Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

"Rods from God" is the informal name for Project Thor, a concept for a space-based kinetic weapon. Instead of using explosives or nukes, you put heavy, ultra-dense tungsten rods into orbit. When you want to hit a target on Earth, you de-orbit a rod and let gravity do the... work. By the time it slams into the ground at Mach 10, the kinetic energy creates an impact as powerful as a tactical nuclear warhead—crushing deep subterranean bunkers with zero radioactive fallout. This isn't a new idea either. The history goes back to the late 1950s during the Cold War, when researchers at the RAND Corporation and Boeing first calculated the physics of orbital kinetic impacts. Science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle actually helped formalize "Project Thor" while working at Boeing, pitching it as a way to strike earthbound targets from space without relying on nuclear warheads. The Air Force continued evaluating the concept over the decades, even releasing a formal study on it in 2003, meaning the foundational architecture has been sitting in defense contractor vaults for well over half a century. The X-37B is an uncrewed, reusable military spaceplane that looks like a miniature Space Shuttle. It gets launched on a rocket, stays in orbit on classified missions for years at a time executing secret payload operations, and then lands on a runway autonomously. The theory is that platforms like this could have been used to quietly deliver and park kinetic weapons in orbit under the cover of dark budget programs. Mainstream skeptics write this off immediately. Their argument comes down to numbers: the standard spec for a Rod from God calls for a solid 20-foot tungsten pole weighing 12 tons, while the X-37B's internal payload bay is only 7 feet long and carries roughly 1,000 pounds. Based on those standard specs, critics claim it is physically impossible for the spaceplane to carry those weapons, writing the whole thing off as a theoretical dead end. That rejection relies on a lazy assumption: that the weapon has to be a single, monolithic stick of metal launched all at once. In reality, modular engineering completely flips that argument. Tungsten rods can easily be built as threaded, interlocking segments or stacked modular slugs that fit inside smaller payload bays and get assembled or aligned in space. Spreading modular components across multiple long-duration X-37B missions completely bypasses those size and weight limits, meaning the capability could easily exist regardless of what official narratives claim.show more

Dutch1777

9,584 subscribers

160,539 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

"The market for nuclear power in space will be much larger, and move a lot faster than a lot of people think." —Antares CEO Jordan Bramble "The overwhelming thing that will drive that is — space is now a warfighting domain. As we seek to employ higher-powered assets in Earth orbit and cislunar space, there's pretty clear physics that a nuclear power system scales more favorably on a size and weight basis compared to solar panels." "If you want to have a 100 kW spacecraft, those solar panels would be the size of a football field. You could do a similarly sized nuclear-powered spacecraft and fit it on a Falcon 9."

"The market for nuclear power in space will be much larger, and move a lot faster than a lot of people think." —Antares CEO Jordan Bramble "The overwhelming thing that will drive that is — space is now a warfighting domain. As we seek to employ higher-powered assets in Earth orbit and cislunar space, there's pretty clear physics that a nuclear power system scales more favorably on a size and weight basis compared to solar panels." "If you want to have a 100 kW spacecraft, those solar panels would be the size of a football field. You could do a similarly sized nuclear-powered spacecraft and fit it on a Falcon 9."

TBPN

17,867 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Elon Musk just explained why the SpaceX IPO is an energy story and the energy constraint is why he believes space becomes the only viable path for AI to scale (Save this). The argument he is making is one of the most important and least understood things happening in technology right now. The United States currently consumes roughly 500 gigawatts of electricity on average. To double that capacity which is what continued AI expansion on the current terrestrial trajectory would eventually require would mean building as many power plants as currently exist in the entire country. He is not arguing that this is technically impossible, just that communities are not willing to accept it, that permitting timelines make it unrealistic, and that the hard ceiling on Earth based power generation means the expansion of AI compute will eventually hit a wall that no amount of capital can overcome on the ground. His observation is that in space, that wall does not exist. A solar panel in orbit produces roughly five times more power than the same panel on Earth, operates in continuous sunlight uninterrupted by weather or nighttime, and benefits from the vacuum of space as a completely passive cooling system meaning the two largest operating costs of any terrestrial data center, energy and cooling, are effectively eliminated. He then said that you could theoretically increase harnessed energy by a factor of one million and still be using less than a millionth of the sun's total energy output. This is the underlying physics of why SpaceX filed with the FCC to launch up to one million solar powered AI satellites, and why they described that constellation in their own filing as a first step toward becoming a Kardashev Type II civilization capable of harnessing the full power of the sun. To understand what makes this credible rather than visionary, you need to understand what SpaceX already controls that no other company on earth possesses. Starship, once operating at full cadence, can deliver 100 to 150 tons of payload to orbit per launch, at a target cost per kilogram that is an order of magnitude lower than any existing vehicle. Musk's stated ambition is to scale Starship to 10,000 to 30,000 launches per year, a frequency that would allow the deployment of orbital compute infrastructure at a pace that is currently unimaginable with any existing rocket. He told xAI staff earlier this year that achieving space-based AI at scale will eventually require manufacturing facilities on the moon, building solar panels and heat dissipation structures from lunar silicon and aluminum, and launching them into orbit from there rather than from Earth's surface because the moon's lower gravity makes the economics of launch dramatically more favorable. SpaceX's S-1 filing explicitly states that its launch capabilities could enable massive AI compute satellite constellations with the potential for millions of satellites for orbital data centers, with the first launch potentially occurring as soon as 2028. Google and Alphabet are already in advanced talks with SpaceX about deploying space-based data centers. Starcloud, a startup running Nvidia H100 GPUs in orbit, has already validated that high-performance AI inference workloads can operate in space, with plans to scale to five gigawatts of orbital compute power by 2035. This is why Musk believes the cost crossover happens in two to three years because SpaceX's launch cost trajectory intersects with the accelerating energy constraint on the ground in a way that makes space genuinely cheaper, faster, and less regulated at exactly the moment AI demand is hitting its hardest physical limits.

