moon landing and two crewed landings for less than the cost of a single SLS+Orion launch. The nearest competitor (Blue Origin) bid double for a less capable vehicle."
So far, Starship hasn't completed a single mission. Hasn't reached orbit (empty). There's been no mock up delivered to NASA. The uncrewed demo flight was due in Jan 2024. There's no orbital refueling station. No tanker Starship flown. Elon is pushing his Mars program once again promising flights in 2025. SpaceX has been paid 2/3 of the money for the demo mission that's nowhere close to being ready. The Starship as launched does not have the payload capacity required as stated by Elon. There's been no demonstration of cryogenic propellant transfer in space (another $55mn contract) and no verification of working connectors (another NASA contract to SpaceX).
If Blue Origin delivers a working vehicle that's compatible with multiple launch vehicles (maybe even the F9H) at twice the price, at least it will be a working vehicle. At this point, to make a comparison of non-existent hardware's prices isn't valid.
SpaceX keeps inching closer to the same price per astronaut that Russia was charging the US for rides to and from ISS.
SpaceX's Falcon program might be fine, but it's hard to say since it's a private company. SpaceX as a whole is hemorrhaging money to the tune of a couple of billion a year with no ROI on the horizon.
"It's easy to talk about but most give up when they realise they need a passport and visa."
Getting a visa for Oz or NZ is no problem. Getting one that allows you to work IS a big problem. It can even be a pain to get performer visas sometimes. One band I was with had a bunch of crew since it was a complicated stage production and it took a bunch of wrangling to get the last person on the list (I can't remember what the limit was for bands at the time). We were tempted to re-file as a traveling circus and calling everybody a performer rather than making a distinction between the band and the crew.
And once the border is closed, put them to work crop picking.
BasicReality: “I don’t know that some new task force is needed. It’s simple, day one fire 50% of the workers in most agencies. Give the remaining ones 6 months to wind the operations down.”
Trump can do that sort of thing fine without Musk. He fired the pandemic response team in 2018.
The problem with Trump somehow managing to get in again is not just that he will destroy America, it’s that it will have severe knock-on effects for the rest of us,,,
I just hope there is enough time left for Trump to upset enough putative Republican voters that they realise the stupidity of voting for him, assuming they have at least a basic grasp of democracy (not a given, I realise).
Lets face the facts.
Perceptions are one thing, demonstration in actual war has shown reality is a deadly truth you might not want others to see your actual capabitilities.
Russia today is hardly the monster everyone was worried about 3. years ago.. China knows this and this is why they wont dare attack Taiwan, because they are a paper tiger. The CCP is very much aware they dont have the capabitlities they want to pretend they have.
The same is also true of the west but perhaps on the same scale. THe day of the tank is over, Abrams, Challengers, Leopards while better than Russian junk arent exactly winners either. THey are all for starters getting stuck in the mud in Ukraine because they are too heavy. There are probably many other weaknesses with Western equipment that American doesnt want to be proven.
"you might not want others to see your actual capabitilities"
"Russia today is hardly the monster everyone was worried about 3. years ago"
"The CCP is very much aware they dont have the capabitlities they want to pretend they have"
So you are confident that Russia and China do not have the capabilities they claim to have but also it is prudent to hide your true capabilities?
I'm sure Russia could 'win' in Ukraine in an instant. Drop a nuke or two, job done.
No, I firmly believe what Trump says:
Donald Trump was asked today if he would commit to prioritizing legislation to make
childcare affordable, and if so, what specific legislation he would advance.
This is an unedited transcript of his response:
Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Senator
Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It's a
very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm\
talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is. Couldn't, you know,
there's something, you have to have it – in this country you have to have it.
But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I'm
talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they're not used to — but
they'll get used to it very quickly – and it's not gonna stop them from doing
business with us, but they'll have a very substantial tax when they send product
into our country. Uh, those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we're
talking about, including child care, that it's going to take care.
We're gonna have - I, I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short
period of time, coupled with, uh, the reductions that I told you about on waste and
fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have
to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small
relative to the kind of economic numbers that I'm talking about, including growth,
but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just, uh, that I just told you
about.
