[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[JohnBrown1917]

You act as if Europe does not participate in American wars. Which is kind of funny considering the MAGA morons also get that wrong, they're of course just pissed that Europe "doesnt do nuthin" while some Europeans put all the blame on the Americans cus they conveniently ignore European participation.

In the end there arent any "good countries", reality is not a movie with hero's and villains. And as Skroe pointed out, stop blaming people for something something their country once did, does etc. You could argue that "hey you voted for Bush", if they did, and even then they'd have to know torture and invading Iraq was on the table. Imho it's as stupid as stereotyping people because of their race.

I don't.


Jesus, you all are so lazy with this. Also failing to understand the problem with people, like you and skroe, denying all the horrible shit the leaders you support do.
Be it Obama or Bush, it does not matter.

Its not stereotyping to judge people based of idealogy, just another way for conservatives to play the victim.

[draykorinee]

Skroe been spending too much time in American politics and trying to tell us anything like he's not too far gone already.

[Skroe]

“Government spends nothing on research. The top 3 investors in my research organisation are governments.” The same is true of Google, Space-X and so forth, their research has huge government backing. The model has changed from government labs in certain instances, but they still throw the money in. That’s shadier because it doesn’t necessarily put the product of that research into the public domain.

It's changed in most instances, and the results are better. SpaceX, for example, has produced better rocket technology privately, on contract, in the past 13 years, than the public-private NASA-contractor partnership has at government owned facilities and with NASA engineers, have, in decades. NASA for 30 years talked about getting launch costs below $10,000 / kg. SpaceX currently does $2,720 / kg to the ISS and $910 / kg to Low Earth Orbit.

That the power of private industry. And how did they do it? They build the Falcon 9 at too locations, in a manner that minimizes the work force costs. NASA-designed rockets are spread out across many locations in order to maximize where the money goes. Because NASA is first and foremost a jobs program, and not a Space Program. That's how you get $380 million Government rockets that are less capable than $60 million SpaceX rockets.

That’s all I need to take from this.

I mean, you are factually just not correct about the supremacy of private science/engineering over public. I don't know what to tell you. Government still pays for it. Three governments pay for my company. But I am not their employee. They contract to us. We seek grants. We also own or co-own the IP.

Seriously. If you don’t want to pay government for something you have to pay for anyway, someone with far less oversight and accountability will.

It's curious you keep imagining I'm sitting here saying we shouldn't pay taxes for services. Are you having problems reading my posts or something? Because I've said the exact opposite. This in fact, goes to my first reply to you in this thread, when I said nothing about social democracy at all, you said I did.

Is there a problem on your end? Seriously because I'm having difficulty responding to accusations that I am not responsible for.

In your mortgage, your bank is your landlord until its paid or foreclosed.

That's not remotely what a mortgage is.

Utility and healthcare you think is cheap, or you think your company pays for, it’s an illusion, you have no comparitive basis to make those judgements.

I have multiple utility options, and many healthcare options. And my state, Massachusetts, has a public option too (Masshealth).

The healthcare is money that went to a healthcare company instead of the taxman or into your pocket as a part of your salary; It’s money you never had.

Within the current healthcare framework, as a young healthy individual I've chosen to minimize my healthcare costs, so I have the cheapest employer-provided healthcare plan. If a medical crisis comes along, I can pay out of pocket. That is a choice I want to have.

You, like many Americans I’ve spoken to, just have that mental block of what’s actually discretionary expenditure.

Bold words for someone who can't stand to look directly at the shape of modern science/engineering financing because it undermines an ideological narrative, doesn't know how a mortgage is different from rent (inc. Googlefu), and has spent now 4 posts putting words in my mouth.

Just going to point out Jessicka, I didn't come into this trying to make some Capitalism vs Socialism stupid internet debate at all, but your entire approach has really only served to instill further confidence in the positions I already held, which aren't nearly the ideologue you seem to think I am, or by virtue of your words in these posts, yourself seem to be.

[Gorsameth]

So, how 'bout that Brexit....

Come back Dec 13th. Nothing is going to happen before then.

[Skroe]

So, how 'bout that Brexit....

I mean, we're going to have another three years talking about Brexit at this rate! What's the rush? ;D

[Northern Goblin]

I think there's a lack of translation here.

When Skroe said they "don't want the government taking all of my money" that wasn't them complaining about paying taxes and funding social programs to help the less well off.

They meant literally taking absolutely every single cent of earnings and leaving them with $0

I think that's a principle we all can get behind surely?