Elon Musk just explained why the SpaceX IPO is an energy story and the energy constraint is why he believes space becomes the only viable path for AI to scale (Save this). The argument he is making is one of the most important and least understood things happening in technology right now. The United States currently consumes roughly 500 gigawatts of electricity on average. To double that capacity which is what continued AI expansion on the current terrestrial trajectory would eventually require would mean building as many power plants as currently exist in the entire country. He is not arguing that this is technically impossible, just that communities are not willing to accept it, that permitting timelines make it unrealistic, and that the hard ceiling on Earth based power generation means the expansion of AI compute will eventually hit a wall that no amount of capital can overcome on the ground. His observation is that in space, that wall does not exist. A solar panel in orbit produces roughly five times more power than the same panel on Earth, operates in continuous sunlight uninterrupted by weather or nighttime, and benefits from the vacuum of space as a completely passive cooling system meaning the two largest operating costs of any terrestrial data center, energy and cooling, are effectively eliminated. He then said that you could theoretically increase harnessed energy by a factor of one million and still be using less than a millionth of the sun's total energy output. This is the underlying physics of why SpaceX filed with the FCC to launch up to one million solar powered AI satellites, and why they described that constellation in their own filing as a first step toward becoming a Kardashev Type II civilization capable of harnessing the full power of the sun. To understand what makes this credible rather than visionary, you need to understand what SpaceX already controls that no other company on earth possesses. Starship, once operating at full cadence, can deliver 100 to 150 tons of payload to orbit per launch, at a target cost per kilogram that is an order of magnitude lower than any existing vehicle. Musk's stated ambition is to scale Starship to 10,000 to 30,000 launches per year, a frequency that would allow the deployment of orbital compute infrastructure at a pace that is currently unimaginable with any existing rocket. He told xAI staff earlier this year that achieving space-based AI at scale will eventually require manufacturing facilities on the moon, building solar panels and heat dissipation structures from lunar silicon and aluminum, and launching them into orbit from there rather than from Earth's surface because the moon's lower gravity makes the economics of launch dramatically more favorable. SpaceX's S-1 filing explicitly states that its launch capabilities could enable massive AI compute satellite constellations with the potential for millions of satellites for orbital data centers, with the first launch potentially occurring as soon as 2028. Google and Alphabet are already in advanced talks with SpaceX about deploying space-based data centers. Starcloud, a startup running Nvidia H100 GPUs in orbit, has already validated that high-performance AI inference workloads can operate in space, with plans to scale to five gigawatts of orbital compute power by 2035. This is why Musk believes the cost crossover happens in two to three years because SpaceX's launch cost trajectory intersects with the accelerating energy constraint on the ground in a way that makes space genuinely cheaper, faster, and less regulated at exactly the moment AI demand is hitting its hardest physical limits.

Milk Road AI

12,140 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

ELON MUSK: The only way to reach 1,000 terawatts of AI power is a mass driver on the Moon. "In order to get to 1,000x from a terawatt per year. The only way that we can really achieve that is on the moon with a mass driver, essentially where you do local production of photovoltaics and radiators on the moon, maybe you bring the chips from Earth, or you could conceivably make the chips on the moon, and but you need most of the mass to be made on the moon, so you don't have to transport it to the moon from Earth, and then because the moon has no atmosphere and only 1/6 Earth's gravity, you can accelerate the AI satellites into deep space without a rocket, so you can basically shoot them into space using an electromagnetic gun, like a, like a rail gun type. I mean, just, it's basically a linear electric motor, as a way to think about it."

ELON MUSK: The only way to reach 1,000 terawatts of AI power is a mass driver on the Moon. "In order to get to 1,000x from a terawatt per year. The only way that we can really achieve that is on the moon with a mass driver, essentially where you do local production of photovoltaics and radiators on the moon, maybe you bring the chips from Earth, or you could conceivably make the chips on the moon, and but you need most of the mass to be made on the moon, so you don't have to transport it to the moon from Earth, and then because the moon has no atmosphere and only 1/6 Earth's gravity, you can accelerate the AI satellites into deep space without a rocket, so you can basically shoot them into space using an electromagnetic gun, like a, like a rail gun type. I mean, just, it's basically a linear electric motor, as a way to think about it."

DogeDesigner

122,377 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

A single gigawatt of orbital compute requires roughly 200 Starship launches and Elon Musk is not satisfied with gigawatts (Save this). The target is 100 gigawatts of orbital compute per year which means SpaceX is staring down a launch requirement that no organization in human history has ever attempted at anything close to that scale. He acknowledges that scaling to gigawatts per year in orbit is a very hard challenge, but then points to something most people have missed entirely, SpaceX has already demonstrated the foundational capability, because building and launching thousands of Starlink satellites per year is the same industrial problem applied to a different payload. When you understand the orbital compute satellite as a larger version of Starlink V3 with an Nvidia GPU rack at the center instead of a communications payload, the manufacturing and launch scaling challenge stops looking like science fiction and starts looking like a production ramp. The infrastructure to support that ramp is already being built. SpaceX is currently capacitizing for thousands of launches per year, two launch towers and pads in South Texas are operational, the first pad at Cape Canaveral is nearly complete, a second is on the way at Launch Complex 37, and additional locations are already in discussion. As the CFO says it "You need to have those cost curves as you ramp up in volume and time, your costs go down." The vision he describes for what this eventually enables is striking in its specificity. He imagines asking Grok a question on his phone, the inference running on an orbital compute satellite, and the answer coming back down through Starlink direct-to-cell, a complete AI query processed entirely in space, from prompt to response, without touching a single terrestrial data center. That moment, he says, is closer than the industry thinks, with initial capability demonstrations possible as soon as next year. The bottleneck that stands between now and that moment is not the satellite design, the cooling physics, or the silicon, all of which SpaceX has already worked through.

