It's hard to say but easily tens of millions of dollars. Note that there's little incentive to offer a significantly lower price to customers without any competition applying downward price pressure in that range so it's basically impossible to figure out what the internal cost difference is just by looking at price changes.
In general they've said that launching used rockets will cost customers about 30 percent less than regular price (so ~43 million instead of 62). For this specific case I wouldn't be surprised if they charged SES less than that because of the risk involved in being the first flight.
No one knows for now, as refurbishment costs are a big unknown (and I don't think SpaceX will release those numbers at this point). The cost of the first stage is a significant part of the overall rocket cost, though, considering it's the largest part, and it has 90 % of the engines (each of which costs about a million already).
Since they took four months to refurbish this stage it may have cost quite a bit to do so for now. But they're learning and Block 5 to debut later this year will have lots of changes based on what they learned.
In fact optimizing the Falcon 9 for first stage re-use has lead it down a very different development path from most modern launchers.
On an expendable architecture the priority is saving weight on the second stage, because every kilogram saved there saves many kilograms for the first stage. So pound for pound the second stage usually costs more than the first stage. Also the cheapest way to build a first stage is with one or just a few big engines. Both these optimization criteria are reversed for a re-usable design. In the Falcon 9 the first stage is re-used while the second stage isn’t, so that’s the stage you want to spend your money on. Also a few big engines can’t be throttled low enough or gimbaled precisely enough for a landing burn. Even the using just one of the relatively small engines in the Falcon 9 can’t be throttled low enough to hover. Hence the Falcon 9 has many smaller engines to give it a much greater range of thrust settings and better attitude control.
Honest question: Why is Mainstream Media not covering this like it should be doing? Heck, this should be the breaking news every single day!!
After all, this spells doomsday for the upcoming generations, so shouldn't it be the news that should be shown/covered almost everyday on the front page.
The people have the right to know that their children and grandchildren will suffer because of something that is going on right now. I guess, that majority of people, all over the world, are blissfully unaware of this scenario because this doesn't get the kind of attention in the MSM that it should. All they get served is dirty politics and gossip entertainment news.
Maybe people will force the policies to change if they get to know that this will happen.
It seems that most people today think that Terrorism is the main threat to our society, when in fact, Global Warming seems to be the real deal.
Let's say it was found that fifty years from now, an Asteroid would hit Earth. Would the people of Earth react in the same way as they are doing now?
>Honest question: Why is Mainstream Media not covering this like it should be doing? Heck, this should be the breaking news every single day!!
Perhaps it is because of the influence of the largest industry in the world in terms of revenue: the petroleum industry. Money talks, or rather in this case, money hushes.
Where do you think the primary source of climate change denial propaganda comes from?
It's the job of every other industry that depends on the world existing to call them out on this and spend actual dollars as a protective measure. And the people and their governments, because the collective interest in fixing this can not be decided by a minority value holder. We have done this before with ozone issues and we can do it again but it's past due time to just collectively have the aha moment.
Russia Today (bear with me for a second) did a documentary [0] on how the climate and geography (!) of the region is changing. They also interview the local population and how they view the change in the ecosystem on which their whole lives are build.
It's not all that bad, we will have the opportunity to live in a Mad Max like environment for real ! If we, humans, - as a species - are unable to focus away from dirty politics and gossips, then we don't really deserve to survive. Maybe we need to go through a few centuries of post-apocalyptic landscape to transform ourselves and evolve ?
Global warming is also extremely costly so it's a financial threat too, and also a problem causing political destabilization and increased tensions, radicalization from climate refugees crisises etc.
If the media covered everything they should have to the standard of quality they should have over the last, oh, let's say twenty years, the world would be an incredibly different place.
Has anything been published in international peer reviewed journals ? Are there scientists at NASA or ivy league universities who became concerned and verified it through modeling and simulations ? If the answer is no in both cases, why should the public be alarmed ?
Well I am no expert, but there is google scholar. The first result searching for "siberian methane bubbles" is Walter &al. 2006 [1], furthermore a simple search for :siberian methane bubbles nasa" yields a rather interesting overview article from Nasa's Earth Observatory [2]. So while the presence of an media article not necessarily imply that there is research, in this case the article reports on an active area of study.
- there's a whole lot of shades of grey between a hoax and a scientifically proven phenomenon.