We're gonna be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care, uh, is
talked about as being expensive, it's, relatively speaking, not very expensive
compared to the kind of numbers we'll be taking in. We're going to make this into
an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we'll
worry about the rest of the world. Let's help other people, but we're going to take
care of our country first. This is about America first. It's about Make America
Great Again, we have to do it because right now we're a failing nation, so we'll
take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you.
You're welcome.
The Repugs were certainly flexible about that with Ted Cruz (born in Canada, though I think his mother was American? edit: just checked, yes, she was) and John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone while it was under US control). The problem is that there is no universally agreed upon definition of "natural born citizen".
The coriolis effect acts in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere, but at less than 0.7 milli-rpm (depending on lattitude) is unlikely ever the dominant influence on plugholes.
Cutting tomatoes does blunt knives, humans can't avoid sideways forces on the blade, and your chopping board is harder than a tomato.
I think it was an attempt at sarcasm and humor. Trump is not very good at sarcasm and has probably never succeeded at humor in his life. In someone else's voice, that line could actually be said in such a way that people would understand that it was supposed to be a joke, and I'm guessing that Musk wrote the joke, because it's exactly the kind of humblebragging and prevaricating to get that far that he enjoys. Not that he would be great at delivering it either.
A warmonger like Cheney will back anything that will make him profit.
I have always wondered just how much of the infrastructure that the likes of Haliburton installed into Iraq and Afghanistan that was later destroyed was actually installed in the first place? No-one can go back and check...
Let me guess? He'll start by eliminating that pesky SEC that keeps doing things like preventing him from making fraudulent statements about his company to pump and dump stock.
It's rather fitting Trump is surrounding himself with business tycoons that attempt to run their businesses like a dictator...
Move along boys, there's nothing here to worry about. We've already been assured that there's no conflict of interest in having the DoD run by arms industry executives; or the NIH and CDC overseen by drug- and hospital-industry officials; or the judiciary composed entirely of former litigators whose firms benefit from obtuse rulings; or the medical malpractice boards being owned by state medical guilds, with no representatives from the government or the general public.
So I'm sure there won't be any conflict of interest here either.
if Trump were to extend the brief to Healthcare...
Musk would lead the "Health & Efficiency" task force
The US and the rest of the world can be saved in the nick of time by the snapping shut of the jaws of a great big, extreamly hungry Aligator. Just need fate to arrange the meeting of said aligator and Trump on one of his golf courses in Florida, when Trump goes into long grass to retrieve a golf ball* - then again, this being Trump, if a ball ends up in long grass, he'll just put his hand into his pocket for another ball, thereby thwarting fate
*no, not one of those ones!
I wonder how long until Trump Derangement Syndrome is an actual medically recognised issue?
Now the SCOTUS has confirmed the President is the executive I expect Trump will be cutting a lot of jobs in the misinformation departments.
On the 'President is the executive' bit, who is running the country? Biden has his feet up on a beach now everyone knows he isnt capable. Harris who covered for him all this time could be the president, especially now everyone came out of the woodwork to say they knew Biden wasnt capable. It was the Dems who argued the Executive wasnt the president.
And finally its amazing that Hunter has agreed to plead guilty and try to have his sentencing done in time for his dads signature to get him out of trouble.
You can love or hate how Elon Musk got a net worth well over $200 billion. The fact remains he has built himself an incredible business empire, and that demonstrates some skill in financially sound decision making.
Our government was NOT founded on the idea of career politicians. It was founded on the idea of citizens making their success in life, then serving in the government for a limited time to give back. Let's not forget that Trump is a billionaire too. Career politicians have run this country in to the ground, they have had their chance. I would be absolutely thrilled to have two financially successful businessmen in our country's executive leadership.
Hate & downvote all you want. But it is not always the most popular person that gets the job done. In fact it rarely is when someone has to make a tough decision to solve the problem. With national debt over $35 Trillion (over $100k for each of us individually), right now America needs some tough decisions made if we hope to survive our financial future.
"You can love or hate how Elon Musk got a net worth well over $200 billion."
You have to omit the word "net". A large amount of the Tesla stock he holds that makes up much of the assumed wealth is pledged (other side of the ledger). A balance sheet can still be a net zero with really big numbers on both sides.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