A single gigawatt of orbital compute requires roughly 200 Starship launches and Elon Musk is not satisfied with gigawatts (Save this). The target is 100 gigawatts of orbital compute per year which means SpaceX is staring down a launch requirement that no organization in human history has ever attempted at anything close to that scale. He acknowledges that scaling to gigawatts per year in orbit is a very hard challenge, but then points to something most people have missed entirely, SpaceX has already demonstrated the foundational capability, because building and launching thousands of Starlink satellites per year is the same industrial problem applied to a different payload. When you understand the orbital compute satellite as a larger version of Starlink V3 with an Nvidia GPU rack at the center instead of a communications payload, the manufacturing and launch scaling challenge stops looking like science fiction and starts looking like a production ramp. The infrastructure to support that ramp is already being built. SpaceX is currently capacitizing for thousands of launches per year, two launch towers and pads in South Texas are operational, the first pad at Cape Canaveral is nearly complete, a second is on the way at Launch Complex 37, and additional locations are already in discussion. As the CFO says it "You need to have those cost curves as you ramp up in volume and time, your costs go down." The vision he describes for what this eventually enables is striking in its specificity. He imagines asking Grok a question on his phone, the inference running on an orbital compute satellite, and the answer coming back down through Starlink direct-to-cell, a complete AI query processed entirely in space, from prompt to response, without touching a single terrestrial data center. That moment, he says, is closer than the industry thinks, with initial capability demonstrations possible as soon as next year. The bottleneck that stands between now and that moment is not the satellite design, the cooling physics, or the silicon, all of which SpaceX has already worked through.

Milk Road AI

67,791 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Remote Viewer Just Exposed a SECRET Military War That No One Realizes Is Going On. No it's not the Iran War. No It's not the Gaza War.... It's an INVISIBLE WAR. Remote Viewer, Edward Riordan, exposes what's actually going on, that we are not aware of: ."..Was some object here flying across? It was in motion. Flying, zipping, moving, moving motion accelerating. Very fast speeds like a rubber bullet. It reminded me of just very fast moving." "The object itself was manmade. The notions here are like space travel technology and or weapons of war, flight or missile built in and for the same thing. So these are like military space weapon kind of stuff. Military and contractor budget facility. That was this place, a military contractor budget facility. And with these kinds of crafts, spacecrafts here or flying..." "...It was, a sense of advanced technology, space flight and weapons. But for what, though, I wonder? Stealth machines... How does this relate to the tasking though I questioned... A secret budget operation is what it felt designed for." "But what is it developed for, though? I pondered protecting, protection from enemies. See, this is where I get interesting protection from enemies seen and not seen." "Stealth level, even cloaked, even in remote flying. Meaning the pilot is on the ground in a VR simulator while the plane flies the mission. Is this what the target is all about? So I wonder, the testing of a system, a flying system protecting an unseen entity. This is case where stuff got very interesting. Here we're protecting an unseen entity, protecting the unseen. But what does that even mean, though, I wonder? And defense system designed and built for the unseen. For those who you are not to see or cannot see." "is all of that unseen seen surface at all theoretical in theory, a threat from an an interdimensional force and to protect the unseen from here?" "...Very sci fi, heavy on the defense. To fight off, an invisible or cloaked enemy...." "he signal was like that. The dark night, satellite thinking. Wow, this is really pretty wild. Wow... getting this notion here that this thing, that this invisible thing is going to bleed over from that world into this world.... seen as a continuation war or hostility factor in the world that people will continue to quote, seems as a continuation war or hostility factor in the world. People will continue to question, is it a real, is it a simulation? Do I need to be concerned? All their questions, the effects of this hostility don't seem to do much for the average person living out their lives. It affects them, but not in ways they can or will register directly. The main element remains hidden and or secret..."

Remote Viewer Just Exposed a SECRET Military War That No One Realizes Is Going On. No it's not the Iran War. No It's not the Gaza War.... It's an INVISIBLE WAR. Remote Viewer, Edward Riordan, exposes what's actually going on, that we are not aware of: ."..Was some object here flying across? It was in motion. Flying, zipping, moving, moving motion accelerating. Very fast speeds like a rubber bullet. It reminded me of just very fast moving." "The object itself was manmade. The notions here are like space travel technology and or weapons of war, flight or missile built in and for the same thing. So these are like military space weapon kind of stuff. Military and contractor budget facility. That was this place, a military contractor budget facility. And with these kinds of crafts, spacecrafts here or flying..." "...It was, a sense of advanced technology, space flight and weapons. But for what, though, I wonder? Stealth machines... How does this relate to the tasking though I questioned... A secret budget operation is what it felt designed for." "But what is it developed for, though? I pondered protecting, protection from enemies. See, this is where I get interesting protection from enemies seen and not seen." "Stealth level, even cloaked, even in remote flying. Meaning the pilot is on the ground in a VR simulator while the plane flies the mission. Is this what the target is all about? So I wonder, the testing of a system, a flying system protecting an unseen entity. This is case where stuff got very interesting. Here we're protecting an unseen entity, protecting the unseen. But what does that even mean, though, I wonder? And defense system designed and built for the unseen. For those who you are not to see or cannot see." "is all of that unseen seen surface at all theoretical in theory, a threat from an an interdimensional force and to protect the unseen from here?" "...Very sci fi, heavy on the defense. To fight off, an invisible or cloaked enemy...." "he signal was like that. The dark night, satellite thinking. Wow, this is really pretty wild. Wow... getting this notion here that this thing, that this invisible thing is going to bleed over from that world into this world.... seen as a continuation war or hostility factor in the world that people will continue to quote, seems as a continuation war or hostility factor in the world. People will continue to question, is it a real, is it a simulation? Do I need to be concerned? All their questions, the effects of this hostility don't seem to do much for the average person living out their lives. It affects them, but not in ways they can or will register directly. The main element remains hidden and or secret..."

Future Forecasting Group

19,006 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

400 kilometers above Earth, a butterfly emerged from its pupa in orbit—a breakthrough by Chinese researchers showing that life can persist, and even take flight, in microgravity. The achievement marks a notable advance in space life science under extreme conditions. The butterfly developed inside a small, sealed space system designed by a team from Chongqing University and launched into orbit in December 2025. Images from space showed it resting on leaves, fluttering its wings, and moving freely inside the capsule, while monitoring data confirmed that the miniature environment remained stable despite the challenges posed by microgravity. Behind the moment lay years of technical work. By overcoming key scientific hurdles and building a lightweight, self-sustaining ecosystem, the research team demonstrated that complex life processes can be supported in orbit. The “space butterfly” offers new insight into the resilience of Earth life and provides a basis for future missions aimed at sustaining life during long journeys beyond the planet.

400 kilometers above Earth, a butterfly emerged from its pupa in orbit—a breakthrough by Chinese researchers showing that life can persist, and even take flight, in microgravity. The achievement marks a notable advance in space life science under extreme conditions. The butterfly developed inside a small, sealed space system designed by a team from Chongqing University and launched into orbit in December 2025. Images from space showed it resting on leaves, fluttering its wings, and moving freely inside the capsule, while monitoring data confirmed that the miniature environment remained stable despite the challenges posed by microgravity. Behind the moment lay years of technical work. By overcoming key scientific hurdles and building a lightweight, self-sustaining ecosystem, the research team demonstrated that complex life processes can be supported in orbit. The “space butterfly” offers new insight into the resilience of Earth life and provides a basis for future missions aimed at sustaining life during long journeys beyond the planet.

Sinical

117,337 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

$David Friedberg: The Moon is the Next Industrial Frontier “ I think the moon could end up being the next industrial frontier for humanity. And the reason is, if you can get to the moon, it has an extraordinary abundance of material that we can mine, process, and manufacture into goods. And ultimately the cost to ship those goods back to the Earth is zero. And the reason is that on the moon, you can take advantage of the low gravity, it's about 1/6 the gravity, and the complete lack of an atmosphere, meaning that it's frictionless to move material off of the moon and very low energy to move it off of the moon. In fact, the design for moving material off of the moon is to use what's called a mass driver, which is like a train track, like a rail, like an electric rail. And you could put a package on that rail and use electricity to accelerate that package to 100 G-Force, shoot it back to the earth, or theoretically shoot it to Mars, and it will go to the exact point on the Earth you want it to go to, reenter the atmosphere, and land with a simple parachute where you want it to go. So we could run continuous mining, continuous manufacturing processes on the moon at a fraction of the cost of what it would take to do it here on Earth.”$

David Friedberg: The Moon is the Next Industrial Frontier “ I think the moon could end up being the next industrial frontier for humanity. And the reason is, if you can get to the moon, it has an extraordinary abundance of material that we can mine, process, and manufacture into goods. And ultimately the cost to ship those goods back to the Earth is zero. And the reason is that on the moon, you can take advantage of the low gravity, it's about 1/6 the gravity, and the complete lack of an atmosphere, meaning that it's frictionless to move material off of the moon and very low energy to move it off of the moon. In fact, the design for moving material off of the moon is to use what's called a mass driver, which is like a train track, like a rail, like an electric rail. And you could put a package on that rail and use electricity to accelerate that package to 100 G-Force, shoot it back to the earth, or theoretically shoot it to Mars, and it will go to the exact point on the Earth you want it to go to, reenter the atmosphere, and land with a simple parachute where you want it to go. So we could run continuous mining, continuous manufacturing processes on the moon at a fraction of the cost of what it would take to do it here on Earth.”

The All-In Podcast

104,205 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

What an epic opening to a press conference from John Calipari “When you’ve done this a long time and you’re in the business of young people, it is about the name on the back of the jersey. Yes, we’re doing it for Arkansas.. I’ve kind of been that way and done alright at every school I’ve been at. You can say it’s wrong. You can either be P’d off or be peed on.”

What an epic opening to a press conference from John Calipari “When you’ve done this a long time and you’re in the business of young people, it is about the name on the back of the jersey. Yes, we’re doing it for Arkansas.. I’ve kind of been that way and done alright at every school I’ve been at. You can say it’s wrong. You can either be P’d off or be peed on.”

Trey Wallace

410,658 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

#WATCH | On being asked about the West Asia conflict and where the Islamabad MoU stands right now, Senior Journalist, Political Commentator & Author, Fareed Zakaria says, "It's completely dead. It was predictable that it would be dead... Iran has figured out it has a usable nuclear weapon that can be used as leverage, which is control over the Strait of Hormuz...What we are trying to solve now is a problem created by the war itself, and even that has not been solved. In my opinion, the whole thing is a very humiliating defeat for the United States" "It's completely dead. And it was predictable that it would be dead because it is a memorandum of misunderstanding...Iran has figured out it has a usable nuclear weapon, in other words, a weapon that is actually more powerful because it can be used as leverage. That leverage is control over the Strait of Hormuz, and they want to assert that power...To give you an understanding of how poorly this war has gone for the United States, remember President Trump's original goal, which was to destroy the Iranian regime, have the people of Iran launch an uprising, and bring democracy to Iran. That didn't work. The goal number two became the nuclear issue...The desire to get the Iranians to hand over their enriched uranium, swear that they would never use it again, and permanently end the program none of that has happened. The third goal then became control of the Strait of Hormuz, which, of course, was open before the war. What we are trying to solve now is a problem created by the war itself, and even that has not been solved. In my opinion, the whole thing is a very humiliating defeat for the United States" Watch full interview here:

#WATCH | On being asked about the West Asia conflict and where the Islamabad MoU stands right now, Senior Journalist, Political Commentator & Author, Fareed Zakaria says, "It's completely dead. It was predictable that it would be dead... Iran has figured out it has a usable nuclear weapon that can be used as leverage, which is control over the Strait of Hormuz...What we are trying to solve now is a problem created by the war itself, and even that has not been solved. In my opinion, the whole thing is a very humiliating defeat for the United States" "It's completely dead. And it was predictable that it would be dead because it is a memorandum of misunderstanding...Iran has figured out it has a usable nuclear weapon, in other words, a weapon that is actually more powerful because it can be used as leverage. That leverage is control over the Strait of Hormuz, and they want to assert that power...To give you an understanding of how poorly this war has gone for the United States, remember President Trump's original goal, which was to destroy the Iranian regime, have the people of Iran launch an uprising, and bring democracy to Iran. That didn't work. The goal number two became the nuclear issue...The desire to get the Iranians to hand over their enriched uranium, swear that they would never use it again, and permanently end the program none of that has happened. The third goal then became control of the Strait of Hormuz, which, of course, was open before the war. What we are trying to solve now is a problem created by the war itself, and even that has not been solved. In my opinion, the whole thing is a very humiliating defeat for the United States" Watch full interview here:

ANI

48,501 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

ELON MUSK: “The way to expand compute is really in space. There’s a lot of room in space. And if you look at the size of Earth relative to the Sun or relative to the Solar System, you realize just how tiny it is. We’re very, very tiny. We only receive about half a billionth of the Sun’s energy. So you can really think of Earth as being like a tiny dust mote in a vast darkness. So the way to expand compute without, you know, using up all the land on Earth is to do so in space. And then you can do it without using space for power and water on Earth; you can just do it in space. So I think we’ll probably be launching our first AI satellites next year, and then we’ll be able to do that, I think, at large scale in about two years.”