- we don't need to be alarmed -- we can be just interested in something new and unusual.
Insufficient research to date does not mean the phenomenon doesn't exist or does not deserve attention.
P.S. This reminds me of the famous story about two economists walking down the street. One spots a $100 bill on the pavement and wants to pick it up. The other stops him saying: "that's just an illusion. If this were to happen, somebody would have picked it up already".
Yes, of course. There is a huge body of published research available. Data is collected, used to refine the models and then the uncertainties are researched to figure out where more measurements would help the most. Do you have a specific question? I'll throw some time at it.
I'm sure you meant 'research universities', not 'Ivy League universities'. That is, unless you really are implying that only Ivy League universities (and NASA) do impactful research (FALSE), you are hopelessly snooty, or you are trying to be sarcastic (e.g. jamming on the Ivy League school penchant for producing individuals that land positions in political and corporate governance that by and large want to ignore climate change).
Until people undeniably feel it they will not believe they are the problem. It takes a lot for someone to change their minds in the face of "criticism".
I believe this is the case when MSM are not blowing things out of proportion, so by comparison it looks like an understatement. This doesn't "spell doomsday" for the upcoming generations.
First, I believe we are already well on path to sustainable energy. Let's be honest, any planet-wide change will take time, especially when affected by economic means. Granted, world-level dictatorship may achieve zero carbon emissions in a few decades, but I strongly doubt that that is what you want. On the other hand, renewables are surging even with our current level of technology. Any sudden technological breakthrough (be it batteries, fusion energy or room-temperature superconductance) will accelerate it even further, but it's not necessary for the transition. Humanity will surely switch to renewables in a century.
Second, consequences of rising global temperature are harsh, but in no way there are a "doomsday". Do you really believe that loosing Californian fertile grounds will end the humanity? We will adapt and so will the ecosystem in general. It may be costly and inconvenient, but people already live both in the desert (like Northern Australia) and in tundra (like Alaska). Not the end of the world.
Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy.
All in all, I strongly believe that your asteroid analogy is an over-exaggeration.
1. Renewables in a century? We'd have burned through a large chunk of buried by then. With massive degrees of warming
2. I'm not sure you understand likely warming scenarios. The world doesn't just warm a bit, then stay stable at a new normal. We are triggering runaway feedback effects. At a certain point, even if emissions are zero, the earth keeps warming.
3. This may be something we'll have to do. But it wouldn't stop ocean acidification, for one. Sealife is already dying mysteriously.
Not to get into any of the massive unknowns of manually controlling the atmosphere. Or the political difficulties of doing so while countries face famines from farmland losses and droughts, leading to migration on a scale vastly exceeding what we have now.
1. Yep, in a century. I don't see how we can realistically do that faster without some sort of planetary Stalin. You think that would be a better option?
2. "Runaway" is relative and it will stabilize at some point. The particular point is debatable, but it's surely not a Venus-like environment (not until the Earth geology stops). Earth has seen much, much warmer times (palms-on-Antarctica-level warmer) and yet there was a thriving biosphere. Moreover, even the harshest predictions are on the scale of decades thanks to the immense thermal mass of oceans and atmosphere, compared to years if not months that we need to block a large part of incoming sunlight.
3. Ocean acidification is bad and a demise of the great barrier reef will be a pity, but it will not end humanity. Look at the comments around here: people are seriously considering mass-scale human extinction in a decades. Do you really believe that ocean acidification will lead to that, especially in the developed countries?
Sure, there will be political difficulties and mass migration. But it's challenges, not a sudden-death-from-above like an asteroid that GP invoked.
Oh, I had interpreted their asteroid remark loosely, in the sense of "a really bad thing is forecast to arrive several decades from now!" rather than "sudden death will arrive several decades from now"
1. I actually think we'll keep burning all the carbon unless technology makes it economically inefficient to do so (because the alternatives are better). I guess by my critique here I meant to say that I thought your timeline would leave to worse results than you thought it would.
And no, I don't think we'll have human extinction from climate change.
But, I think the consequences will be dire. Right now we have a very large world population, and it's still growing. We're managing to feed ourselves now, but only tbrough great technical feats in agriculture that have increased yields. And we basically require all the land to do this, and a network of global trade in foods.
