There is a huge difference between having to cut CO2 as it will seriously impact the poor

No. It doesn't. That's just a claim from companies so they don't to change anything.

Starship, the 12m version.

What closures?

They are far outside the exclusion zone.

For 300M€/year ESA could kick-start a company like SpaceX very 5 years including 12 launches.

NASA awarded SpaceX 1.6B$ during the CRS program to develop Falcon9 and CargoDragon and fly to the ISS 12 times.

This means for the money we throw at ArianeGroup for nothing we could have TWO SpaceX equivalent companies in Europe and 24 medium rocket launches since ArianeGroup started developing Ariane6.

It's insane how much money we waste.

They are currently developing on theirs own money without political interferences and issue about procurments+Geo-return the SUSIE programme + Maia.

They have no "own money".

300M€ per year, is, honestly, not that much.

But that's just wasted money! We don't get any service for that!

ArianeGroup is a private company. We pay a private company 300M€ per year for nothing.

They just tell us "give us the money or we go bankrupt". And we pay.

We could buy 4 flights on a medium lift rocket for that money, launch chrildren's drawings on them and still had 20M€ left.

Most, but that doesn't mean only.

If only 7% of the 2024 Falcon9 launches are for geostationary orbits, that are more launches than Ariane6 is even designed to do in one year.

"Funding gap"

Europe has invested about 5B€ in Ariane6 so far. 300M€ are needed each year for ArianeGroup just to exist. Each launch our institutions buy from ArianeGroup costs vastly more than other companies ask for.

We don't have a funding gap. We have a massiv pork barrel problem.

Kill ArianeGroup and we get rid of 95% of our problems.

Yes. And it does so regularly.

I never understood where the misconception comes from that Falcon9 is "just for low earth orbit".

but ask yourself can spacex systems put large payloads into geosynchronous orbit?

Yes. Absolutely.

Just yesterday a major payload switched from Ariane6 to Falcon9. Not even FH.

Dry mass that isn't needed for most deeper space missions if re-entering [...] isn't needed.

But that's very much needed for a space tug in the earth-moon system. Else your propellant bill will be very expensive.

And yet that tendon has ensured the survival of humanity for at least one million years before we developed ranged weaponry.

I don't see a link anywhere in the thread.

The blue text part in my first comment.

you can have more room for the actual car than having an uncomfortably large fuel tank that is ultimately not necessary.

What size is the spaceship constraint to?

A solution for re-fuelling craft headed elsewhere beyond the Earth-Moon system. It'd be equivalent to refilling a gas tank.

Again, this only makes sense when the propellant you get there is only as expensive as on earth. But that's extremely unlikely.

Starship is great and all but once in space it's a lot of dead weight too, I can't help but see it only as a LEO workhorse long term.

What's the dead weight?

If you are barefoot. We surpassed our physical limits with technology, in this case shoes.

No. The only difference is that you don't feel the pain from the impact shock in your knee and the joint wears down slower.

But shoe + correct running technique is vastly superior over shoe + bad running technique.

That doesn't appear to account for Starship 3,

I would be delighted to see your math on that. Feel free to use the spreadsheet in the link.

Not that I know off... maybe you have a link?

Exactly.

It's wild to me that the field of sport medicine is almost completely blind on that area.

;)

2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the aviation fuel including nearly 90 percent of high-octane fuel used [...] Ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) provided amounted to 53 percent of total domestic consumption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

And that's only a very small part of the overall stuff delivered.

In 1941 and 42 the Wehrmacht ran itself dead in the east. No doubt the Soviets bravely fought back with what resources they had: humans. But the overextended supply lines stopped the Wehrmacht just as much as the Soviet army.

The big counter movements from 1943 onward were only possible because the massive help the allies.

Already in 1942 14% of the Soviet GDP came from imports (Page 41, PDF warning)

But only with massive Allied Lend-Lease and a sizable part of the Ukrainian male population.

There is no way the Soviet Union would have not starved to death without the food from the US. Even with that thousands of soviet people starved to death per month.

Id argue a mid foot strike for distance running is better.

That's certainly not wrong.

However it serves the same purpose. After you hit the ground with your mid foot, you still bend your knee slightly, bringing tension into your Achilles tendon. This tension will be released at the end of your step, propelling you still forward.

But if you hit the ground with your heel, this is not possible. And the entire impact shock goes into your knee, slowly destroying the cartilage in the joint. Also pulling up your toes during running causes shin splints.

And if you jog the "correct" way, you even save about 20% of energy, because it is stored in the Achilles tendon.

Incorrect jogging: hitting the ground with the heel first

Correct jogging: hitting the ground with the ball of the foot first.

If you jog the later way, a good part of the force with which you hit the ground gets literally stored in the Achilles tendon and released again when you propel forward.

Hab nach 14 jahren nochimmer den gedanken den lehrer und die mobber zu überfahren falls ich sie jehmals auf der straße sehe

Dafür gibt's zum Glück Gesetze in Deutschland!

Wenn du vorher auch noch was getrunken hast, sind das mindestens 1000€ und 20 Sozialstunden. Du musst aber aufpassen, wenn der Richter dich nicht leiden kann, gibt's da eventuell auch noch 2 Monate Fahrverbot drauf.

Wir leben ja immerhin in einer zivilisierten Gesellschaft.

By that time Starship will be able to travel from LEO to low lunar orbit (LLO) to the lunar surface back to LLO and return to LEO with 5 to 10 astronauts aboard along with 50-100t of cargo in the payload bay.

No. Absolutely not. For a complete round-trip Starship would need NEGATIVE 70 tons of payload. Source 

But Starship could fly a lander to LLO, collect it after its ascent from the moon's surface and then fly back to earth again. That's surprisingly efficient.