[Skroe]

I think there's a lack of translation here.

When Skroe said they "don't want the government taking all of my money" that wasn't them complaining about paying taxes and funding social programs to help the less well off.

They meant literally taking absolutely every single cent of earnings and leaving them with $0

I think that's a principle we all can get behind surely?

Exactly. I've said before, and I'll say it again - and this is more of an American concept than anything else. I want us Americans to cut the role of the Federal budget, and cut federal taxes significantly... but in turn I want them to proportionally increase State level taxes and transfer responsibilities from the distant Federal Government to the States. I believe this will make them significant more democratically accountable and will allow for states to find consensus in what services to offer within their jursidictions, rather than the entire country waiting forever for Nebraska, Alabama and Wyoming to come along (or at least get out of the way). I think Massachusetts taxpayers should work out what works for them, and Maine for Main, and Illinois for Illinois. They can define services, set taxation levels to pay for them, and hold elected officials accountable for performance, to a far more fine-tuned degree than a Federal government solution, whereby everyone votes for the long term Senator and long term Rep, and accountability never happens.

And I say that because, as a Massachusetts taxpayer, we had Masshealth - state provided healthcare - years before Obamacare. Because Massachusetts voters wanted it, and after negotiations between Democrats and Republicans in the State, it happened. So we saw it work. And sure, there are certainly things the Federal government can and should only do in the realm of services. But Federalizing everything, which is what we do now, is not the efficient or effective solution. There is a EU/Brexit lesson in this, as I think there are few pro-EU people who actually would want the EU to be like the US government is in terms of being the "national" policy driver. I want Massachusetts, which has a standard of living comparable to nordic countries - to be a bit closer in terms of what it can do independent of the Federal government, to what European countries have now.

If my fellow taxpayers want more services and want to pay for them, let's have the debate and may the best argument win (just make sure it is administrated well, or there will be hell to pay). But however the shape of it looks, I think when it comes to my earnings, half for the government and half for me is already perfectly fair.

[lagiacrux]

So, how 'bout that Brexit....

ooohhh ... wasnt it a productive side-discussion about war crimes EU vs US, communism, etc?

and we learned so much about skroes personal life

[Wezmon]

I think there's a lack of translation here.

When Skroe said they "don't want the government taking all of my money" that wasn't them complaining about paying taxes and funding social programs to help the less well off.

They meant literally taking absolutely every single cent of earnings and leaving them with $0

I think that's a principle we all can get behind surely?

Yeah I feel like some people are reading different things to me.. he said hes already paying 50% of his wages as tax and is happy to do so. Dont se the problem here.

And people saying labor are socialist, again they are getting things confused, labor advocate a socialist democracy in a capitalist framework. Not even Corbyn thinks we should go full on socialist.

[Jessicka]

It's changed in most instances, and the results are better. SpaceX, for example, has produced better rocket technology privately, on contract, in the past 13 years, than the public-private NASA-contractor partnership has at government owned facilities and with NASA engineers, have, in decades. NASA for 30 years talked about getting launch costs below $10,000 / kg. SpaceX currently does $2,720 / kg to the ISS and $910 / kg to Low Earth Orbit.

That the power of private industry. And how did they do it? They build the Falcon 9 at too locations, in a manner that minimizes the work force costs. NASA-designed rockets are spread out across many locations in order to maximize where the money goes. Because NASA is first and foremost a jobs program, and not a Space Program. That's how you get $380 million Government rockets that are less capable than $60 million SpaceX rockets.

Space-X wouldn't exist without NASA coming first. Nor would a whole lot of other industries and products. Your own would be well behind the curve it's currently on without them. Research means pissing money into black holes that might not go anywhere. Business simply doesn't like that. This is why it so frequently reinvents the wheel.

They can make rockets more cheaply, but they're not starting out from Mercury.

I mean, you are factually just not correct about the supremacy of private science/engineering over public. I don't know what to tell you. Government still pays for it. Three governments pay for my company. But I am not their employee. They contract to us. We seek grants. We also own or co-own the IP.

So you own the IP from which you profit, from having been given the money to research it by various governments. Whereas research from government labs would go into the public domain from which everyone could use it (unless it was branded super-secret or something). This is why I called it shady.

It's curious you keep imagining I'm sitting here saying we shouldn't pay taxes for services. Are you having problems reading my posts or something? Because I've said the exact opposite. This in fact, goes to my first reply to you in this thread, when I said nothing about social democracy at all, you said I did.

