Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   "Down here at Honest Elon's Used Rocket Emporium, our prices are InSaNe We've got lightly used rockets that were driven by a little old lady on her way to the ISS. Free budgie with every rocket"   (arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Global Positioning System, Rocket, US Space Force, GPS modernization, critical Global Positioning System missions, General relativity, Reuse, Space Force  
•       •       •

1218 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 26 Sep 2020 at 6:50 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



23 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-09-26 1:01:16 AM  
SCTV Tex & Edna Boil's Organ Emporium
Youtube xS5zNX2zVbk
 
2020-09-26 7:01:26 AM  
Will I need to smuggle the budgie myself?
 
2020-09-26 7:26:56 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


/Free the Budgies!
 
2020-09-26 8:21:04 AM  

Monty_Zoncolan: I saw my first Tesla TV ad this morning, girl grows up, dad's a violinist who loses his hearing and they ride out to the desert where she's set-up a festival sized sound system and a record player... I'm not sure what any of that said about the car but... yeah.


It's, like, a representation that music is universal, man.  That you can put your life on hold for the sound, man.  Just like you can put your life on hold to buy a Tesla, man...
 
2020-09-26 8:26:37 AM  

freakdiablo: Monty_Zoncolan: I saw my first Tesla TV ad this morning, girl grows up, dad's a violinist who loses his hearing and they ride out to the desert where she's set-up a festival sized sound system and a record player... I'm not sure what any of that said about the car but... yeah.

It's, like, a representation that music is universal, man.  That you can put your life on hold for the sound, man.  Just like you can put your life on hold to buy a Tesla, man...


"Love is all around you.....love is waiting outside you doo-eeee-oooor. Waiting here for you...is this love made just for two...."

I can already hear it!
 
2020-09-26 8:27:08 AM  
Hmmm. Now I think it's "knocking" and not "waiting". Oh well.
 
2020-09-26 10:28:43 AM  
vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2020-09-26 10:57:30 AM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: [iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/xS5zNX2z​Vbk?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3​A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsap​i=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&​widgetid=1]


This skit is the first thing I thought of when someone mentions budgies. Andrea Martin's acting as the awkward wife is genius.
 
2020-09-26 11:04:44 AM  
OMG SCTV. They filmed in my hometown for the first few years before moving east. Got to meet Bob and Doug. Still haven't seen a single episode of Schitts Creek though. The premise seems a bit too stale.
 
2020-09-26 12:28:43 PM  

Ambitwistor: [vignette.wikia.nocookie.net image 340x204]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-26 12:34:02 PM  
Newsflash Vacuum cleaner sucks up budgie, The Magnificent seven, The Clash
Youtube 3j9xJPTnYZ4
 
2020-09-26 12:43:38 PM  

Professor Science: Ambitwistor: [vignette.wikia.nocookie.net image 340x204]

[Fark user image image 586x426]


missilecommand.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-26 2:58:23 PM  

Ambitwistor: Professor Science: Ambitwistor: [vignette.wikia.nocookie.net image 340x204]

[Fark user image image 586x426]

[missilecommand.files.wordpress.com image 850x528]


What version is that?  I only played the arcade version and there's it's use the force **or** shoot fireballs, the two actions are incompatible.  (And most of the arcade machines weren't properly maintained, the violent maneuvering required to get the force bonus would frequently trigger stray shots.  The arcade managers blamed us for being rough with the controls but that's how the stage is built!
 
2020-09-26 3:19:36 PM  

Loren: Ambitwistor: Professor Science: Ambitwistor: [vignette.wikia.nocookie.net image 340x204]

[Fark user image image 586x426]

[missilecommand.files.wordpress.com image 850x528]

What version is that?  I only played the arcade version and there's it's use the force **or** shoot fireballs, the two actions are incompatible.  (And most of the arcade machines weren't properly maintained, the violent maneuvering required to get the force bonus would frequently trigger stray shots.  The arcade managers blamed us for being rough with the controls but that's how the stage is built!


The sit-in arcade version I played (UK) had a 'force' button and another button for the fireballs, you could use both at the same time.

To destroy the death star you had to use the force button and fireballs at the right time to hit the port/vent.
 
2020-09-26 3:45:05 PM  

dready zim: Loren: Ambitwistor: Professor Science: Ambitwistor: [vignette.wikia.nocookie.net image 340x204]

[Fark user image image 586x426]

[missilecommand.files.wordpress.com image 850x528]

What version is that?  I only played the arcade version and there's it's use the force **or** shoot fireballs, the two actions are incompatible.  (And most of the arcade machines weren't properly maintained, the violent maneuvering required to get the force bonus would frequently trigger stray shots.  The arcade managers blamed us for being rough with the controls but that's how the stage is built!

The sit-in arcade version I played (UK) had a 'force' button and another button for the fireballs, you could use both at the same time.

To destroy the death star you had to use the force button and fireballs at the right time to hit the port/vent.


