There is no problem to reach a big pressure by itself.
There is problem to reach it for this amount of fuel using the same amount of fuel as energy source. The flow is fixed, so pressure is proportional to pump power, which is a part of turbine power, which takes energy from that fixed flow. To get more energy, bigger temperatures are needed - on both fuel-rich and oxidizer-rich turbines, and that's limited by existing materials.
Of course, there are many complexities with efficiencies, balances (spinning, two turbopumps), thermal expansions and contractions (LOX is about 90K), cooling of turbine blades, if any, control of pressure feedbacks (e.g. the bigger power on turbine - the bigger pressure on pumps, which supplies fuel to gas generator and then to turbine, so we have a positive reinforcement loop here)... No, the problem isn't the pressure - it's the pressure given all the constraints of the leading edge rocket engine.
Ok, but that still doesn't answer my question of what specifically SpaceX did differently. For instance, you said bigger temperatures are needed and that is limited by existing materials. So did SpaceX invent materials that could stand a higher temperature?
SpaceX has the first flight tested, full flow dual turbopump engine.
As in there are turbopumps for both the lox and methane tanks powered by burning extra rich mixtures for each pump leaving enough unburnt lox and methane in the perfect ratio to generate the record primary thrust.
Top-level ev's like the Model 3 are already superior for most drivers. The only problem is cost, and that is being fixed in the coming years through steadily falling battery prices.
Other use cases like aviation and ocean boats are more difficult. It may well be that synfuels made with renewable energy will be the solution there.
I guess you could make a case that, today, SLS is further along. But SpaceX is moving several times faster here than SLS, so in any case it is going to be up and flying regularly long before SLS. And in terms of cost per weight to orbit, it will be a hundred times less.
Here's some historical background. In the 19th century the West enjoyed an extraordinary period of peace, prosperity, and technological progress, all under the guidance of Enlightenment philosophy, with its focus on the supposedly unlimited powers of human reason, and Liberal political philosophy.
But then there was what we now call World War I, which was remarkably destructive and killed of much of an entire generation of young men. And that in turn lead to the Communist revolution in Russia, and great political instability in Germany, which had been seen as the most civilized of nations, which lead to the rise of the Nazis, and also the Fascist regime in Italy. In addition modern developments such as radio and the automobile produced considerably cultural disruption.
All this produced great confusion and despair among much of the intellectual class, and a great many abandoned Liberalism and Enlightenment philosophy. The book in question discusses three philosophers who searched for alternatives, and one who stuck with the Enlightenment.
> the West enjoyed an extraordinary period of peace, prosperity, and technological progress, all under the guidance of Enlightenment [...] But then there was [...] great political instability [...] In addition modern developments such as radio and the automobile produced considerably cultural disruption. All this produced great confusion and despair among much of the intellectual class, and a great many abandoned Liberalism and Enlightenment philosophy.
What will happen in the 2020s-2030s? What will become the new replacement of Neoliberalism? From time to time, I find myself considering this question. The historical background now is remarkably similar. I bet some Hacker News headlines (e.g. "UK votes to leave EU") we've seen has already appeared in a 2060 exam on the early 2010s-2030s, not unlike the our impression of early 1910s-1930s history.
Brexit and Trump don't really compare to WW1. The big change that I think is coming is AGI which will change things more than WW1. Not quite sure how it'll play out.
All liberals, from classical liberals to metaliberals, believe in basic tenets of freedom which are required to have a consenting and aware government, like free speech and freedom to keep private property. Neoliberals are right-of-center liberals who focus on fiscal power, consumerist economy, and free markets.
The main distinction worth highlighting is that neoliberalism does not view it as a problem when large piles of money participate in politics. After all, free markets imply that market leaders must know something about something and aren't merely lucky; therefore they are worth putting in charge of government. In Hong Kong, we see this taken to an extreme, with banks directly voting to choose legislators, but we also see variants all over the world, like the infamous Citizens United vs FEC decision in the USA which allows corporations to directly steer political action committees.
Liberalism is the ACLU; neoliberalism is Disney. The ACLU works to defend everybody's rights; Disney just wants to make money.
Thank you for that rundown; I found it useful, because I’m also hazy about this terminology.
