Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Why doesnt your back of the envelope calculation (did you do it?) match ARES analysis?

Could they perhaps achieve high enough mass in a small volume by using eg. lead?

Could it be that a train is more efficient at converting potential energy than a water turbine?

Could it be that they have a longer drop?

You gotta show your assumptions if you're arguing through back of the envelope calculation.




Did they provide any calculations?




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: