Thanks for delivering this pair, Tory MPs and Daily Mail.
Thanks a fucking bunch.
Who could have foreseen that voting for Brexit would inevitably lead to this shitshow (except me and everyone within 100 IQ points of me)? It's just astonishing. Astonishing, I say.
Get on with it! We want to hear from the candidates
Yes, we don't need to hear the audience's problems. We know them; we often share them.
Yes, but Rishi doesn't.
I doubt the average voter cares. Boris is a millionaire who owns four homes and won an 80-seat majority.
Which was fine when Brexit was the #1 issue at the heart of the election, and not fine if the key issue of the next one is cost of living.
In 2010 after the GFC, David Cameron's £30 million did not stop him getting to Number 10. In 1979, with high inflation and unemployment, the millionaire Mrs Thatcher entered Downing Street. Voters don't care.
God, Rishi is losing this in real time. Talking over Liz, the host, the guests. No matter if what he says is right or wrong, he's coming across as a bully.
Sunak is winning just through greater airtime and exposure so far, i would say. Truss seems less combative than I would expect at dealing with all the domination efforts so far.
Neither of them has much by way of common touch. It’s politician-speak from both sides and the audience, sitting there worrying about their fuel bills and the rest, must be wondering why they bothered coming.
At the half way point I don't think I would be very worried about either opponent if I was Starmer, but I would lose sleep about the state of the country I'm likely to inherit
I know that Sunak has been a bit I AM TALKING OVER YOU. OK, a lot. But Trusster is doing a brilliant cosplay of bee-chewing glarebot. Every time someone quotes her words and actions back to her.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellations data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
If I may, here's a section on what it's like when an Apollo or SuperHeavy-sized rocket goes boom near the pad:
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind: We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
The little I read of either space programme, but particularly the Soviet one, the more I'm amazed anyone made it up there and back in their death traps.
Very true.
But not just in Russia: Brazil had a really nasty one in 2003, killing 19 people. This is one thing I fear with SpaceX's SH/SS development: failing frequently is fine until it is not.
The trick is not having people close to where you are playing with propellants.
That and flight termination systems make rocketry safe. A kiloton or 2 on the horizon is just a loud bang.
The Brazilian thing was stupid negligence of the most basic sort.
Also see the event where Virgin Galactic's friends killed three engineers in an explosion.
Or the event this year where another 'emergent' rocket company had an event with people nearby, fortunately without casualties. Can't find a link immediately, but they got *lots* of criticism...
I’ll refrain from commenting too much on the Virgin thing. He likes to sue.
The engineers were
1) pumping around multiple tons of a known monopropellant. AKA an explosive. 2) they were unaware of the pressure/temperature issues documented in the literature about said propellant. 3) they had no temperature measurement or control on the propellant tanks 4) they had done no worst case (or any case) study to work out a safe zone. 5) they did their tests with people nearby. For no requirement or reason. 6) it was a blazing hot day in the desert, and they had no idea what that was doing to their test rig.
EDIT - do you mean those idiots who were running a giant blow torch they called a rocket motor, while trying to kill themselves? Complete with hiding behind a small hummock of earth about 6 feet from their “test”?
I’ll stop there…
Indeed. But the fact they were in that position was down to the company. Scaled, I think.
Don't blame them for their actions; blame the company that put them in that position.
Neither of them has much by way of common touch. It’s politician-speak from both sides and the audience, sitting there worrying about their fuel bills and the rest, must be wondering why they bothered coming.
He's speaking more politic than she is. I think she's got it based on that.
And again Liz Truss keeps saying Levelling up and recession is personal to her because she experienced the pain or the 1980s and 90s in Paisley and Leeds. But somehow she doesn’t seem to be mentioning that was a period of conservative government.
So which one these should Starmer fear? I’m genuinely trying to see the challenge, but they are no Cameron, Major or Johnson. Even May has a gravitas neither of these possess.
Sunak is winning just through greater airtime and exposure so far, i would say. Truss seems less combative than I would expect at dealing with all the domination efforts so far.
Sunak continually talking over Truss and browbeating her is not a good look. This will work against him. Truss is less combative but less hectoring too.
Thanks for delivering this pair, Tory MPs and Daily Mail.
Thanks a fucking bunch.
The worst thing about Truss is that if/when she wins, she's provided so much material for Labour's attack messages.
Which shouldn't matter, if people were able to ignore the crap that gets thrown around and ask what Labour would actually do.
Why do you care. You’ll vote Tory anyway
I probably will if Sir Keir doesn't come up with any positive reasons to vote for him. Depends exactly where I'm living by then, though, there are some great Tory MPs in the local area and some that I would never vote for.
So which one these should Starmer fear? I’m genuinely trying to see the challenge, but they are no Cameron, Major or Johnson. Even May has a gravitas neither of these possess.
And again Liz Truss keeps saying Levelling up and recession is personal to her because she experienced the pain or the 1980s and 90s in Paisley and Leeds. But somehow she doesn’t seem to be mentioning that was a period of conservative government.
So which one these should Starmer fear? I’m genuinely trying to see the challenge, but they are no Cameron, Major or Johnson. Even May has a gravitas neither of these possess.