Is there a problem on your end? Seriously because I'm having difficulty responding to accusations that I am not responsible for.

You're saying you pay plenty of Tax, meanwhile defending that the rest of your income goes into services and utilities, this is non-discretionary expenditure you can't do without spending and don't have any significant choice over, spaffed into a market which cannot by definition make the most of economies of scale. Those non-discretionary expenses are equivalent to rents or taxes, and in other nations would be paid for through rental or taxes from the national or local government, typically much more economically.

I have multiple utility options, and many healthcare options. And my state, Massachusetts, has a public option too (Masshealth).


Within the current healthcare framework, as a young healthy individual I've chosen to minimize my healthcare costs, so I have the cheapest employer-provided healthcare plan. If a medical crisis comes along, I can pay out of pocket. That is a choice I want to have.

And this is literally a bill I don't have. Whatever conditions I have, I still have a choice of treatments, doctors and so on. I don't have to worry about a crisis. I don't have to worry about a chronic condition ending my ability to work and by extension my ability to maintain treatment, or seek further treatment in the future. If I want to pay extra for TV or WiFi in a hospital stay, I can. I could even get private cover if I wanted to.

You talk about Space-X making rockets more cheaply, the NHS from what I've seen, performs the exact same procedures as available in the US for 10-20% of the market costs over there. You want to talk about efficiency?

Bold words for someone who can't stand to look directly at the shape of modern science/engineering financing because it undermines an ideological narrative, doesn't know how a mortgage is different from rent (inc. Googlefu), and has spent now 4 posts putting words in my mouth.

I am literally a research technician, I am a scientist, that's my job. Except the research I'm involved in isn't entirely guided by profit and market share, we get grants and such, but because of that, it's all public domain. So quite the opposite.

Just going to point out Jessicka, I didn't come into this trying to make some Capitalism vs Socialism stupid internet debate at all, but your entire approach has really only served to instill further confidence in the positions I already held, which aren't nearly the ideologue you seem to think I am, or by virtue of your words in these posts, yourself seem to be.

I don't know why you came into a thread about Brexit, other than initially to gloat about how the USA was going to pillage everything it could in a trade deal, and how you were looking forward to that.

You are simply in favour of predatory exploitation of people, I don't doubt your comment about leaving the 7% to rot are your own, very deeply held beliefs. I'm not surprised someone commented above that your main disappointment in Trump is that he's not sociopathic enough.

[Dizzeeyooo]

I don't know why you came into a thread about Brexit, other than initially to gloat about how the USA was going to pillage everything it could in a trade deal, and how you were looking forward to that.

It won't be the USA pillaging the UK, the UK will be offering itself up on a plate.

He sees that as a useful learning experience for the UK, and he won't really be wrong about it at that point.

[Jessicka]

It won't be the USA pillaging the UK, the UK will be offering itself up on a plate.

He sees that as a useful learning experience for the UK, and he wo0n't really be wrong about it at that point.

Learning from something suggests being able to go again. There'll be no-take backs on this, it's definitely a pillage.

[Skroe]

Space-X wouldn't exist without NASA coming first. Nor would a whole lot of other industries and products. Your own would be well behind the curve it's currently on without them. Research means pissing money into black holes that might not go anywhere. Business simply doesn't like that. This is why it so frequently reinvents the wheel.

Uhhh, this is not remotely right.

SpaceX's sugar daddy has been private capital (first) and the US Air Force via defense launch services contracts and engine development. The original NASA Commercial Resupply Contract was crucial to SpaceX in its first launches, but NASA as a whole is rather hostile and suspicious of SpaceX and NASA contracts a small share of its revenues.

In fact, historically speaking, SpaceX's DNA got started as part of the US Government's EELV program in the early 1990s. The EELV program was set out by the DoD to develop rockets that could affordably and reliably launch rockets into space with payloads comparable to what the Shuttle Could. It was a program launched in the wake of the Challenger disaster when it was decided sending 7 people up on a $700 million / launch rocket to put a routine satellite in orbit was wasteful and dangerous.

NASA tried to kill the EELV program. It saw it as a competitor and an existential threat to the Space Shuttle program (ironic considering how dependent they came to be on EELV rockets). The EELV program with with two designs that became the Atlas V and Delta IV, but early work - roads not taken - on landing rockets and a type of engine were done by a contractor know as TRW for the related Space Launch initiative. When the Columbia Disaster shut all this down as the big government space "Project Constellation" spun up, TRW laid off engineers. Elon Musk hired up as many as he could, and they became the nucleus of SpaceX.