I hesitate to take this into what might be an irrelevant and contentious side road, but I just want to remark that the ACLU is not considered an organization that defends “everybody’s“ rights by everybody. They’ve historically done a fantastic job at defending freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and also 4th amendment rights. Aside from that, it depends on the cultural background of whatever lawyers happen to have influence in the organization. I don’t think most gun owners would say the the ACLU is interested in defending them against the government’s infringement of their rights to keep and bear arms, for example. And, more recently, they’ve taken stances that some people consider misogynistic, by telling women that they have no right to women-only spaces, for example. Women have increasing reason to feel that the ACLU is not defending their rights, in this sphere. So are they a good example of Liberalism? I guess it’s complicated.
In the context of 20th century liberalism, some rights are more broadly accepted than others. Freedom of speech, press, free assembly, political association, rule of law, religion, property etc... these are the core freedoms.. the liberties liberalism refers to. Gun rights are somewhat unique to America so IDK how to treat them.
Other rights... these are not necessarily "liberal" rights. Socialism, for example, always criticised liberals for leaving workers rights and economic rights out of the equation. The ones that exist in law came about later, from socialist (progressives in US terms) agitations that came from "left" of the liberals.
Women only spaces, other such rights... I'm not sure how they relate to liberalism. Feminism generally has not been a purely liberal movement. It had/has many camps and influences.
Liberalism does not mean support for every right. In fact, early liberalism opposed the "rights and privileges" of monarchs, clergy and the aristocracy. Those rights, for example, are part of the UK constitution, but liberals are against them.
I think that clarifies something. Any right, even a basic human right, is in conflict with something that someone else might consider an opposing right. So Liberalism is more specific than recognition of rights of man, or something like that. It is the elevation of a particular set of rights. It is a taking of sides. Would you agree with that?
I personally think political ideologies are just less complete than their self perception. Liberalism, as a political/historical phenomenon just is what it is. It recognised certain things as "rights of man." Some evolved, others got added. Mostly though, what they invented then is what liberalism is today.
Much of liberalism was related to politics of the day. Monarchism, clericalism, etc. Freedom of religion, association, speech and such were issues of the day. Feminism's boom years were still hundreds of years away. I can't really think of any (old) liberals who even talked about women's issues.
It's not necessarily a question of opposing rights. It's about what rights you recognise or don't.
In Scotland, the "right to roam" exists... which allows you to access private property like farms. In the US, "gun rights" exist.
You could theoretically have any political rights in your version of liberalism. It just happens to have happened, that liberalism converged on a certain set of rights early on and stuck with that.
No, the entire conception of rights is tied to liberalism, and itself is not the end of human moral ideology. Rights are good compromises: If we all broadly agree that humans are entitled to some right R, then R will become a social institution which we enshrine and protect, and that is good enough for society to make progress and people to get on with their lives.
For a deeper look, try this Marxist approach, "The Problem With Human Rights" [0]. As both they and I want to emphasize, the goal isn't to take away rights or to disenfranchise people, but to explore exactly what we mean when we say that people are endowed with inalienable rights and what we want governments to do about it.
the entire conception of rights is tied to liberalism
Tied to, yes. But the liberals were using a framework that already existed.
The concept of rights was already used in a constitutional way referring to the "divine and privileges" of the King, the "rights and privileges" of Clergy, the Church, Aristocracy & such.
Rights were already seen as the basis of politcal systems.
Marxism is pretty vast, so almost anything can be marxist. That said, Marx himself didn't speak about rights positively, and was critical of liberalism. His premise was that rights don't matter. Material conditions matter.
You could stand to actually watch the video I linked. To quote its opening line:
> Human rights today have the kind of status that the divine right of kings had in the Middle Ages. They are so deeply ingrained in our political thinking that imagining a society without them seems almost impossible.
And then:
> That human rights "simply follow from the definition of justice" [quoting John Rawls] is at the very least a strange claim, because the notion of "justice" has been theorized at least since the ancient Greeks, whereas the doctrine of human rights was not fully formulated until the 17th Century.
The Greeks?
> Ancient Greek philosophers commonly saw what is right, what is lawful, as being determined by the moral order of the world itself. What is right was not to be found in individuals but in the harmonious order of things.
Continuing on the Greeks and Romans (Hellenistic tradition):
> What was due to a person was determined not by the individual rights they possessed, but by their position in the larger community, and their relationship to the other members of the community. The point of such distributive justice was to aim at social harmony, something that can only be understood in light of the community as a whole; rather than in terms of isolated individual rights.
What changed? Christianity. Ensoulment and God crowded out the harmony of the community.