The arcade version I remember was vector graphics. That pic looks like a low-rez raster display.
 
2020-09-26 3:58:07 PM  

Loren: What version is that? I only played the arcade version and there's it's use the force **or** shoot fireballs, the two actions are incompatible. (And most of the arcade machines weren't properly maintained, the violent maneuvering required to get the force bonus would frequently trigger stray shots. The arcade managers blamed us for being rough with the controls but that's how the stage is built!


Star Wars Death Star trench run (Atari, 1983)
Youtube zT8dQDFKQac


The raster image looks like the Atari ST port. But the original poster is sorta correct -- this playthrough of the arcade version shows both -- specifically, an alternating "Avoid Catwalks / Shoot fireballs" message, and "Use the Force" in color-cycling/flashing glory until the player fires their first shot.

To be absolutely pedantic, the Atari ST version displayed "Avoid Catwalks / Shoot fireballs" below "Use the Force" and the arcade displayed it above "Use the Force," and nobody noticed until after it had shipped.

/sympathizes with those whose arcades' flight yokes would accidentally short out one of the four fire buttons to ground while swooping around the catwalks and fireballs, costing the player 100,000 points per run.
 
2020-09-26 4:00:44 PM  

Loren: Ambitwistor: Professor Science: Ambitwistor: [vignette.wikia.nocookie.net image 340x204]

[Fark user image image 586x426]

[missilecommand.files.wordpress.com image 850x528]

What version is that?  I only played the arcade version and there's it's use the force **or** shoot fireballs, the two actions are incompatible.  (And most of the arcade machines weren't properly maintained, the violent maneuvering required to get the force bonus would frequently trigger stray shots.  The arcade managers blamed us for being rough with the controls but that's how the stage is built!


Beats me, I thought it was weird too.  I just couldn't find another image with "Use the Force" on it, except for a remake.
 
2020-09-26 8:05:33 PM  
A $52 million discount shows just how much SpaceX wants those boosters back, as they divert their resources toward Starship.

They are in kind of an awkward phase right now.   F9 still pays the bills but they don't even want it anymore.
 
2020-09-26 9:00:07 PM  

studebaker hoch: A $52 million discount shows just how much SpaceX wants those boosters back, as they divert their resources toward Starship.

They are in kind of an awkward phase right now.   F9 still pays the bills but they don't even want it anymore.


They need the customer more, it sounds like a loss-leader.

Spacex just lost (or will lose, paperwork got leaked) a lawsuit against the air force over the contract its splitting with ULA.  In that contract it was decided that since spacex was a 'risky' option the government would still be forced spend hundreds of millions more on disposable rockets with the most expensive launch partner.
...Which is bullshiat as nothing about spacex appears to be more unreliable than any other launch company. Its used boosters seem especially reliable. It should have gotten the whole contract and ula should have been told to pound sand.

If they can't win it on that grounds then they'll have to drive home the cost difference. Sell it cheap so space force and others realize they could be getting ten times the missions for their money.

It's going to be an issue because there will be an uptick in demand for new satellites and patrol missions.  It might sound like a joke but there's a real need for boots on the moon in the immediate future, both for security and maintenance and cleanup work. They probably have a laundry list of things they want to launch but ula eats half the money for nothing.

I think spacex wants to be seen as the cheaper-better-faste option. Keeping at the existing $60 million per launch or lower, vs the competitors $400 million per launch, means the military will start cooking up missions that they just can't afford to do with ula.

Spacex could make more money now, but that would just keep it a peer competitor when it wants market domination.
 
XSV
2020-09-26 9:41:46 PM  
Discount Dan's Pretty Above Board House of Bargains
Youtube CRBiY-zTl2c
 
2020-09-27 1:37:26 PM  

dready zim: Loren: Ambitwistor: Professor Science: Ambitwistor: [vignette.wikia.nocookie.net image 340x204]

[Fark user image image 586x426]

[missilecommand.files.wordpress.com image 850x528]

What version is that?  I only played the arcade version and there's it's use the force **or** shoot fireballs, the two actions are incompatible.  (And most of the arcade machines weren't properly maintained, the violent maneuvering required to get the force bonus would frequently trigger stray shots.  The arcade managers blamed us for being rough with the controls but that's how the stage is built!

The sit-in arcade version I played (UK) had a 'force' button and another button for the fireballs, you could use both at the same time.

To destroy the death star you had to use the force button and fireballs at the right time to hit the port/vent.


The version I saw had none of that.  Force wasn't really something you used--you got the force bonus (which was worth the majority of the points in the game at level 5 and above) by getting through the trench without firing a shot until you were past the defenses and closing on the port.
 
2020-09-27 3:43:27 PM  

way south: studebaker hoch: A $52 million discount shows just how much SpaceX wants those boosters back, as they divert their resources toward Starship.

They are in kind of an awkward phase right now.   F9 still pays the bills but they don't even want it anymore.

They need the customer more, it sounds like a loss-leader.