In sort, SpaceX's engineering origin story can be found in an analysis of alternatives and early research done on contract in the 1990s for a DoD program that NASA despised. In other words, the exact opposite of what yous aid.

They can make rockets more cheaply, but they're not starting out from Mercury.

SpaceX's rocket technology is completely different from the legacy rocket tech.

The most "legacy" item of the entire SpaceX technology base is the Merlin-1D engine, 9 of which are used in the first stage of the Falcon 9 and 1 of which is used in the upper stage. The Merlin-1D's distant ancestor from the 1990s is TRW's TR-106. When the Space Launch Initiative was canceled, Elon Musk hired the laid off enginers at TRW to continue to develop the TR-106's design. Over the next 12 years it became the quite different, but related, Merlin-1D.

The TR-106 itself was a clean sheet design that owned nothing to previous engines. It was an engine designed around a cost-effective construction and abalative cooling, which made it significant cheaper 0 and also completely alien - to its predecessors and alternatives.

This distinction is important because in the rocket world, new engines are an extreme rarity and generational design inheritance is the norm. For example, the RS-68 engine used on the Delta IV was directly designed as a lower cost / fewer parts relative to the Space Shuttle Main Engine RS-25D. They're different engines, but they're basically father and son. Basically whereas the RS-25 was optimized for reuse (and thus, could be pricier), the RS-68 was built around lower cost and expendability. The RS-25D in term, is a direct deriitivitve of the never flown post-Apollo HG-3 engine, which itself was a direct derivitive of the J-2 engine. The J-2 was used on the Saturn V's S-II and S-IVB stages, and on the Saturn IB.

So when we talk about Beoing's upcoming Space Launch System, which has RS-25 engines, it is a very and factually accurate thing to say "its engines are owed to Poject Apollo and government investment". But considering the technological obsolescence of much of the rocket, that's not in its favor. The approach of SpaceX, which is largely independent of any legacy government-owned designs or government investments, is the superior and more economical way forward.

So you own the IP from which you profit, from having been given the money to research it by various governments. Whereas research from government labs would go into the public domain from which everyone could use it (unless it was branded super-secret or something). This is why I called it shady.

It's not shady. It's a contract. Government can negotiate the contract differently if it so choose.

You're saying you pay plenty of Tax, meanwhile defending that the rest of your income goes into services and utilities, this is non-discretionary expenditure you can't do without spending and don't have any significant choice over, spaffed into a market which cannot by definition make the most of economies of scale. Those non-discretionary expenses are equivalent to rents or taxes, and in other nations would be paid for through rental or taxes from the national or local government, typically much more economically.

Well for my part, I have significant disposable income, so only a part of it goes to services and utilities. About $1300 in a mortgage, $300 for heating oil, $300 for electricity, $300 for health insurance. That's about $2500 per month in just those costs. And that's fine... that leaves me with thousands of more dollars for discretionary expenditures. I'm not sure what point your making. That taxes should be higher to cover that? I pay for my usage. That's more than fair. I shouldn't have to subsidize other people's usage.

And this is literally a bill I don't have. Whatever conditions I have, I still have a choice of treatments, doctors and so on. I don't have to worry about a crisis. I don't have to worry about a chronic condition ending my ability to work and by extension my ability to maintain treatment, or seek further treatment in the future. If I want to pay extra for TV or WiFi in a hospital stay, I can. I could even get private cover if I wanted to.

You talk about Space-X making rockets more cheaply, the NHS from what I've seen, performs the exact same procedures as available in the US for 10-20% of the market costs over there. You want to talk about efficiency?

Yeah let's talk about the NHS, or as I've come to call it over the last 20 years of its de-evolution... the Beast That Ate the United Kingdom.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you about your healthcare system. You people have a right to vote in your elected officials who represent your interests, and you people clearly prioritize the almight NHS over everything else. I've seen enough PMQs over the years to realize that there is no end to the amount of money you people will throw into the NHS.

I just what you to know, I disagree with that in the most fundamental of ways. Because over the last 20 years, for those of us who have been watching, we've seen the fundamental decline of British investment in other things, while the NHS grows, and grows and grows. The Foreign Office is about a quarter the size it was. Britain's role in international science programs have been significant curtailed as funding has tried up. It has fewer non-support front line Combat Troops than the NYPD has police officers. It's lost science and engineering professionals to continental Europe and the United States due to underinvestment. Weren't thousands of police officers laid off a few years back under "Austerity". I was in the UK a few months ago, and I have never seen so much trash and so many homeless people in almost a decade of going there a couple times a year.

