The thrust vector control (TVC) subsystem is usually considered a part of the engine. The major change the Soviet NK-33 underwent for a USA model was the addition of TVC, and the engine was named differently, so there are two engines, named differently, which mostly differ by the presence of TVC.

Raptors can be used without TVC. Be that by using differential thrust, or just not needing that - because rocket is controlled using other means, or other engines - it's possible. Tory Bruno specifically explained that he meant - among other things - that absence.

A picture of the engine working on the test stand can be that for the engine - or for the chamber, a significant component of the engine, with or without turbopumps involved.

The desire to fly to space can be compared with such for going to Everest, the place less hospitable than Cape York, yet having quite an interest from all sides. However, exploration of space could be way more practical than conquering the highest point on Earth - it serves scientific goals, and after science often come applications. There are many useful technologies which grew from space exploration and particularly from manned space programs, and we can expect those benefits to follow those who keeps studying space and learning to live close to the object of study.

We're just starting an energetic space exploration with appearance of better tools in the recent years. Getting to the Moon is relatively easy, and could be barely done with much more modest technology; now we plan a bigger scale program. Getting people to Mars is undoubtedly more complex, but still within reach of the existing - or almost existing - technology. Getting furter from Earth, while not immediately in the plans, may get just as possible and useful with time, and we shouldn't claim to know what could be our reasons tomorrow to visit, say, Ceres or Venus. There is no scientific impossibility for flying almist anywhere in Solar system - the matter is only in needs and economic costs. Our predecessors could be confused with our habits of flying between continents and islands the way we can and do today - similarly some of us may not see the immediate reason to leave Earth - that can pass, as past habits got changed to our current ones.

No one has aspirations or desire to live on Everest. They just want to go there plant a flag and say they did it before rushing back to.Civilization. Hmmm kinda like the moon.

I think there are quite a few people would build a hotel on top if the respective nations controlling the area let them. ;-)

For the record, I would definitely visit such a hotel, even better if it included a super high altitude railway, Jungfrau Railway style!

You would wear an oxygen mask for your entire visit to stay alive? along with the climb, that even with modern technology and accessibility, only a few thousand people have ever done?

because flying helicopter up there is incredibly dangerous and nobody would be willing to do regularly for a job. In fact, only one person has ever done it just to prove that it could be done.

I mean, I don't know you, but I feel like most people are not truly considering the level of discomfort, such a visit would entail. Much less being on the Moon or mars for any extended period of time.

You would essentially be paying tens of thousands of dollars to be an agony for several days. I've done such things just to say i did in my 20's but not for that cost.

Yes, but Everest brings back less in terms of science - it's a smaller place than space.

Moon was that in 1960s. Now we're talking about a McMurdo station, not a dash to the South Pole with temporary storages along the way.

I looked into going to Everest - it is possible for a normal person to go - you need to save up a lot of money ($10-20k) which is within reach of most people if you really want to go. However even if you are filthy rich you still shouldn't: there is a lot of litter on the mountain because it is almost impossible to make the whole trip without leaving things behind. Combine with the danger and you really should not make the trip. Instead a have few photographers and scientists (who have real science to do up there - I'm not sure what there is) make the trip, or better yet a robot - and then look at pictures/videos and read their reports.

The moon is unlikely to be self sustaining - gravity is too low. In turn that means that earth will forever be polluting the earths atmosphere (CO2!) to supply it.

> If you aren't considered the author because you used AI to some extent in making the work, then why would you assume the liabilities?

Maybe some analogy could be with children - as a parent, you are responsible for their misbehavior, but their achievements are their, not your?

Well, when they are a child their material gains are treated as yours, no? (Parents of child actors control the money etc.) And once they aren't anymore you aren't responsible for their misbehavior either (because they've become an adult).

Non sequitur. Can't live in a society and be free of it.

Category error. When it comes to judgement, I am.

The capabilities of my computer? I will unlikely go lower.

And if I have enough need, I will shop for more capabilities. Seems logical.

Fantastic book, great story, awesome memories. Thank you, Cliff.

My smiles back to you, Mich. From a long time ago, when the world was young, and continents hadn’t drifted apart.

Why don't we have APL as the language here?

TUIs are good for users, because they don't require using mouse as much - I didn't see this argument covered.

To me it feels like the difference in positions is "this could be made better" vs. "but this is already so much better than before". Both are right.

Maybe I'm missing something important so far...

I was thinking the same. RISC-V is certainly impressive and I'm glad we have it, but the original article isn't wrong in its complaints either.

It definitely could have gone with a less abrasive tone (as entertaining as it is), so it's no wonder it's getting some pushback.

At least for me, I agree with both of the things you said. RISCV is a significant improvement on a lot of of the status quo in situations where it is currently getting design wins. But it also could’ve been a lot better in simple ways that should have been thought of.

> the difference in positions is "this could be made better" vs. "but this is already so much better than before"

I would say "this could be technically better" vs. "this is already economically better than anything else"

Maybe. I'm not sure if the original author's intent was to say how risc-v could be better or to say it is bad and people should use other (proprietary) ISAs instead.

I am sorry if my point was not clear enough. I don’t advise anybody to stay away from it. In many ways it is good enough.

I just think that if you were designing something from scratch, you could actually learn from past lessons, rather than publishing a document saying you learned, and then demonstrating conclusively that you didn’t.

It's more of the former.

Before this, the author has never recommended others stay away from RISC-V, just stated their own distaste for it and a personal preference to use any other ISA if given a choice.

Yeah the complaints in the original article are valid, but it's like complaints about Android or iOS. There are plenty of valid complaints against either, but neither is strictly better than the other.

You can't prove the theory by providing an agreeing example though.

That for some cases they are still all show doesn't prove everything is all show.