DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Genuinely the environment stuff was an absolute joke. Fucking joke

I would have been interested to hear what they had to say about net zero. Its a real issue when times are very tough economically but we have just had the hottest day ever. Worrying about the number of bins we have for recycling really didn't address the point.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

BBC vox pop accuses Rishi of mansplaining

IanB2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Andy_JS said:

Rishi Sunak reminds me of Tony Blair quite a lot.

Truss is strangely reminiscent of @NickPalmer nemesis Anna Soubry. Just watch her speaking mannerisms and expressions.

Nah. Soubry was patronising with every breath she took. I don't rate Truss but she is a million times better than Soubry.

You’re showing your bias, there. Soubry has a talent for speaking plainly and getting her point across in a hard-hitting way. Although this is a mixed blessing it is nevertheless a talent that Truss doesn’t have.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CarlottaVance said:

I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….

You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.

ROFL leaps ahead? Really?

Richard_Tyndall said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Andy_JS said:

Rishi Sunak reminds me of Tony Blair quite a lot.

Truss is strangely reminiscent of @NickPalmer nemesis Anna Soubry. Just watch her speaking mannerisms and expressions.

Nah. Soubry was patronising with every breath she took. I don't rate Truss but she is a million times better than Soubry.

You’re showing your bias, there. Soubry has a talent for speaking plainly and getting her point across in a hard-hitting way. Although this is a mixed blessing it is nevertheless a talent that Truss doesn’t have.

Nope. I got to see her speak both formally and informally dozens of times over the years. She really was patronising to everyone she spoke to. On every subject. Her delivery just oozed scorn and derision.

There were and are other many politicians I very strongly disagree with who I think are genuinely decent people and who are willing to listen and debate in a reasonable manner. Ken Clarke is a classic example of this. Soubry was just offensive.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

🚨BREAKING - SNAP DEBATE POLL🚨

Tonight we asked over 1000 regular voters to watch the debate and we have just asked them who they thought performed best.

Results:
Sunak 39% vs Truss 38%

Richard_Tyndall said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Andy_JS said:

Rishi Sunak reminds me of Tony Blair quite a lot.

Truss is strangely reminiscent of @NickPalmer nemesis Anna Soubry. Just watch her speaking mannerisms and expressions.

Nah. Soubry was patronising with every breath she took. I don't rate Truss but she is a million times better than Soubry.

You’re showing your bias, there. Soubry has a talent for speaking plainly and getting her point across in a hard-hitting way. Although this is a mixed blessing it is nevertheless a talent that Truss doesn’t have.

Nope. I got to see her speak both formally and informally dozens of times over the years. She really was patronising to everyone she spoke to. On every subject. Her delivery just oozed scorn and derision.

There were and are other many politicians I very strongly disagree with who I think are genuinely decent people and who are willing to listen and debate in a reasonable manner. Ken Clarke is a classic example of this. Soubry was just offensive.

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Genuinely the environment stuff was an absolute joke. Fucking joke

I would have been interested to hear what they had to say about net zero. Its a real issue when times are very tough economically but we have just had the hottest day ever. Worrying about the number of bins we have for recycling really didn't address the point.

A man with 10 houses who flies to Santa's Monica for Christmas is not an eco-warrior.

Neither is a woman who took the private jet for the G20 meeting then buggered off home immediately.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CarlottaVance said:

I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….

You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.

ROFL leaps ahead? Really?

Easily.

Normally can't stand vox pops, but the "manslaining" quote on the vox pop could stick.

Go on then, let's hear it.

The Tory environment policy is "I have recycling bins"

Mexicanpete said:

A lot of turbo charging going on in Liz's world.

williamglenn said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I don't think Starmer has much to fear, they clearly don't have any ideas.

Better presentation? Maybe but not clear that this makes any difference

Starmer's is junking all the promises he made to win the leadership, stuffing the membership by backing Hard Brexit, and copying Tory policies on the economy. What exactly are his ideas?

MikeL said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

BBC vox pop accuses Rishi of mansplaining

Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.

Endillion said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Genuinely the environment stuff was an absolute joke. Fucking joke

I would have been interested to hear what they had to say about net zero. Its a real issue when times are very tough economically but we have just had the hottest day ever. Worrying about the number of bins we have for recycling really didn't address the point.

A man with 10 houses who flies to Santa's Monica for Christmas is not an eco-warrior.

Neither is a woman who took the private jet for the G20 meeting then buggered off home immediately.

Santa has an elf called Monica?

williamglenn said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I don't think Starmer has much to fear, they clearly don't have any ideas.

Better presentation? Maybe but not clear that this makes any difference

Starmer's is junking all the promises he made to win the leadership, stuffing the membership by backing Hard Brexit, and copying Tory policies on the economy. What exactly are his ideas?

Foxy said:

MikeL said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

BBC vox pop accuses Rishi of mansplaining

Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.

Two sides of the same coin.

RochdalePioneers said:

kle4 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Why did the BBC go to a focus group in Workington? They aren't the selectorate.

The selectorate might be interested in what the electorate thinks.

HY says not

CarlottaVance said:

Conservative voters thought Truss did better (47% vs 38% for Sunak).
Labour voters thought Sunak did better (41% vs 30% for Truss).

https://twitter.com/opiniumresearch/status/1551678417824784388

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Leon said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CarlottaVance said:

I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….

You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.

ROFL leaps ahead? Really?

They are both better, warmer communicators than Starmer

Probably not ‘leaps ahead’ but, yes, better

Yes but you're so inclined anyway.

Let's hear from somebody in the centre ground

RochdalePioneers said:

kle4 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Why did the BBC go to a focus group in Workington? They aren't the selectorate.

The selectorate might be interested in what the electorate thinks.

HY says not

NEW THREAD

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

MikeL said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

BBC vox pop accuses Rishi of mansplaining

Though first two contributors thought Rishi destroyed Liz.

Two sides of the same coin.

Is it really mansplaining to point out your economic plans are fecking cuckoo land bonkers?

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

glw said:

Shares in France’s Eutelsat slump after it confirms OneWeb merger talks
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/25/france-eutelsat-uk-satellite-firm-oneweb-elon-musk-starlink

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.

Part 1:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4408pt1.pdf
Part 2:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4408pt2.pdf

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.

Stand back from the window, when the rocket goes boom.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wX5GD1N7bEw

The Soviet lack of understanding of basic safety was a feature of their rocket programs

If you don’t mind watching humans burning to death - https://youtu.be/_ybnj4jcnwg

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLS-1_V03

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.

What exactly is your point? They were employees of a company, doing tests for the company. If there is *any* chance of a serious life-threatening event occurring, the company needs to ensure that the tests are as safe as possible, given the knowledge.

Do you blame Chernobyl on the engineers in the control room, or on the system that led them to make those mistakes?

RochdalePioneers said:

BBC News reporting institutional racism in Cricket Scotland.

I know I am a new Scot, but have to ask - we play cricket?

Endillion said:

SouthamObserver said:

What a waste of time. Poor candidates, terrible format, awful moderation. Can’t imagine a single mind was changed.

Nah. The more I see of Truss, the less scared I am of her*.

*as PM, not physically