What happens when some portions of land become unusable? When droughts worsen? When war erupts due to food pressures and large crop areas can't have capital intensive techniques used on them? If war disrupts global trade?
I think our system is very fragile, and premised on continuous improvement.
Do you think a lot of people will die this century if we continue on our present course, or do you think we'll manage to produce enough food regardless?
> but people already live both in the desert (like Northern Australia) and in tundra (like Alaska).
Presumably you're referring to Aboriginal Australians and Inuit/Eskimo peoples?
It might be useful to note that these groups of people are known for their utmost respect toward nature, and the fact that their communities are largely sustenance based.
> Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy.
If this were truly the solution to global warming, I find it difficult to believe that no one has already done it.
Saying "can be cheap and easy to deploy" would lead me to think of this were actually true, Greenpeace would already be doing it.
I believe that your explanations don't stand up to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Climate change is accelerating, and it is a big deal for our and future generations.
I'm referring to places like Newman [0] or Norilsk [1]. Those places have nothing to do with "utmost respect toward nature", as they are settled for mining stuff. However, they are fine examples of people being able to thrive and support a modern western-level living even in harshest of environments. No need to ditch air conditioning or your favorite SUV.
> I find it difficult to believe that no one has already done it
At this point there is no need to. The population that matters most politically (so-called "first world countries") are not affected by global warming enough to require drastic active measures. There is not enough political capital to be won in leading international talks on active Earth cooling. However, if the pain become real enough, talks will be held, rockets will be launched and the Earth will be cooled.
> Greenpeace would already be doing it
First, AFAIK Greenpeace is mostly against active measures. Second, "cheap and easy" is relative: it's "cheap and easy" as in "building a dam", not as in "occupying an oil rig".
Places like Norilsk are not self-sufficient. They are able to support a "modern western-level living" because of massive supporting infrastructure in more hospitable locations.
Where do you think their food comes from, for example?
> Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy.
(Emphasis mine)
Isn't that basically the "chemtrails" conspiracy theory? The irony would be pretty entertaining if we ended up actually realizing that to combat climate change.
No, contrails are condensed water vapor, and they are shortlived enough they contribute ~.0001% warming effect observed.
Aerosols, usually a sulfate, are particles, which block sunlight, like the ash from volcanic eruptions. Most eruptions put the ash into the troposphere where it sinks to Earth relatively quickly. By placing sulfates into the stratosphere, they become 100x longer lived, and thus a small amount can have a strong cooling effect.
This keeps happening to me! I wrote a fairly obscure remark about SICP on HN and 2 days later I was on reddit with one of the top comments as my exact comment.
The user in question has also copied a comment about chili from HN, so it's not the first time. Maybe some attempt at providing reputation for his account, but as you say, what's the point?
Or maybe just some guy harvesting imaginary internet points.
Sometimes I do wonder why American Universities charge exorbitant tuition fee?
Education being the bedrock of an advanced society, isn't but natural the developed economies like US should be able to subsidize education to such an extant that youth of country don't have to worry about paying their tuition fee and focus more on learning and innovation that will take everyone forward.
It is but a reflection on the sad state of affairs that our higher education system has fallen into!!
There are three gigantic sources of waste in the US: healthcare, military spending and education. All of them are 1) run by large organizations with growing bureaucracies, 2) considered so important that any expense is justified, 3) heavily subsidized or financed with loans or insurance, so growing costs are always met 4) in a position where the bureaucracy decides how much should be spent, not the end consumer. In other words, the school decides its students need $300 text books, or to raise rates $1k to fund new buildings and programs. Same with hospitals: the last hospital I was at had a grand piano and robots roaming the hallway. Politicians don't want to be seen cutting defense spending, so the military bureaucracy decides how much to spend, and when there's money left at the end of the year they always find a way to spend it. I'm not sure how we should fix it, but I'd imagine we either have to increase pressure on these institutions to save money by drying up their endless source of revenue, or take the purchasing decisions out of their hands and back into the hands of consumers.
Although I can appreciate the comparison in terms of amount of money in each, I don't know there is tremendous waste in all three, or that the source of expense is the same in all three.
What they do have in common is being seen as indispensible or essential services. I agree they also all have tremendous bureaucracies.
For example, I think one primary source of costs in healthcare (strangely almost completely unaddressed in the current healthcare law debates) is lack of competition. Licensing laws and government regulation over procedures and whatnot stifles effective choices in healthcare.