The Almighty NHS may be chipper but things are not going all that great in all the other areas a modern Western nation state is supposed to be spending its money, least of all what is ostensibly one of the world's leading countries.

So thank you but no thank you. If the US eventually arrives at national single payer healthcare... okay. That's fine. As I've said, my state Massachusetts has had a public option for years. But I sincerely hope we're never as slavishly devoted to it as as the British people have become to the golden calf that is the NHS.

Yeah... your health is important. But what you've given up for it? No thank you. You do you. But don't think for a minute it has universal appeal.

I am literally a research technician, I am a scientist, that's my job. Except the research I'm involved in isn't entirely guided by profit and market share, we get grants and such, but because of that, it's all public domain. So quite the opposite.

Well evidently with this deplorable attention to detail, not a really good one. Because now this is post #5 where I've had to either correct you on something factual you broadly assumed to be true (ideological comfort zone, huzzah!), or you just flagrantly put words in my mouth or misinterpreted what Is aid.

I don't know why you came into a thread about Brexit, other than initially to gloat about how the USA was going to pillage everything it could in a trade deal, and how you were looking forward to that.

On the contrary, I see Brexit as a great tragedy and a disaster for the UK. I want the UK in the EU. I'm a big believer in Europe. I've been saying that for years (once again, Jessicka gets it all wrong, I feel I should start keeping a score card). I've called it repeatedly the most important Geopolitical Project since the founding of the United States. It must succeed. And I love traveling to the UK.

But I've also been extremely disappointed with the 20 year decline of the United Kingdom. Honestly, I can't believe whats gone on. You gave away Hong Kong signalling the End of Empire, then a few years later went to War in Iraq, ostensibly with the new national foreign policy of being America's consigliere, and when that went to shit, the UK never recovered. It slid into the Financial Crisis and Recession... made it worse the disaster that was Austerity. It called the existence of the union in doubt with the ill-conceived Scottish Referendum, and then screwed it's global future in the Brexit vote, and then made it even worse by turning it into the living nightmare of the Brexit Saga.

No offense but what the hell are you people doing? Are you like... just saying "fuck it" and hoping a meteor takes you all?

It's not me that noticed this either. It goes back to Obama, who by 2010 started to identify Germany and France as the US's most reliable and consistent European partners... a role vacated by the UK as it became consumed with internal affair after internal affair.

In terms of me cheerleading how the US is going to screw the UK with a deal... did you forget the source of that? It's to send the message: leave the EU at your own peril. Because "Global Britain" with a shrunken foreign office, a military a fraction of the size and power of what it was 20 years ago and isolated from the EU, is not going to be a thing. Global Britain is a scam. The EU was and remains the UK's only option to international relevance in a world dominated by big powers - the US, China and the EU.

I lament this state of affairs. The UK deserves better than this fate it has chosen for itself.

You are simply in favour of predatory exploitation of people, I don't doubt your comment about leaving the 7% to rot are your own, very deeply held beliefs. I'm not surprised someone commented above that your main disappointment in Trump is that he's not sociopathic enough.

I mean... you're one of this most regular contributors to this thread. Is this what it has been for you for 1295 pages? You putting words in people's mouth and making baseless claims about facts and people's positions? Really? But five posts and I've just been groaning... and this last line here... oh that's the kicker.

I honestly wonder if you've read a thing I've written. If this conversation is any indication on how you British ideologues discuss political disagreements with people who aren't aligned with you but not against you, no wonder Brexit has been a reputation destroying shitshow that the UK will take 30 years to recover from.

Seriously. Heh. What are you doing? And my main disappointment with Trump has been quite clear: his racism, his attack on American values, his violation of human rights, his assault on the rule of law, his Russia hugging, his corruption, and his attack on the constitution. My foreign policy is generally non-interventionist. I barely discuss foreign policy anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

Learning from something suggests being able to go again. There'll be no-take backs on this, it's definitely a pillage.

I'm sorry... the UK is another country. You're not a State in the Union. You're not part of a commonwealth with us. From strict angle of zero-sum international trade, why again should we cut you people a break? The UK is a little isolated country with 80 million people and few options. Why shouldn't we take complete advantage of you? I mean you couldn't retaliate. The UK needs trade deals post-Brexit a lot more than the US needs trade deals.

The US taking the UK for all its worth is very much the norm in the dog-eat-dog world of international affairs outside of major blocs. That is why major blocs exists.

