> List your debts. Create a concrete plan to eliminate them, starting with the smallest. Avoid taking on any new debt this month.
This could be surprisingly hard. You can't get income at some point, and you still have obligations, e.g. a family. You have some things which are hard to reduce (e.g. monthly telecom payments) or have significant upfront costs (you can move far enough to reduce rental costs, but the move will only beneficial after months). It's so much easier to take some debt, at least initially. The author doesn't give good advises for how to avoid getting into debt.
Had to check this one and you're indeed right: one death in 2014[0], and one death earlier about a week ago (May 2026)[1] (as well as 600+ workplace injuries [0]).
In a somewhat similar situation Sergey Korolyov stopped his colleague in front of the Party officials asking a similar question and explained: "We are exploring terra incognita, this is the process of getting knowledge". He was sort of right - even though there were many specific engineering problems, and many of those were rather solvable, especially in hindsight, overall process was stepping into the unknown.
Here we have a cutting edge rocket design - scale, sophistication of engines, design goals - and a commercial evaluation, which path would get to the intended success cheaper. NASA doesn't like public embarrassments, and, as Henry Spencer reminds us, when failure is not an option, the success could be quite costly. So NASA spends billions and many years for a fragile system. If the goal is an airline-like operations, the design should be thoroughly shaken up. It's known that no simulation, no static testing can equate the actual flights in the ability to get the data best describing what conditions the system will encounter in real use. And also, given the industrial scale of Starship production, each flight hardware costs way less than if we'd built them manually, in quantities justifying naming each unit separately.
In Soviet Union, where rocket departments were part of artillery, the testing with actual launches seemed logical. In this case the approach to run a massive test flight program seems logical too, and we can't complain about the lack of progress - first Starship had way less capabilities and performed way worse. In USA we had more than 1000 tests for injector head for F-1 engine in Apollo program, and this number was justified at that time. Starship is way bigger - but the progress is also undeniable, and it would be odd to stop test flights now, when the 3rd iteration of design looks promising.
So, while we can't pin a particular number of tests, I don't think we should worry yet. This year and the next one should be important for Starship program, given SpaceX commitments to help NASA Artemis. If we won't have orbital Starship then - we can come back to this question.
Not relevant to the discussion, but while it's fairly bland and feels right, I can't find a reference to that quote anywhere. Is this a hallucination? Where did you get it? The fact that you're quoting directly implies you copied it from somewhere.
“Everything that Chertok was about to tell you will take a lot of time.
An explanation of what caused all the failures while solving the soft landing
problem is presented in detail on these posters, focusing on each individual
launch. But there is one general cause that explains everything—this is a
learning process. In our plans and schedules, we did not make provisions for
the expenditure of resources and time on the learning process. That is where
we made our mistake; we have paid for it, and I dare say that in the very near
future the mission will be accomplished. Our learning process has taken us
down a rough road, but we have gained invaluable experience. I request that
the commission permit us to conduct a launch and make the final decision, if
you deem it necessary, based on the results of that launch.”
You would perhaps need to change the viewpoint for that. Theoretically, there is nothing which can't be achieved - functionally - without FPGA. However, that doesn't mean some problems can' be solved more conveniently using FPGA, and the solutions turn out better in some regards.
But I too was (edit: also still am!) interesed in fpga so I was just scrolling and I found this really really great video (I can't recommend this enough, so much so that before reading your comment that I actually submitted that video as HN submission)
Also check out what this guy has been doing with old factory robot machines and using FPGA for them was a really practical use of it and they have another video about it too that you can find on their channel.
Some parts of the video especially near the end went really really out of my head but this might be one of the best videos about FPGA judging from the comments and I just really loved it man, so that's about it yeah, I recommend watching the video!
The TVC is clearly visible on one of the center engines in that photo, thank you. It's just about the only thing on there other than the thrust chamber, turbopumps, and bell!
> despite his lack of engineering or technical skills
At least he has B.Sc. in physics and got admitted into Stanford.
I think what Elon says is better explained not as a promise what would happen, but rather as a goal which they're going to aspire to. It kinda supports the idea "we're in business of converting impossible into late". If Elon will start offering more "realistic" schedules, the pace of SpaceX will slow down, perhaps considerably. So, yes, it's "Elon time", which historically isn't particularly precise, but still useful.
> and it was a BA not BSc though that matters less
I've got no opinion on the existence and legitimacy of any degrees Musk may or may not have, but whichever he does have you really can't infer much at all from whether a STEM degree in the US is a BA or a BS without looking at the specific requirements for the degrees at the particular school.
Some schools might give a BA for a program and other schools might give a BS for a nearly identical program. All of these happen in the US:
• BS is the only choice. (Caltech, for example. In fact, Caltech only offers BS for everything. Even English majors--and yes, there is an occasional English major at Caltech--end up with a BS).
• BA is the only choice. UC Berkeley is an example in this category for math and physics.
• Both are offered, with identical coursework and requirements. You can have whichever you want. Some will even for a small fee give you two diplomas, so you can use whichever seems appropriate for the situation.
• Both are offered, from the same department, with different in-major coursework and aims. One may be aimed toward students aiming to go into research, and one toward those aiming to go into teaching, for instance.
• Both are offered, from different departments. For example, UC Berkeley's College of Letters and Sciences offers a BA in chemistry, and the College of Chemistry offers a BS in chemistry. Computer science can be taken at Berkeley in the College of Letters and Science for a BA, or in the College of Engineering for a BS.
• Both are offered, with the same in-major coursework, but differ in out-of-major requirements. So, the BA and BS would require the exact same science and math courses, but the BA has specific breadth requirements to produce a well rounded education, whereas the BS lets you take pretty much what you want as long as you satisfy the math and science requirements and any general requirements of your school.
Yes that's why I said it matters less. Musk represents it as a BSc because it sounds more impressive even if it doesn't matter in his case which one it is. It's still something he misrepresents for clout though.
Presumably (hopefully) you don't stop learning when you leave school, though. A physics degree has always been viewed as a good basis for advanced engineering.
Yes, as far as I understand, canned meat was not so popular among civilians in the USSR before tushonka. And tushonka is usually referred specifically to canned stewed meat, not ham or vegetables.
Old tushonkka was tasty but many of those sold in stores now, especially the cheap ones, are not so tasty and good-quality.
reply