There are many other problems too, like lack of transparency over pricing, and an inversion of the normal economic decision-making process (for example, instead of the buyer having fixed costs and benefits to choose between, they are often at best only given the option of accepting or refusing the service).
Education is a bit different, IMHO. There, you have businesses using degrees as checklist criteria and pushing off real training onto schools; schools have become administratively topheavy. Rather than being faculty-driven, they're increasingly administratively-driven (it's not uncommon to have several deans of a given college, for example). States, which have historically funded universities in the public interest, are cutting that funding and pushing costs onto students.
I guess my point is that I don't really see the solutions being the same, nor do I see simply cutting funding and "starving the beast" as the right solution. Education is already underfunded, and what tends to happen is that administrators cut other positions over their own, or over relinquishing decision-making authority to democratic processes.
Too much discussion has focused on who pays for healthcare, and in what way, or how much. It's important but not really helpful in the long-term, because the real problems are in transparency and overregulation. It's ridiculous, for example, to assume that citizens can take responsibility for their own healthcare if the government explicitly prevents people doing just that: by preventing them from making their own healthcare decisions, preventing competition, and raising regulatory hurdles to new services (e.g., in the form of drug regulation, overly strict laws about who can provide what service, and what hospitals and manufacturers must do). So we end up with a system where you can't refill a harmless medication you've used for years without getting approval of an overpaid provider, but can get a harmful opiate from that same provider when another service (from a different type of provider) would be more helpful.
The amount of money being spent in these areas is not really the problem; it's a symptom. Just cutting spending on them will not really address the problems, and may make them worse.
Because they can and they want to make money (even the non-profits). There's no other way to justify a 3x increase in tuition over 10-15 yrs. Teacher's salaries have stagnated or dropped (due to use of adjuncts) and course material costs have effectively gone to zero (most materials are available on the Internet so the only excuse for $300 books now is greed or very esoteric subjects). That's why I refuse to donate to my alma mater. They have more than enough money. They have an unlimited, endless supply of money coming in from these federal loan programs, and they increase tuition to tap into more and more of it. It's a never ending cycle of making money off of students while offering the least amount of education possible.
This is what a society that doesn't value education in the least looks like. Instead of figuring out how to educate our population, we're too busy figuring out how to prevent people from pursuing education because most people are just too stupid for college by the time they reach college age. And why wouldn't they be, considering that in our best public schools, they just spent 12 years being babysat and learning almost nothing?
They charge an exorbitant fee because tuition is being heavily subsidized. The consequences of this exact policy change being discussed is a form of removing part of that subsidy.
> Sometimes I do wonder why American Universities charge exorbitant tuition fee?
Because American universities are viewed as institutions under the control of a "hippie class", and academics are viewed as "prissy" and "elite". It's a class hatred of the educated, combined with a desire for power over the working class in the form of loan repayments.
> Sometimes I do wonder why American Universities charge exorbitant tuition fee?
Students demand a lot. Good profs. Dorms with AC. Sports teams. Medical care.
All that cost a lot.
States and federal gov't pays less each year. The difference has to come from somewhere?
In any case, its not perfect but I will take US colleges 100x over Japanese Colleges or Chinese Colleges or Mexican Colleges or 98% of the colleges in the world.
I went to university in 2008. We did not have dorms with AC. The dorm I lived in was built in the 40s or 50s. Tuition (no relation to dorm costs) was still rising rapidly. Now my alma mater has new dorms with AC, but they cost far more than the older dorms (which are still available). Tuition has continued to rise since then, albeit more gradually.
My university did not provide free medical care. Professor quality has not quantifiably improved over that time.
Have sports team costs increased so rapidly in the last 10-15 years?
Even if US colleges are better than 98% of the world (which I doubt, it seems like you conveniently forgot Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.) employers are mostly using that degree as a box tick. Convincing students they need the exhorbitantly priced best when they really don't still seems predatory to me.
Personally I paid the equivalent of 16kUSD for a 4 year software degree in New Zealand, and my fortune 500 employer seems fine with it. A foreigner would have to pay double, but that's still far from US prices.
There is a big range. You can get a 4 year "software degree" from a community college in the US for no more than 20k USD. Most of the big numbers you see toted are for private university, or giant flagship campuses. Many schools do offer cheaper deals at the smaller campuses. Don't buy the hype that any college degree in the US cost $200k.
This seems to be based on some misinformation. Tuition only covers a small portion of a university's costs. The rest is made up by endowments, grants, donations, and other sources.
People have been going to college in this country for a long time and only relatively recently has the outstanding amount of loans and those in delinquency have shot up. I have a hard time believing the reason is having good professors and air conditioning.
If you read my posts further down, Football is one of the only net positives for most universities. So getting rid of Football may raise your tuition by $500.
Now if you got rid of swimming, lacrosse, cross country, track, cricket, etc. etc., that would lower tuition by a bit.
>Students demand a lot. Good profs. Dorms with AC. Sports teams. Medical care.
Why would you expect your university to provide dorms for you? This whole living on campus thing on Anglo universities was always weird to me. You'd only expect perks like that if you pay thousands of dollars a semester.
Also Re:"Medical care": That's what universal health care is for.
> Why would you expect your university to provide dorms for you
Traditionally, you go to school hundreds or thousands of miles away from your family. You need someplace to stay, no? Growing up in a city and you will have much more options to "live at home"
> That's what universal health care is for
The US does not have universal health care. So not sure what you are saying, how could a university not charge for something that is required and not provided elsewhere?
The university gives students access to cheaper housing than they could find on their own. Not sure how that is any different from say, providing electricity for the classrooms. You need both electricity and a place to sleep to attend school no?
> Well, there's your problem
Sure, but that isn't going to change anytime soon. Just giving up on any problem because "whelp, no universal healthcare" is not a productive way to live life.
Sports teams are generally a net positive. You and I see the $3.5M salary for a football coach at a public university and think it's absurd, but the football program itself pulls in tons of cash directly and indirectly and is probably more than 'worth it' to the school overall.
edit: Looks like this is generally wrong. I'll leave it up but see below comment.
I hear that sound byte (bite?) here a lot. It does not seem to be true based on the news I read. Perhaps you have better sources than I. From what I see, 20 out of 1,083 NCAA schools made money on sports. The other 1,063 lost money.
Only 24 FBS schools generated more revenue than they
spent in 2014, according to the NCAA Revenues and
Expenses of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs
Report. That figure jumped from 20 schools in 2013, but
it has remained relatively consistent through the past
decade.
Don't forget to account for scholarships. You are giving free tuition to the football team, ladies soccer team, lacrosse team, ladies cross country, swimming, etc. etc. etc.
Only two sports were profitable at FBS schools, according
to the report. Football programs netted a median profit
of slightly more than $3 million and men’s basketball
netted a median $340,000. But the profits at most schools
quickly vanished after paying for a long list of other
intercollegiate teams, all of which lose money. The
median loss among of athletic departments was $11.6 million.
Hey, that's news to me. I heard this in terms of specifically the UC schools' major sports endeavors, so maybe it's still true there, but thanks for the sources.
Though it is an academic book, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach by Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig.
The first chapter in the book provides a detailed analysis of how other disciplines contribute to the idea of AI - from Philosophy to Psychology, Biology to Computer Science. Makes for an interesting read, even for a non-tech reader.
The course is also quite easy to follow without buying the book. I love the exercises in which you are programming an intelligent agent to move through a maze. It reminded me of how we learned programming in university using Karel The Robot.
I tend to find fixed size buffers easier to conceptualize than dynamically allocated buffers. Tend to find that even with most modern language C#/Java I still see developer use fixed size buffer even within enterprise apps.
So I think there is something to be said with the whole movement of books/expert advice advocating against fixed size buffers/enum's to use more dynamic memory models when people in the trade are still using enum and static sizes. Anecdotally I've seen it more use of it now than any time in the past.
Worked on a number of different projects clearly from a maintence perspective. From C,C++ mostly around VBS2/VBS3 (Operation Flashpoint) and VSS Simulation systems. Moved on from C/C++ simulation market when the money wasn't really in it unless you're the sales people or upper management. Kind of drives it home when you bike into work and all management are driving BMW ect.. This was a startup that I took a major pay cut.
After that phase moved into web development. Tomcat/Java and Servlet containers and C# and F#. I've spent about in total 12 to 15 year's software development in this field.