Now the US cannot do this with the EU. The EU being nearly the size of the US, with a stellar negotiating team. The EU and the US are entirely peers in this arena.

But there is no peerage between the US and post-Brexit UK. Countries negotiating with other countries whose GDP is ten times the size don't get to set terms. They get to take what is given.

And before you misconstrue what I'm saying, I'm describing what the US would be able to do, and in some cases does.

That does not mean we should.

That does not mean I am advocating for us to act so ruthlessly (I am not).

I'm saying, that is the consequence of the UK being all on its own, a little fish in a world of Great White Sharks.


There is still time to cancel Brexit before theoretical self-fuckery turns into the prelude for the Great Britain becoming Little England.

[kaid]

The entire internet argument (and it's just that) between Capitalism and Socialism is entirely pointless because:

(1) It's a false dichotomy to begin with. Every Western country is Capitalist with varying degrees of Social Democracy. No one serious is proposing replacing public schools with private schools as a whole, or privatizing the fire department. The central argument is over how far should government-paid-and-managed services stretch versus private solutions to those services. That's a healthy debate to have and there is no one right answer. It's up to the people, democratically, to decide what they want.

Having seen the attempts up close the goal we are seeing in the states is worse than replacing public schools with private ones. The goal is to siphon off as much money from public schools till you reach the point they collapse. Then the people can afford it go to good private schools that have siphoned all the money from the state and poor kids are left in the wreckage of what is left of the public system. It is part of the whole drown govt in the bathtub approach we have seen for the last few decades in the state.

[Jessicka]

Uhhh, this is not remotely right.

SpaceX's sugar daddy has been private capital (first) and the US Air Force via defense launch services contracts and engine development. The original NASA Commercial Resupply Contract was crucial to SpaceX in its first launches, but NASA as a whole is rather hostile and suspicious of SpaceX and NASA contracts a small share of its revenues.

In fact, historically speaking, SpaceX's DNA got started as part of the US Government's EELV program in the early 1990s. The EELV program was set out by the DoD to develop rockets that could affordably and reliably launch rockets into space with payloads comparable to what the Shuttle Could. It was a program launched in the wake of the Challenger disaster when it was decided sending 7 people up on a $700 million / launch rocket to put a routine satellite in orbit was wasteful and dangerous.

NASA tried to kill the EELV program. It saw it as a competitor and an existential threat to the Space Shuttle program (ironic considering how dependent they came to be on EELV rockets). The EELV program with with two designs that became the Atlas V and Delta IV, but early work - roads not taken - on landing rockets and a type of engine were done by a contractor know as TRW for the related Space Launch initiative. When the Columbia Disaster shut all this down as the big government space "Project Constellation" spun up, TRW laid off engineers. Elon Musk hired up as many as he could, and they became the nucleus of SpaceX.

In sort, SpaceX's engineering origin story can be found in an analysis of alternatives and early research done on contract in the 1990s for a DoD program that NASA despised. In other words, the exact opposite of what yous aid.

Yeah, you started about 40 years down the line here. NASA started with some captured Germans and V2 Rockets, by the time Space-X came along, launching into space was a well worn path. This is a significant difference as jumping off points go.

Without NASA laying all that groundwork, Space-X would not exist.

SpaceX's rocket technology is completely different from the legacy rocket tech.

The most "legacy" item of the entire SpaceX technology base is the Merlin-1D engine, 9 of which are used in the first stage of the Falcon 9 and 1 of which is used in the upper stage. The Merlin-1D's distant ancestor from the 1990s is TRW's TR-106. When the Space Launch Initiative was canceled, Elon Musk hired the laid off enginers at TRW to continue to develop the TR-106's design. Over the next 12 years it became the quite different, but related, Merlin-1D.

The TR-106 itself was a clean sheet design that owned nothing to previous engines. It was an engine designed around a cost-effective construction and abalative cooling, which made it significant cheaper 0 and also completely alien - to its predecessors and alternatives.

This distinction is important because in the rocket world, new engines are an extreme rarity and generational design inheritance is the norm. For example, the RS-68 engine used on the Delta IV was directly designed as a lower cost / fewer parts relative to the Space Shuttle Main Engine RS-25D. They're different engines, but they're basically father and son. Basically whereas the RS-25 was optimized for reuse (and thus, could be pricier), the RS-68 was built around lower cost and expendability. The RS-25D in term, is a direct deriitivitve of the never flown post-Apollo HG-3 engine, which itself was a direct derivitive of the J-2 engine. The J-2 was used on the Saturn V's S-II and S-IVB stages, and on the Saturn IB.