> Because of [the arguments of Christians], gradually, the moral law came to be seen not as something inherent in the order of things, but something stemming from the Will of God. The importance of order is replaced by the importance of will. [...] The result is a morality built on universal abstract rights which emanate from the will of each individual by virtue of a shared human essence.
And that's just the first quarter of the video. Go watch; it's very informative and lays out its sources and citations in a way that are easy to examine for yourself.
um ...Maybe 1st they splitted "Freedom" in
'economical freedom' and 'profanity, earthliness, worldliness -secularised liberty'. Hope that you now are able to draw a 'more detailed' picture. (-:
BTW: It had been more fun to ask, 'Am I Running Somebody Down To Be Right ?' ^^
Neoliberalism in particular is much more common as an epitaph than a self description.
Broadly, liberalism referred to the rational, secular and mostly republican political philosophies of the 18th century. Rousseau, Locke (not a republican), etc. These are strongly associated with the French and American revolutions. ATT "liberal" meant people would have a say in government. Republican had a stronger anti-monarchist connotation, especially after the French Revolution. It meant abolishing the monarchy, aristocracy and limiting the church's power.
Liberalism became the most dominant political philosophy. Even dissident political ideas like communism, corporatism and 19th century conservatism tended to be derivations and/or responses to liberalism.
"Classical Liberals" usually refers to early 20th century people. Much of it is anticommunist, pro-capitalist ideas responding to the explosion of revolutionary Marxism. Many of these created philosophies that pull history, economics and politics into one framework. This was Marx' format, and it became a template of sorts.
This is when people start using "capitalism" in a positive way, describing themselves as capitalists. Marx used the term "capitalist" to mean people with capital, not people with certain beliefs. "Capitalism," implied that capitalists had usurped power and were the ones in charge. Kind of like the term "corporate lobbyist" today.
The nomenclature always seems odd to me, since "classical liberals" come later.
"Neoliberalism" usually refers to free market, antisocialist politics of the 70s onwards. In earlier decades its associated strongly with Reagan and Tatcher. De-unionisation, free trade, and lower taxes & privatisation. David Ricardo is (early 18th century) had a lot of influence.
From the 90s on, neoliberalism refers to pro-market, centre-left politics. By this point, no one calls themselves a neoliberal.. especially the centre left who hate the term. It's associated refers to Clinton, Bush, Blaire, Angela Merkel etc. Most western politicians really.
The idea, broadly, is that the free market makes wealth.. which can then be used to better society. The term itself is almost always used in dissent, considering neoliberalism to be the incumbent system. This kind of completes the cycle. Marx used "capitalism" as an epitath to criticise liberalism. Classical liberals adopted the term. Then they get called neoliberals.
The lines dividing all these are very fuzzy. In its most common current usage, it means politcal "centrist," more or less.
It's more about de facto politics than abstract political philosophies.
True, but the 1920s were easily his least active, philosophically. He did most of the work for the Tractatus in the 1910s; most of the work for the Investigations in the 1930s.
He published Some Remarks on Logical Form in 1929. It's been 10 years since I was reading Wittgenstein, but my recollection is that work was still Tractarian. The blue and brown books came in the 30s.
The article presents the expert case for why hyperloop is doomed to fail. Normally in this sort of situation, I assume the experts are correct, but not in this case. Let me explain why.
The reason is that we have been in this situation several times before with a Musk idea. The experts all said it was completely crazy, but nonetheless it succeeded spectacularly.
The reason the ideas succeeded is Musk is a genius and as a consequence he thinks things out much better than the experts, who are not geniuses, do.
I am not saying that hyperloop will succeed. No one succeeds all the time, and perhaps this time Musk will fail. I am just saying it seems to me virtually certain he is quite aware of all the factors that the experts say would cause hyperloop to succeed, and has developed surprising solutions to them, and there is a good chance these solutions will succeed.
We'd prefer to give our funds for homelessness and the like to charities we trust, can vet, and can hold accountable.
Instead, those funds are appropriated from us and given to governmental entities, run by people who often hate us, where they are promptly squandered, mismanaged, or redirected into lobbying for higher budgets for themselves.
Seeing this happen over and over tends to lead to apathy, if not disgust for the homeless, warranted or not.
I read the article. Did I overlook the part where partisan politics, and their depth of responsibility for the homelessness problem of NYC was covered? If I did, my mistake. If I didn't, why are you bringing up how conservatives affect the homelessness in NYC? I'm pretty sure conservative policymakers in NYC are as common as hens teeth..in NYC.