ELON MUSK: “The way to expand compute is really in space. There’s a lot of room in space. And if you look at the size of Earth relative to the Sun or relative to the Solar System, you realize just how tiny it is. We’re very, very tiny. We only receive about half a billionth of the Sun’s energy. So you can really think of Earth as being like a tiny dust mote in a vast darkness. So the way to expand compute without, you know, using up all the land on Earth is to do so in space. And then you can do it without using space for power and water on Earth; you can just do it in space. So I think we’ll probably be launching our first AI satellites next year, and then we’ll be able to do that, I think, at large scale in about two years.”

DogeDesigner

65,218 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

Anduril Founder Palmer Luckey Reveals His Vision for the Future of Warfare: “I believe that the next warfighting domain is the Subterranean domain.” “Using the entire volume of the Earth as a three-dimensional space [to] maneuver and fight wars in.” “I’ve built vehicles at Anduril that are capable of tunneling underground and delivering a variety of electronic and kinetic effects to wherever you want them to go.” “That sounds a little crazy… but remember during the Cold War the U.S. and the Soviet Union both had subterranean programs… trying to build nuclear-powered underground vehicles that could bore through the earth… and deliver big payloads, big effects.” “They were imagining that these would be manned vehicles… they had to be big enough to have crew quarters and room for the operators… so they had to be nuclear-powered.” “Today, because you can automate so much of that… you can actually fit all of this stuff into a much smaller diameter.” “Recent advances in technology, especially on the power-density side… and also the ability to put useful payloads into very small things… has brought this idea into my mind as the future of warfare.” “If I would have started working on it five years ago we would already be deploying it today. Unfortunately, I only started working on it two years ago.” For context, this clip is from an interview in 2023… 👀

Anduril Founder Palmer Luckey Reveals His Vision for the Future of Warfare: “I believe that the next warfighting domain is the Subterranean domain.” “Using the entire volume of the Earth as a three-dimensional space [to] maneuver and fight wars in.” “I’ve built vehicles at Anduril that are capable of tunneling underground and delivering a variety of electronic and kinetic effects to wherever you want them to go.” “That sounds a little crazy… but remember during the Cold War the U.S. and the Soviet Union both had subterranean programs… trying to build nuclear-powered underground vehicles that could bore through the earth… and deliver big payloads, big effects.” “They were imagining that these would be manned vehicles… they had to be big enough to have crew quarters and room for the operators… so they had to be nuclear-powered.” “Today, because you can automate so much of that… you can actually fit all of this stuff into a much smaller diameter.” “Recent advances in technology, especially on the power-density side… and also the ability to put useful payloads into very small things… has brought this idea into my mind as the future of warfare.” “If I would have started working on it five years ago we would already be deploying it today. Unfortunately, I only started working on it two years ago.” For context, this clip is from an interview in 2023… 👀

Anduril Appreciator

85,393 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

ELON: REFUELING IN ORBIT - A BRAND-NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR SPACE TRAVEL “A crucial technology that we hope to demonstrate next year is orbital refilling, much like aerial refuelling. It’s essential to be able to send a significant payload to Mars. You send a ship to orbit with a few hundred tons of payload, a filled payload bay. Once it gets to orbit, the tanks will be mostly empty. Then you send up additional tanker ships to refill the Mars ship’s tanks so that it can thrust from Earth orbit to Mars and have enough propellant left for landing. This orbital refilling is also not something that’s ever been demonstrated before - so that would be a brand new technology.” Source: SpaceX, Elon Musk, and Bill Riley, August 25, 2025

