Every 10dB is twice as much energy, so 235 dB is pretty scary.

Aw, we don’t have a Lemmy switchroo link tree yet.

I liked the implied history from the underwater landmarks and human structures.

What, the richest 1% only use 36.5x more carbon than average? I would have expected more. But I guess top 1% globally isn’t too rare in the US, about a net worth of $870k. That puts about 20% of Americans in the top 1%.

They’ve said nukes before every single new type of aid.

That example breaks down with electricity sources with a fuel cost. But it makes more sense as the grid moves to more energy sources without fuel.

But also, if energy supply is higher than demand on a large grid, they can decrease investments into new solar plants so they fall below the replacement rate from facilities aging out. In your example there’s only one solar farm, but in reality there’s many being built on a grid at any time.

Russia gets foreign troops, why not Ukraine?

Mine tastes like lead!

Is it much different from 7 months ago?

https://youtu.be/J--QVhGheP4 https://youtu.be/p8Pk1ayx6LQ

But it’s got a long way to go before it’s at usable as the others. Definitely not a good place to start learning cad.

Having only a handful of jets you rarely fly really helps keep costs down.

Russia makes engines that actually last a long time shows the strength of Russian engineering.

I was saying exactly the opposite. US engines usually last a couple thousand hours, Russian engines last a few hundred.

To back calculate the cost per flight hour (which is what you’re suggesting) we’d need to know the overall cost of the su57 and the number of flight hours flown. Do we know those numbers? Given there are only about a dozen su57, they’ll have very low flight hours. Plus Russia tends to have about half the training time for pilots as the US, so that further lowers the flight hours.

But do you have info on the yearly cost of the su57?

I’m trying to say we have no idea what the maintenance costs are on the su57. Russia doesn’t report things like that. I don’t know if they even track it themselves. So you can’t just blanket say the su57 is cheaper to maintain unless you bring data.

One thing that works against Russia in maintenance is they tend to run their equipment much harder. To get good performance on their engines, they sometimes push them so that they only last a couple hundred flight hours. Doing the same with many components would indicate a very high maintenance factor.

Anyway, let’s talk maintenance costs. You have any data?

If you’re saying it’s still pre production, then it’s production delay is worse than the F35. It’s first flight was in 2010, so that puts it at 15 years from first fight to lrip and counting. F35 only had 10 year timeline between first flight in 2001 and lrip in 2011.

First, maintenance costs are fundamentally different from sticker price. To find maintenance cost, you’d want to find the maintenance factor, how many hours of maintenance per flight hour, and the cost of replacement parts per flight hour.

Comparing quoted sticker price isn’t much good either, since they haven’t sold any, and as you said it’s still pre production, so even if the cost wasn’t subsidized, it’d still be way off from final numbers.

What’s the su57 cost per hour taking into account maintainer income differences? I don’t see any numbers. And weren’t you criticizing the F22 for only having 200 units?

Why can’t it run on budget computers? The reviews the seen at far have been positive.

Thanks, I wonder why that’s different from regressive.

So more racist than authoritarian? Thanks.