More renewables.
We’re at the beginnings of having useful levels of storage and can keep building out renewables while we develop storage. At the current rates of adoption, we’ll need true grid storage in about ten years.
However, note that one option for “grid” storage is a battery in every home. Another is a battery in every vehicle. Neither is the best option but those are options we already know and just need to scale up
put all the egg into the basket of private enterprises.
Kind of the opposite - instead of the one rocket program NASA could have done, we have ULA, Blue Origin, and SpaceX. There’s multiple baskets now
Plus NASA can’t afford the risk. If SpaceX failed, no big deal. We would have lost some money and everyone would ridicule Musk. If NASA tried it and failed, they would not only have lost five times the money, but would be parylized by investigations, audits, cutbacks. NASA does a LOT more than just rockets and it would all be at risk
Plus notice NASA has been investing in multiple commercial programs where possible. 3 big rocket programs. Two crew capsules and multiple cargo capsules. Multiple space stations, etc. NASA could not have created this redundancy on their own
A lot of people pointed out a lot of firsts, huge cost reductions, regular flights, but let’s look from the opposite direction ……
Mass to orbit. SpaceX came from nowhere not too many years ago, jumped ahead of established manufacturers, until now they launch most of the worlds satellite mass to orbit, with an unparalleled success record, even with the recent failures. And this is with a rapidly growing space market
Everything they’ve achieved has not only let them scale up far surpassing the rest of the industry across the world, combined, but with reliability and cost to attract all that business
I don’t know what it would take for you to call it a revolution, but the impact on space business is revolutionary
We’re talking 11 years for 7 “small” reactors. The first decade just to establish a business, but no real difference in the overall picture. How many years, decades after that to make a noticeable difference?
Meanwhile we’re building out more power generation in renewables every year. Renewables are already well developed, can be deployed quickly, and are already scaling up, renewables make a difference NOW.
Plus time. My perspective was that building a new nuclear power industry and any significant number of reactors would take too long: we need to have fixed climate change in less time.
So seven “small” reactors over the next eleven years …… faster than I expected but still takes decades to make a noticeable difference.
Consider especially huge infrastructure like refineries, pipelines, shipping terminals, that take many years to break a profit. Why would anyone build those anymore?
At this point, new exploration and drilling too. I don’t know how long it takes for those to be profitable, but if countries follow through with EV and other targets for renewable energy, we should expect a huge surplus and price drops in less than a decade
The trick is figuring out how to make that happen. Today.
You could easily argue that practically non-existent passenger trains and slow adoption of EVs in the US is primarily caused by cheap gasoline. Maybe if we fixed prices to be higher, we’d be able to make the progress we need
Apple Watch
No longer would I have to get out my phone to pay for something, or pause music, or adjust the Temperature. The early models didn’t have health sensors but I still get excited every September for Apples announcement to see what sensor they add next
My company has a vending machine for computer accessories. For example, if you need a replacement mouse, just go over to the machine, wave your badge in front of the sensor, select the mouse, and wait for it to drop
Yep, $2B/launch now
With ISRO coming on strong, and Russia alienating most of the world, I’m fascinated by what this could turn into in the next couple years
Yeah, I’ll bet you don’t have the debt we created to pay for our military industrial complex and further enrich our oligarchs
Or the worst one of all - more packaging. I buy some things in smaller packages to help moderate. Ritz crackers? Hell yeah, but what size sleeve will I finish? Soda, hey at least it’s diet, once it’s open I’ll finish it, so it better be in a can
Plus you can get a Costco sized box!
Realistically this is also a healthy choice because it requires effort, so time to reconsider
Huh, I thought they were “dog poop sensors”
Not at all. The rules were developed over time as the internet expanded from a handful of us research institutions to the global presence it is today. As other people in this thread mentioned, the present country code top level domain rules were developed from fiascoes like .su and .yu. Now they do have solid rules: they should follow them, regardless of corporate speculation and profiteering
Ultimately it just shows ICANN’s inadequacy &/or incompetence,
I’m pretty sure it’s intentional that the owners of the top level domain set the rules for it. Why should ICANN control someone else’s portion of the internet?
This was especially a big deal as the internet expanded from the US to a global presence - you can understand why various countries wouldn’t want US control over their “territory”, wouldn’t cooperate without some form of self-determination
Some amount of organization is a good thing for many reasons. Think of an analogy to roads where basic traffic rules allow everyone the freedom to travel wherever and however but subject to the rules of locales. Feel free to pick your own domain within any generally recognized top level domain, according to the rules established by that tld.
In particular, two character top level domains are reserved for ownership by specific countries. They get to say who can have a presence there, under what standards, and they deserve any profit made from that. This was a way of giving everyone a voice, to expand it beyond the us, to give many interests their own home
Time doesn’t care. Neither does the rate of climate change.