Oh for the love of… how can you be this dense and still stand upright?

The 551 is not relevant to the court challenge. SpaceX is not challenging 551 cores. SpaceX is only challenging the cores they can compete against, which is the 401, the 501, and the D5 9040. Those represent 22 of the 36 cores in the block buy. Until F9H is proven, SpaceX can’t challenge or compete against the other 14 cores in the block buy, so they’re not trying.

Moreover, there have only been four 551 launches in the past 12 years. By comparison, the 401 and 501 have launched a combined 26 times in the past 12 years. The bulk of the money in the block buy is for smaller launches, not bigger ones. SpaceX is going after the bigger pot.

I’ve explained this to you three times now. What else do you need to understand it? A puppet show?

Cripes…

The story of the last 5 years in the decrease in power consumption and increase in the number of processor cores. These are nice innovations, especially pertaining to portability. As a computer hobbyist who builds his own machines from parts, I love it. But these are refinements, not new technology.

Nobody is more upset about this lost economic decade than I am. If the US economy grew to potential millions of people would be out of poverty and off of disability and food stamps. Who wouldn’t want that. I know, the haters who would rather we all suffer with the same low wages.

Given the sheer size of the Soviet Union, its technological achievements were paltry.

But fact remains and you admit that the Atlas V 551 is indeed an Atlas V and thus one may conclude that an Atlas V has a significantly higher payload capacity than a an F9. Do you enjoy pain?

Oh for crissakes. Scroll down and watch the repaired footage.

Why do you have to be spoon-fed everything? Are you senile?

“You didn’t respond to my second point, because you cannot.”

What point? Your confused conflation of ballistic trajectories with powered landings? Another poster already responded to that. I’ll give you a hint: Their response is in the post right above this one.

You big senile baby. Cripes…

You should have at least learned a little elementary school math during your janitorial duties at Hughes.

“You try to pretend the solids don’t exist.”

I’ll explain again. Try to follow, if you can.

EELVs use SRBs in some variants. But many EELV payloads launch without SRBs, specifically 29 since the beginning of the program. F9 exceeds the performance of those EELV variants, specifically the A5 401 and 501 and the D4 9040. Payloads for those launchers should be competed and no longer part of the block buy.

How many times does this explanation have to be spoon-fed to you? Do I have to burp you, too, you big baby?

“They boost the performance of the Atlas V far beyond the F9.”

I’ll explain again. Try to follow, if you can.

Payloads that require performance above what the F9 can deliver should remain part of the block buy. But many EELV payloads (29 since the beginning of the program) don’t require that performance and should be competed. That’s why SpaceX is challenging only 22 of the 36 cores in the block buy, not all 36.

How many times does this explanation have to be spoon-fed to you? Do I have to change your diaper, too, you big baby?

“QED.

Next victim please…”

This from the baby who can’t comprehend plain English in another post, who can’t express grade-school math, who can’t accurately compare the performance of different launch vehicle even when he looks them up, and who doesn’t understand simple information even after it’s explained to him multiple times?

Please…

My cats don’t take selfies, by the way. Our technological innovations haven’t resulted in a cat-operatable iPhone. A pity.

The 60s was a period of great technological innovation in defense-related hardware because of the Soviet threat. Not much else, really.

Moore’s Law still pertains, so it’s curious that you’ve given up on the 2010s for technical innovation. Even more curious that you give up on the 2010s because of liberals and Marxism. There is some mindlessness here, but it’s not with them. Wow, you connect Marxism with technological stagnation? That’s rich! I guess no one told the Soviets about that.

We’re not shooting people off to the Moon right now because our technology has stagnated, but rather because the rationale for doing so has stagnated.

I don’t completely disagree with this. My only point was that the 60’s was a period of great innovation. IMHO, so were the 90’s up to the .com bubble. Tremendous advances in processors, networking, operating systems and languages. The 2010’s are nothing like that. The ideas of the 90’s are just being refined and distributed world wide. It is a period that seems to come every 30 years or so where mindless liberals relearn that Marxism doesn’t work.

Now, let’s take it a step further. The Apollo astronauts did what we needed them to do. In fact, in view of the primitive technology they were using, their accomplishments were all the more heroic. In the greater scheme of contemporary technological excellence, those accomplishments really weren’t that much. That’s not to dishonor them, but just to put their accomplishments in historical context. We’re not shooting people off to the Moon right now because our technology has stagnated, but rather because the rationale for doing so has stagnated.