Mario Nawfal

39,332 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

$I’m seeing a lot of questions on the launch of China’s Chang’e 6 mission yesterday to get samples - for the first time - from the far side of the moon. We don’t know (afaik) why specifically they’re doing that, but we have a pretty good idea what grand vision China is working towards with their space program. How? From this 2022 video by Chas Freeman (former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Nixon's interpreter during his era-defining 1972 China visit), who imho is undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable former US officials on China. He says that according to his own discussions with people running China’s space program, they’re following the vision described in the book "The high frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neill, which Freeman says has "become the bible of the Chinese space program". I read the book. So what vision does it describe? The book was written in 1976 by O'Neill who was a professor of physics at Princeton University. He also founded the Space Studies Institute, an organization devoted to funding research into space manufacturing and colonization. In other words, he knew his stuff. The book makes the very fair point that we have massive resource constraints on earth, especially given the growing population. He estimated in 1976 that we should be "about six and a half billion people in the year 2000", and we were 6.114 billion back then so he was pretty prescient. He estimates that these constraints will progressively give rise to more and more social tensions as the growing earth population competes for our limited resources as well as faces global problems like climate change. In his view, dealing with this will either require "an authoritarian regime capable of mounting the immense task of social reorganization needed to escape catastrophe" or, alternatively, “mankind would [need to adopt] a static society [that would be] forced in self-defense to suppress new ideas". The 3rd alternative is of course the colonization of space. The most interesting aspect of the book is that he claims everything he writes is feasible with knowledge and technology that already existed in the late 70s. In short he calls for the establishment of large human habitats in the Earth-Moon system, located at stable Lagrange points ("parking spots" in space where gravity from different spatial bodies cancel each other out). In particular he developed the concept of what's known today as the "O'Neill cylinder" which he says "could support quite easily a population of ten million people, growing its food in agricultural cylinders near but outside the main habitat". Energy-wise, it'd simply make use of solar energy via a system of mirrors. As he describes it: "the concentration of the unvarying, intense sunlight of space by very lightweight, inexpensive mirrors can provide all the energy that industry will ever need [...] at a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour". He envisages building these habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. Also "the habitats would have artificial gravity similar as that of earth by rotating about twenty-eight times an hour”, but he also envisages low-gravity areas, especially for recreational activities such as swimming pools or dancing representations. To trade with earth, he develops the idea of beaming solar power back to earth via "microwave from solar power stations in orbit". As he describes it "the microwave beam would arrive at Earth with a beam width of about seven kilometers. Its intensity would be modest, less than half that of sunlight. In contrast to sunlight, though, it would be there all the time, even at night or in clouds or rain, and it would be in a form ready for conversion to DC current with a loss of only 10 percent. The areas receiving these beams’ output on Earth would be fenced, and outside the fence the intensity of microwave radiation would be no higher than outside a microwave oven with the door closed. He estimates that if "Satellite Solar Power Stations (SSPS) were to become the sole source of electric energy in the United States in the year 2000, the land area necessary for the SSPS antennas would still be only 0.2 percent of that of the continental United States". In short, the establishment of space colonies could lead to the fulfillment of a good share of Earth's energy needs. Last but not least he describes life in space habitats as better than that of earth, largely thanks to the level of control we'd have over the environment (total climate control which would enable an abundance of food and no natural disaster) as well as unlimited cheap energy. To conclude, Chas Freeman typically really knows his stuff when it comes to China and he’s very intellectually honest (a rare trait among US officials) so I have no doubt he tells the truth when he says the Chinese told him that was the vision. And China famously thinks very big and very long term so it would be quite like them to go for something like this. There are also quite a few tangible signs that China is working towards that vision. See for instance this November 2022 news where “China’s space station will join a project to collect solar power from space and send it to Earth in a high-energy microwave beam”: That’s exactly O’Neill’s vision! Or check this October 2022 news that says China is developing new "electromagnetic sledges" that can propel a carriage weighing a few tonnes to a record speed, with a key application for this being “aerospace”: Remember: O’Neill’s vision is to build his habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. So there you go… Or also the fact that the Chinese will build, together with the Russians, a moon base - planned for 2028 - powered by a “space nuclear reactor” that’s already been developed (on Earth) and has passed review by China’s Ministry of Science: The space nuclear reactor can generate 1MW of electricity, enough to power 10 International Space Stations. Enough power, maybe, to undertake mining activity and power an electromagnetic catapult… After visions change, the world changes, so it’s also possible that China’s view on what they want to do has evolved. In any case, Chas Freeman is right that China’s motivation for all its initiatives in space can’t just be to “boldly explore where no-one has been before”, they have to be working towards something. And Freeman is also absolutely right to lament that the U.S. decided to ban any cooperation in space with the Chinese. Those endeavors are something that could have been jointly developed as a multilateral effort to unite us all as a species… Instead China is now forced to go at it alone with Russia and we face a future where our petty divisions on Earth will be carried with us to space…$

I’m seeing a lot of questions on the launch of China’s Chang’e 6 mission yesterday to get samples - for the first time - from the far side of the moon. We don’t know (afaik) why specifically they’re doing that, but we have a pretty good idea what grand vision China is working towards with their space program. How? From this 2022 video by Chas Freeman (former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Nixon's interpreter during his era-defining 1972 China visit), who imho is undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable former US officials on China. He says that according to his own discussions with people running China’s space program, they’re following the vision described in the book "The high frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neill, which Freeman says has "become the bible of the Chinese space program". I read the book. So what vision does it describe? The book was written in 1976 by O'Neill who was a professor of physics at Princeton University. He also founded the Space Studies Institute, an organization devoted to funding research into space manufacturing and colonization. In other words, he knew his stuff. The book makes the very fair point that we have massive resource constraints on earth, especially given the growing population. He estimated in 1976 that we should be "about six and a half billion people in the year 2000", and we were 6.114 billion back then so he was pretty prescient. He estimates that these constraints will progressively give rise to more and more social tensions as the growing earth population competes for our limited resources as well as faces global problems like climate change. In his view, dealing with this will either require "an authoritarian regime capable of mounting the immense task of social reorganization needed to escape catastrophe" or, alternatively, “mankind would [need to adopt] a static society [that would be] forced in self-defense to suppress new ideas". The 3rd alternative is of course the colonization of space. The most interesting aspect of the book is that he claims everything he writes is feasible with knowledge and technology that already existed in the late 70s. In short he calls for the establishment of large human habitats in the Earth-Moon system, located at stable Lagrange points ("parking spots" in space where gravity from different spatial bodies cancel each other out). In particular he developed the concept of what's known today as the "O'Neill cylinder" which he says "could support quite easily a population of ten million people, growing its food in agricultural cylinders near but outside the main habitat". Energy-wise, it'd simply make use of solar energy via a system of mirrors. As he describes it: "the concentration of the unvarying, intense sunlight of space by very lightweight, inexpensive mirrors can provide all the energy that industry will ever need [...] at a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour". He envisages building these habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. Also "the habitats would have artificial gravity similar as that of earth by rotating about twenty-eight times an hour”, but he also envisages low-gravity areas, especially for recreational activities such as swimming pools or dancing representations. To trade with earth, he develops the idea of beaming solar power back to earth via "microwave from solar power stations in orbit". As he describes it "the microwave beam would arrive at Earth with a beam width of about seven kilometers. Its intensity would be modest, less than half that of sunlight. In contrast to sunlight, though, it would be there all the time, even at night or in clouds or rain, and it would be in a form ready for conversion to DC current with a loss of only 10 percent. The areas receiving these beams’ output on Earth would be fenced, and outside the fence the intensity of microwave radiation would be no higher than outside a microwave oven with the door closed. He estimates that if "Satellite Solar Power Stations (SSPS) were to become the sole source of electric energy in the United States in the year 2000, the land area necessary for the SSPS antennas would still be only 0.2 percent of that of the continental United States". In short, the establishment of space colonies could lead to the fulfillment of a good share of Earth's energy needs. Last but not least he describes life in space habitats as better than that of earth, largely thanks to the level of control we'd have over the environment (total climate control which would enable an abundance of food and no natural disaster) as well as unlimited cheap energy. To conclude, Chas Freeman typically really knows his stuff when it comes to China and he’s very intellectually honest (a rare trait among US officials) so I have no doubt he tells the truth when he says the Chinese told him that was the vision. And China famously thinks very big and very long term so it would be quite like them to go for something like this. There are also quite a few tangible signs that China is working towards that vision. See for instance this November 2022 news where “China’s space station will join a project to collect solar power from space and send it to Earth in a high-energy microwave beam”: That’s exactly O’Neill’s vision! Or check this October 2022 news that says China is developing new "electromagnetic sledges" that can propel a carriage weighing a few tonnes to a record speed, with a key application for this being “aerospace”: Remember: O’Neill’s vision is to build his habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. So there you go… Or also the fact that the Chinese will build, together with the Russians, a moon base - planned for 2028 - powered by a “space nuclear reactor” that’s already been developed (on Earth) and has passed review by China’s Ministry of Science: The space nuclear reactor can generate 1MW of electricity, enough to power 10 International Space Stations. Enough power, maybe, to undertake mining activity and power an electromagnetic catapult… After visions change, the world changes, so it’s also possible that China’s view on what they want to do has evolved. In any case, Chas Freeman is right that China’s motivation for all its initiatives in space can’t just be to “boldly explore where no-one has been before”, they have to be working towards something. And Freeman is also absolutely right to lament that the U.S. decided to ban any cooperation in space with the Chinese. Those endeavors are something that could have been jointly developed as a multilateral effort to unite us all as a species… Instead China is now forced to go at it alone with Russia and we face a future where our petty divisions on Earth will be carried with us to space…