Spacex just lost (or will lose, paperwork got leaked) a lawsuit against the air force over the contract its splitting with ULA.  In that contract it was decided that since spacex was a 'risky' option the government would still be forced spend hundreds of millions more on disposable rockets with the most expensive launch partner.
...Which is bullshiat as nothing about spacex appears to be more unreliable than any other launch company. Its used boosters seem especially reliable. It should have gotten the whole contract and ula should have been told to pound sand.

If they can't win it on that grounds then they'll have to drive home the cost difference. Sell it cheap so space force and others realize they could be getting ten times the missions for their money.

It's going to be an issue because there will be an uptick in demand for new satellites and patrol missions.  It might sound like a joke but there's a real need for boots on the moon in the immediate future, both for security and maintenance and cleanup work. They probably have a laundry list of things they want to launch but ula eats half the money for nothing.

I think spacex wants to be seen as the cheaper-better-faste option. Keeping at the existing $60 million per launch or lower, vs the competitors $400 million per launch, means the military will start cooking up missions that they just can't afford to do with ula.

Spacex could make more money now, but that would just keep it a peer competitor when it wants market domination.


All that sounds interesting.  Got a link for the lawsuit?

I don't know that we need "boots on the Moon", or if that is something SpaceX could even provide.

Starship will offer 150 tons to LEO, and be fully reusable with rapid turnaround.  Capital ships are easier built in orbit than on the ground, and the Moon is close yet annoyingly far away for construction jobs.   Once he has a fleet of Starships, regular off-world liner service will be a thing.

I could see SpaceX constructing an Earth-orbiting shipyard (read: jobs program w./ gov't subsidies) and from there build frigates or carriers for lunar patrols.  In microgravity there would be no need for massive infrastructure such as drydocks or cranes.  Weight and size would become far less constraining than they are on Earth, and robots could do much of the work.

Nobody believed the Falcon Heavy would work, so he launched his car toward Mars just to prove that it did.

The same people won't believe in his orbiting shipyard either, so he will probably do a similar stunt to prove them wrong again.   Some kind of 1-km LOA vessel, just to show that he can engineer at scale.   There is no shortage of sci-fi spacecraft that he could choose from.
 
2020-09-27 4:30:15 PM  

studebaker hoch: way south: studebaker hoch: A $52 million discount shows just how much SpaceX wants those boosters back, as they divert their resources toward Starship.

They are in kind of an awkward phase right now.   F9 still pays the bills but they don't even want it anymore.

They need the customer more, it sounds like a loss-leader.

Spacex just lost (or will lose, paperwork got leaked) a lawsuit against the air force over the contract its splitting with ULA.  In that contract it was decided that since spacex was a 'risky' option the government would still be forced spend hundreds of millions more on disposable rockets with the most expensive launch partner.
...Which is bullshiat as nothing about spacex appears to be more unreliable than any other launch company. Its used boosters seem especially reliable. It should have gotten the whole contract and ula should have been told to pound sand.

If they can't win it on that grounds then they'll have to drive home the cost difference. Sell it cheap so space force and others realize they could be getting ten times the missions for their money.

It's going to be an issue because there will be an uptick in demand for new satellites and patrol missions.  It might sound like a joke but there's a real need for boots on the moon in the immediate future, both for security and maintenance and cleanup work. They probably have a laundry list of things they want to launch but ula eats half the money for nothing.

I think spacex wants to be seen as the cheaper-better-faste option. Keeping at the existing $60 million per launch or lower, vs the competitors $400 million per launch, means the military will start cooking up missions that they just can't afford to do with ula.

Spacex could make more money now, but that would just keep it a peer competitor when it wants market domination.

All that sounds interesting.  Got a link for the lawsuit?

I don't know that we need "boots on the Moon", or if that is something SpaceX could even provide.

Sta ...


https://uk.reuters.com/article/space-​s​pacex-airforce/spacex-handed-loss-in-c​hallenge-over-air-force-contract-idUKL​2N2GM0XS

Orbital construction has a manpower cost (even if we lower the launch price) and it remains to be seen how troublesome building capital ships in orbit will be.
If you've got construction tho then you've got debris and a need for vehicles and systems to deal with it.  So it still means a lot of launches and a lot of work spaceforce will be losing to ula's per pound markup.

I think for the moon there is an issue of physical possession. If you have people there then you have a much better claim to the resources found and used. You also have eyes on the ground to find those resources.
I expect China to push that issue because, even tho they might not have a plan for the development of space, they will have a plan to claims or thwart US activities by any legal or military means possible.

I think Space force is going to do for space what the navy did for the oceans. It's going to open the path to peaceful activities by acting as the security guarantor. Unfortunately I don't see the Chinese accepting that since it robs them of the ability to bully and blackmail other nations on that frontier.
I not sure what form the trouble will take but we can expect a lot of it, and I think we need to get ahead of this in the next decade if we're going to head off a disaster.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.