Probably Liz
In the sense she would leave an economic wasteland, perhaps.
So which one these should Starmer fear? I’m genuinely trying to see the challenge, but they are no Cameron, Major or Johnson. Even May has a gravitas neither of these possess.
Probably Liz
In the sense she would leave an economic wasteland, perhaps.
More likely, she will change her views and policies again to suit new circumstances.
Sunak is winning just through greater airtime and exposure so far, i would say. Truss seems less combative than I would expect at dealing with all the domination efforts so far.
Sunak continually talking over Truss and browbeating her is not a good look. This will work against him. Truss is less combative but less hectoring too.
Truss just seems lower energy and less combative than I would expect, to me.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellations data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
If I may, here's a section on what it's like when an Apollo or SuperHeavy-sized rocket goes boom near the pad:
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind: We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
The little I read of either space programme, but particularly the Soviet one, the more I'm amazed anyone made it up there and back in their death traps.
Very true.
But not just in Russia: Brazil had a really nasty one in 2003, killing 19 people. This is one thing I fear with SpaceX's SH/SS development: failing frequently is fine until it is not.
The trick is not having people close to where you are playing with propellants.
That and flight termination systems make rocketry safe. A kiloton or 2 on the horizon is just a loud bang.
The Brazilian thing was stupid negligence of the most basic sort.
Also see the event where Virgin Galactic's friends killed three engineers in an explosion.
Or the event this year where another 'emergent' rocket company had an event with people nearby, fortunately without casualties. Can't find a link immediately, but they got *lots* of criticism...
I’ll refrain from commenting too much on the Virgin thing. He likes to sue.
The engineers were
1) pumping around multiple tons of a known monopropellant. AKA an explosive. 2) they were unaware of the pressure/temperature issues documented in the literature about said propellant. 3) they had no temperature measurement or control on the propellant tanks 4) they had done no worst case (or any case) study to work out a safe zone. 5) they did their tests with people nearby. For no requirement or reason. 6) it was a blazing hot day in the desert, and they had no idea what that was doing to their test rig.
EDIT - do you mean those idiots who were running a giant blow torch they called a rocket motor, while trying to kill themselves? Complete with hiding behind a small hummock of earth about 6 feet from their “test”?
I’ll stop there…
Indeed. But the fact they were in that position was down to the company. Scaled, I think.
Don't blame them for their actions; blame the company that put them in that position.
At any time anyone could have criticised what they were doing. “We need to clear the test area”. “We need a $10 temperature sensor on the tank”.
No one mandated that test was run that way - just no one enforced any kind of discipline.
So which one these should Starmer fear? I’m genuinely trying to see the challenge, but they are no Cameron, Major or Johnson. Even May has a gravitas neither of these possess.
Its a valid question. Probably neither. Then again, the underlying position prior to Paterson, CoL and partygate was Tories comfortably heading to at least largest party by a distance. Some sort of ethics drive and Truss winning to negate the party angle and then Starmers aces are down to one, the economy. I guess he will need to be wary of smoke snd mirrors economics and an early election because of them. It will be 'new' and new will have a short term attraction for some
Sunak had to shake things up, but seems to have calmed down now. Truss doing a bit better now, but from the Labour side I really don't think either of them are very scary.
So which one these should Starmer fear? I’m genuinely trying to see the challenge, but they are no Cameron, Major or Johnson. Even May has a gravitas neither of these possess.
Probably Liz
In the sense she would leave an economic wasteland, perhaps.
More likely, she will change her views and policies again to suit new circumstances.
Sunak had to shake things up, but seems to have calmed down now. Truss doing a bit better now, but from the Labour side I really don't think either of them are very scary.
If only Starmer were at all scary, the Tories would be worried.
Apart from Truss dobbing in Raab for calling Brits the worst idlers in the world, we seem to have learned precisely zip from this debate so far. And there are another six weeks of this, which may be a good or bad thing
Comments
Don't blame them for their actions; blame the company that put them in that position.
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1551666286668795904
And banning TikTok?
Could be good for Rishi but hard to say.
Funny, that.
Truss looks measured and in control.
(I can't believe I'm saying that either)
One is my limit.
You’d miss the North East and the toon in the top flight if you fled.
"Would you deploy the RN to the Black Sea to protect grain shipments".
Is that not prevented by the exclusion of warships from the Black Sea by Turkey under the Montreux Convention at the current time of tension?
She is totally Fetlife; probably domme
Oops. The membership won't like that!
This has suddenly calmed down a bit. Energy pills wearing off?
I find Rishi annoyingly disruptive but (to me) Liz is struggling to get her points across.
No one mandated that test was run that way - just no one enforced any kind of discipline.
It will be 'new' and new will have a short term attraction for some
First time I can recall her doing non-cringe.
North Korea is pleasant in the spring, and the level of public debate in the media is marginally above that of the UK.
Lots of openings for human rights lawyers if you feel like a sideways shift.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1551668735852814338
And it's not as though you're even plugging your favourites.
That tells me whatever else is happening it's not being well run or a particularly profitable exercise.