Arnaud Bertrand

265,181 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Here's Elon Musk back in 2010 announcing that SpaceX is going to try to build a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. “The pivotal breakthrough that's necessary, that some company has to come up with to make life multiplanetary is a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. This is a very difficult thing to do because we live on a planet where that is just barely possible. If gravity were a little lower, it would be easy. If it was a little higher, it would be impossible. Even for an expendable launch vehicle where you don't attempt any recovery, you get maybe 2% to 3% of your liftoff weight to orbit. Now you say, okay, let's make it reusable. Which means you've got to strengthen the stages, you've got to add a lot of weight, a lot of thermal protection, you've got to do a lot of things that add weight to that vehicle and still have a useful payload to orbit. Now, you're saying, of that meager 2% to 3% and maybe if you're really good, get it to 4%, you've got to add all that's necessary to bring the rocket stages back to the launchpad and be able to refly them and still have useful payloads to orbit. So, a very difficult thing. This has been attempted many times in the past and generally what's happened is when people have concluded that success was not one of the possible outcomes then the project's been abandoned. It's just a very tough engineering problem. It wasn't something that I thought I wasn't sure it could be solved, for a while, but then relatively recently, probably in the last 12 months or so, I've come to the conclusion that it can be solved. And I think SpaceX is going to try to do it. We could fail. I'm not saying we're certain of success here, but we're going to try to do it. We have a design that on paper, doing the calculations, doing the simulations, it does work. And now we need to make sure that those simulations and reality agree because generally when they don't, reality wins.” National Press Club, September 29, 2010

Here's Elon Musk back in 2010 announcing that SpaceX is going to try to build a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. “The pivotal breakthrough that's necessary, that some company has to come up with to make life multiplanetary is a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. This is a very difficult thing to do because we live on a planet where that is just barely possible. If gravity were a little lower, it would be easy. If it was a little higher, it would be impossible. Even for an expendable launch vehicle where you don't attempt any recovery, you get maybe 2% to 3% of your liftoff weight to orbit. Now you say, okay, let's make it reusable. Which means you've got to strengthen the stages, you've got to add a lot of weight, a lot of thermal protection, you've got to do a lot of things that add weight to that vehicle and still have a useful payload to orbit. Now, you're saying, of that meager 2% to 3% and maybe if you're really good, get it to 4%, you've got to add all that's necessary to bring the rocket stages back to the launchpad and be able to refly them and still have useful payloads to orbit. So, a very difficult thing. This has been attempted many times in the past and generally what's happened is when people have concluded that success was not one of the possible outcomes then the project's been abandoned. It's just a very tough engineering problem. It wasn't something that I thought I wasn't sure it could be solved, for a while, but then relatively recently, probably in the last 12 months or so, I've come to the conclusion that it can be solved. And I think SpaceX is going to try to do it. We could fail. I'm not saying we're certain of success here, but we're going to try to do it. We have a design that on paper, doing the calculations, doing the simulations, it does work. And now we need to make sure that those simulations and reality agree because generally when they don't, reality wins.” National Press Club, September 29, 2010

ELON CLIPS

14,920 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

🚨 BREAKING: Sen. Eric Schmitt is CALLING OUT the war machine and military industrial complex for trying to SINK President Trump's Russia-Ukraine war peace plan "They live in this fantasy world that another round of sanctions or another round of weapons or another round of cash is going to solve the problem, and it WON'T!" "The Washington consensus has been so WRONG about this, for so long, and they've been wrong about a lot of things over the last 30 years!" "President Trump approaches this as a realist. You take the world as it is, not how you want it to be, not how you wish it would be, but actually how it is." "A lot of people won't say it, the Ukrainians have been losing for a long time. They've lost 20% of their territory. They have a manpower problem. They have a munitions problem." "I think what President Trump is trying to accomplish is maintain Ukrainian sovereignty, make sure there's a pathway to rebuild the country, and also lessen the likelihood that this will ever happen again." "And so they put forward a proposal, a framework, Secretary of State Rubio, the Secretary of the Army Driscoll, they're all in Geneva right now working with the Ukrainians, working with the Europeans to try to get to some consensus here on the 28 points." "I would say that most of those, at least half of those, have been talked about for a long time and there's a lot of agreement." "So you've to narrow the gap now and try to get to a place where you recognize the realities on the ground." Eric Schmitt