So when we talk about Beoing's upcoming Space Launch System, which has RS-25 engines, it is a very and factually accurate thing to say "its engines are owed to Poject Apollo and government investment". But considering the technological obsolescence of much of the rocket, that's not in its favor. The approach of SpaceX, which is largely independent of any legacy government-owned designs or government investments, is the superior and more economical way forward.

I don't doubt it's different, they have decades of data to work with, and having started from scratch aren't tied to old investments and old kit; but importantly, they know exactly what they want it to do and exactly what they need it to do.

Remember also Space-X has a much narrower mission scope than NASA, who by necessity have to over-engineer for both longevity and to incorporate new, cutting edge research. If NASA's vision was simply 'build a rocket that can put a satellite in orbit', they probably could pare down what they have significantly. But when you start bloating a project to put space stations in orbit a couple decades down the line, put things in lunar orbit, drop them on the moon, and go beyond; you really need to push those limits and you will rapidly lose efficiency on 'just-in-case' eventualities. It's a whole different ballgame.

It's not shady. It's a contract. Government can negotiate the contract differently if it so choose.

Sure, they can set up whatever they like. Dropping in some money on some low-risk, medium reward computer programming to keep people in jobs may turn into a reasonable investment. They're still going to keep NASA and the DOD Research facilities open though for the things they don't want out in the wild.

Well for my part, I have significant disposable income, so only a part of it goes to services and utilities. About $1300 in a mortgage, $300 for heating oil, $300 for electricity, $300 for health insurance. That's about $2500 per month in just those costs. And that's fine... that leaves me with thousands of more dollars for discretionary expenditures. I'm not sure what point your making. That taxes should be higher to cover that? I pay for my usage. That's more than fair. I shouldn't have to subsidize other people's usage.

It would functionally make no difference if your taxes were higher and covered your heating, electricity, health, which would be more strongly guaranteed, and done much more efficiently, without having to pay shareholders or losing out on economies of scale, probably leaving you a net saving in the end. But you don't seem to want the Government providing those basics, because you somehow thing the private sector which has higher costs, can do so. You've been sold an illusion that the private sector does it better and more cheaply. It does not.

Yeah let's talk about the NHS, or as I've come to call it over the last 20 years of its de-evolution... the Beast That Ate the United Kingdom.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you about your healthcare system. You people have a right to vote in your elected officials who represent your interests, and you people clearly prioritize the almight NHS over everything else. I've seen enough PMQs over the years to realize that there is no end to the amount of money you people will throw into the NHS.

I just what you to know, I disagree with that in the most fundamental of ways. Because over the last 20 years, for those of us who have been watching, we've seen the fundamental decline of British investment in other things, while the NHS grows, and grows and grows. The Foreign Office is about a quarter the size it was. Britain's role in international science programs have been significant curtailed as funding has tried up. It has fewer non-support front line Combat Troops than the NYPD has police officers. It's lost science and engineering professionals to continental Europe and the United States due to underinvestment. Weren't thousands of police officers laid off a few years back under "Austerity". I was in the UK a few months ago, and I have never seen so much trash and so many homeless people in almost a decade of going there a couple times a year.

The Almighty NHS may be chipper but things are not going all that great in all the other areas a modern Western nation state is supposed to be spending its money, least of all what is ostensibly one of the world's leading countries.

So thank you but no thank you. If the US eventually arrives at national single payer healthcare... okay. That's fine. As I've said, my state Massachusetts has had a public option for years. But I sincerely hope we're never as slavishly devoted to it as as the British people have become to the golden calf that is the NHS.

Yeah... your health is important. But what you've given up for it? No thank you. You do you. But don't think for a minute it has universal appeal.

The alternative to healthcare, is people being unable to work, costing money in other ways, or being dead.

Well evidently with this deplorable attention to detail, not a really good one. Because now this is post #5 where I've had to either correct you on something factual you broadly assumed to be true (ideological comfort zone, huzzah!), or you just flagrantly put words in my mouth or misinterpreted what Is aid.

I don't know what that is, because you seem to find some strange new goalposts wherein you can offer your correction. Your fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a project developed for long term research and exploration, and a project developed to do a limited commercial job.

Like I said I’m a Research Technician. If I’m procuring kit for my lab, it’s never the base model made for commercial labs, they don’t have the necessary versatility for what we do. The one time someone did buy a new instrument without my input, because they thought we wanted cheap, we replaced it 2 years later with a much higher spec version. That was a waste of 12 grand.

On the contrary, I see Brexit as a great tragedy and a disaster for the UK. I want the UK in the EU. I'm a big believer in Europe. I've been saying that for years (once again, Jessicka gets it all wrong, I feel I should start keeping a score card). I've called it repeatedly the most important Geopolitical Project since the founding of the United States. It must succeed. And I love traveling to the UK.

But I've also been extremely disappointed with the 20 year decline of the United Kingdom. Honestly, I can't believe whats gone on. You gave away Hong Kong signalling the End of Empire, then a few years later went to War in Iraq, ostensibly with the new national foreign policy of being America's consigliere, and when that went to shit, the UK never recovered. It slid into the Financial Crisis and Recession... made it worse the disaster that was Austerity. It called the existence of the union in doubt with the ill-conceived Scottish Referendum, and then screwed it's global future in the Brexit vote, and then made it even worse by turning it into the living nightmare of the Brexit Saga.

No offense but what the hell are you people doing? Are you like... just saying "fuck it" and hoping a meteor takes you all?

I did not vote Brexit, I've always been for further EU integration for the UK, not less.

It's not me that noticed this either. It goes back to Obama, who by 2010 started to identify Germany and France as the US's most reliable and consistent European partners... a role vacated by the UK as it became consumed with internal affair after internal affair.

In terms of me cheerleading how the US is going to screw the UK with a deal... did you forget the source of that? It's to send the message: leave the EU at your own peril. Because "Global Britain" with a shrunken foreign office, a military a fraction of the size and power of what it was 20 years ago and isolated from the EU, is not going to be a thing. Global Britain is a scam. The EU was and remains the UK's only option to international relevance in a world dominated by big powers - the US, China and the EU.

I lament this state of affairs. The UK deserves better than this fate it has chosen for itself.

We're talking about a Thatcherite project that's been well funded and constantly chipping away at the public conscience for some 40 years. It's a conspiracy of the anti-global warming ilk, and unsurprisingly comes from the same people.

I mean... you're one of this most regular contributors to this thread. Is this what it has been for you for 1295 pages? You putting words in people's mouth and making baseless claims about facts and people's positions? Really? But five posts and I've just been groaning... and this last line here... oh that's the kicker.

I honestly wonder if you've read a thing I've written. If this conversation is any indication on how you British ideologues discuss political disagreements with people who aren't aligned with you but not against you, no wonder Brexit has been a reputation destroying shitshow that the UK will take 30 years to recover from.

Seriously. Heh. What are you doing? And my main disappointment with Trump has been quite clear: his racism, his attack on American values, his violation of human rights, his assault on the rule of law, his Russia hugging, his corruption, and his attack on the constitution. My foreign policy is generally non-interventionist. I barely discuss foreign policy anymore.

I've not been here for the full discussion, think I first dropped in after the first extension.

I do remember your posts though from a few years ago, I had you down there as one of the colonialist invader types. Maybe you dialled that back.

[Elegiac]

So, out of curiosity...

Which ditch is Johnson gonna throw himself into this fine Brexit Day? And will it be catered?

[Dizzeeyooo]

So, out of curiosity...

Which ditch is Johnson gonna throw himself into this fine Brexit Day? And will it be catered?

He is far to busy promising to have us out of the EU by January 31st if he gets a majority, no ifs no buts, to die in a ditch over his previous no ifs no buts promise

[lagiacrux]

He is far to busy promising to have us out of the EU by January 31st if he gets a majority, no ifs no buts, to die in a ditch over his previous no ifs no buts promise

for realzies this time. i promise

[Huehuecoyotl]

He is far to busy promising to have us out of the EU by January 31st if he gets a majority, no ifs no buts, to die in a ditch over his previous no ifs no buts promise

You think that having made a gigantic cock out of himself the last time he made such a promise he would at least be slightly hesitant about doing the same thing again. But like all liars the world over, this sort of thing comes as naturally as breathing to him.

[dribbles]

So, out of curiosity...

Which ditch is Johnson gonna throw himself into this fine Brexit Day? And will it be catered?

No room, Corbyn and his cronies are filling the ditch.

Boris Johnson soars into 17-point opinion poll lead ahead of Jeremy Corbyn

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a4275276.html

Up, Up and Up we go! Any predictions on the size of his majority? I've seen some at 100+ and if true, no more brexit blocking by now impotent anti democratic remainers...Happy days.