When I first started programming I learnt from Quake/Doom Engine from John carmack. I can attest his software style and technical finesse was something to be admired even to me today. There was something to be said to have a look at good written C code that was really straight forward and easy to follow. At this time OOP/Java was starting to become a mainstream in the market place and most of hype and push was from marketing and also compiler writers/contracts wanting to push their contracting sales pitch at Universities/Schools and management.
Granted the whole OOP/Java was one giant experiment that paid off for other people but never really paid off for me. In my younger years I remember not getting OOP. When I say NOT getting it, I never really felt there was a clear explanation of what OOP was and my gut feeling was the whole theory vs practicality didn't work for me. So seeing that I had to time to waste I started research and reading as many OOP books as I could find. In total I've read about 60 different OOP books and research papers. After all this I still conceptually don't GET OOP. The whole thing a act in cognitive dissonance for me.
You probably GOT OOP but I never did. So more power to you.
My only anecdotal (Single data point) experience has been maintaining a large range of different type of software over the years. From procedural code, to functional programming all the way Java, and Spring (Inverse Version Control).
A lot of smart people than me in in the 90's/2000 created these massive taxonomy systems. Multiple inheritance from anything from 10 to 15 layers deep. Excessive use of design patterns and over-use of meta-programming where meta-programming (really) didn't need to be used all the time (look at you C++). I remember night tearing my hair out because these things TOOK up the fucken wall. Litterally the taxonomy's was just that large that had so many inter-layered derived class calling Derived classes that called in turn called the base classes then would in turn call the Derived classes, that would then in turn call some event handler. Yes you get the picture.
It did take about 3-4 years of 10 hour nights to finally get this massive inheritance system (Operation Flashpoint btw) where you could be productive. Then two months after I quit.
I then moved over to Java, and web-app development. Where I doubled my wage overnight. The Java project's designs had also drunk the kool aid also during the 2000's. So yet again I was faced with 7 to 8 layer (Single) inheritance system. Each consecutive developers building on this inheritance system. As you can imagine, the cost/turn around time and budget for such a system caused then to drop the system. They settled on Spring and dependency inversion control.
Granted most of the code I see teams writing is a throw back to procedural code. You have your controller that processes requests that in turn passes it off to services. That in turn accesses Repositories. This is inclusive of your typical MVC model, but most of the services, and code now I see is just a singleton instance of the class that just acts as a namespace for functions.
Prior to this in java land, all enum's and statically allocating arrays where bad and unclean. DIK_CODE's or id identifiers where discarded into the rubbish. Replaced by developers using inheritance type system to replace such crude (primitive) approaches of programming! Looks at all those enum's lets replace them using the type system of the language!
So for example instead of writing.
#define CUSTOMER_PAGE 1
#define CUSTOMER_CHECK_OUT 2
#define ORDER_FORM 3
You had developers using the type system in its replacement.
class Validator impliments IValidator
class Orders extends Validator
class CustomerPage extends Orders
class CustomerCheckOut extends Orders
class OrderForm extends CustomerPage
Somebody is going to come here and proclaim `they were doing it wrong`. I just shrug my shoulders and say it doesn't really matter I'm stuck looking at this mess.
For today, I see developer and new projects coming online where they've moved away from such inheritance model's and moved to a more procedural approach and flat design. I do welcome this move, and cheer for the faster turn around time.
It takes me on average when faced with new projects that use massive inheritance structure's 4-5 days to get my head around the system (If at all). The same or more complicated systems using procedural old statically defined array, enum's and defines take about 1 hour to find and isolate the problem and fix.
Other teams may have had success with large scale OOP code-bases. Though I've mostly found them to be error prone, more riddled with edge case situation and bugs. They're a nightmare to extend (counter to the whole notion of the sole reason for OOP), than your typical on this ID do this approach. It's something to be said I've recently started doing development work on mmpeg and x264 code base and its a please to be up to speed and doing some productive work within 2 to 3 hours.
It was a long winded written rant. I still use OOP but its more or less glorified name spaces with functions. Today I rather work on procedural code than OOP code. It may have bugs, it may have their own little quirks but its like a old rusted vehicle that still keeps going.
Wouldn't it be better, if half of that money could go into improving the public transport of cities or building new infrastructure that would ease up congestion on roads?
If this launch is successful, how much money SpaceX would have saved by using a 'used rocket' instead of a new one?