🚨 BREAKING: Sen. Eric Schmitt is CALLING OUT the war machine and military industrial complex for trying to SINK President Trump's Russia-Ukraine war peace plan "They live in this fantasy world that another round of sanctions or another round of weapons or another round of cash is going to solve the problem, and it WON'T!" "The Washington consensus has been so WRONG about this, for so long, and they've been wrong about a lot of things over the last 30 years!" "President Trump approaches this as a realist. You take the world as it is, not how you want it to be, not how you wish it would be, but actually how it is." "A lot of people won't say it, the Ukrainians have been losing for a long time. They've lost 20% of their territory. They have a manpower problem. They have a munitions problem." "I think what President Trump is trying to accomplish is maintain Ukrainian sovereignty, make sure there's a pathway to rebuild the country, and also lessen the likelihood that this will ever happen again." "And so they put forward a proposal, a framework, Secretary of State Rubio, the Secretary of the Army Driscoll, they're all in Geneva right now working with the Ukrainians, working with the Europeans to try to get to some consensus here on the 28 points." "I would say that most of those, at least half of those, have been talked about for a long time and there's a lot of agreement." "So you've to narrow the gap now and try to get to a place where you recognize the realities on the ground." Eric Schmitt

Eric Daugherty

32,984 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,455 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

In our last conversation, Gavin said data centers in space will be the most important thing in 3-4 years. He explains that means "racks in space" and thinks orbital compute will solve the watts shortage: "When people hear data centers in space, they picture a Pentagon-sized building in space. That's not what it is. A Blackwell rack weighs 3,000 pounds. It's eight feet high. Four feet deep. Three feet wide. It's racks in space. It has these solar wings that are probably 500 feet long on each side. You keep it in a Sun-synchronous orbit, so those solar panels are always in the sun. And then because it's in an exactly Sun-synchronous orbit, the radiator, which extends behind it for hundreds of feet is in the shade. You link these racks using lasers traveling through vacuum which are already on every Starlink. SpaceX operates the world's largest satellite fleet, which is 98 or 99% of all satellites in orbit. Every Starlink, they're cooling it today. I think Starlink V3 is going to operate at 20 kilowatts. A Blackwell rack is only 100 kilowatts. And people talk a lot about density. Well, if you're connecting the racks with lasers through vacuum, you can make the rack bigger physically. In space, there's all sorts of things that SpaceX can do. They also now operate the largest data center on Earth. I've spent a lot of time at Starbase over the years, and I've talked to a lot of SpaceX engineers. It is the most talented group of engineers on planet Earth, and they're very confident they have solved this."

In our last conversation, Gavin said data centers in space will be the most important thing in 3-4 years. He explains that means "racks in space" and thinks orbital compute will solve the watts shortage: "When people hear data centers in space, they picture a Pentagon-sized building in space. That's not what it is. A Blackwell rack weighs 3,000 pounds. It's eight feet high. Four feet deep. Three feet wide. It's racks in space. It has these solar wings that are probably 500 feet long on each side. You keep it in a Sun-synchronous orbit, so those solar panels are always in the sun. And then because it's in an exactly Sun-synchronous orbit, the radiator, which extends behind it for hundreds of feet is in the shade. You link these racks using lasers traveling through vacuum which are already on every Starlink. SpaceX operates the world's largest satellite fleet, which is 98 or 99% of all satellites in orbit. Every Starlink, they're cooling it today. I think Starlink V3 is going to operate at 20 kilowatts. A Blackwell rack is only 100 kilowatts. And people talk a lot about density. Well, if you're connecting the racks with lasers through vacuum, you can make the rack bigger physically. In space, there's all sorts of things that SpaceX can do. They also now operate the largest data center on Earth. I've spent a lot of time at Starbase over the years, and I've talked to a lot of SpaceX engineers. It is the most talented group of engineers on planet Earth, and they're very confident they have solved this."

Patrick OShaughnessy

267,946 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

RFK Jr: Why did "gluten allergies" go up so much in 2006? "we discovered that Roundup was a desiccant. And what that means, if you spray it on a crop, it will actually dry out the crop. And one of the big enemies of the farmer is that if there's rain around the time of harvest, their crops can get wet, and they get moldy, and then it ruins the entire silo." "What Monsanto did is they began telling farmers, spray this on the crop, on your wheat, right before harvest or at the time of harvest. And it was so popular that about 85 % of the Roundup that has been used in history has been used since 2006. A large part of that is as a desiccant. And what that meant, is for the first time they're spraying it on food right at harvest." "Not early in the season when they have a chance to wash off, but actually just before you're going to eat it. And they're spraying it for the first time on wheat because there was no such thing as Roundup Ready Wheat. They started spraying it on wheat as a desiccant. And so 2006 marks the day when suddenly these gluten allergies began exploding. The celiac disease and all these kind of wheat problems that we started seeing in this country." If you measure it back and say, when did it start? You can look and draw a red line at this 2006 and it's the year that they began spraying it on.

RFK Jr: Why did "gluten allergies" go up so much in 2006? "we discovered that Roundup was a desiccant. And what that means, if you spray it on a crop, it will actually dry out the crop. And one of the big enemies of the farmer is that if there's rain around the time of harvest, their crops can get wet, and they get moldy, and then it ruins the entire silo." "What Monsanto did is they began telling farmers, spray this on the crop, on your wheat, right before harvest or at the time of harvest. And it was so popular that about 85 % of the Roundup that has been used in history has been used since 2006. A large part of that is as a desiccant. And what that meant, is for the first time they're spraying it on food right at harvest." "Not early in the season when they have a chance to wash off, but actually just before you're going to eat it. And they're spraying it for the first time on wheat because there was no such thing as Roundup Ready Wheat. They started spraying it on wheat as a desiccant. And so 2006 marks the day when suddenly these gluten allergies began exploding. The celiac disease and all these kind of wheat problems that we started seeing in this country." If you measure it back and say, when did it start? You can look and draw a red line at this 2006 and it's the year that they began spraying it on.

Wall Street Mav

3,860,541 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten