I lived in West Midtown for five years post-college. It's the epitome of hip re-urbanization and all that comes with it. I walked from my house to a local restaurant or shop exactly 0 times during those five years.
I moved to a cul-de-sac in a northern suburb six months ago. I'm 1 mile from 270,000 ft^2 of retail shopping and 1 mile from a walkable downtown with tons of shops and restaurants.
Do I drive 60 miles to and from work every day? Yes. I've also walked to restaurants and shops on numerous occasions. And as pointed out by rkischuk, I live in a house I couldn't begin to afford in West Midtown and we live in good school districts.
If you want to live in a small apartment in a high density area away from cul-de-sacs, good for you. Let me make my decisions based off what I've optimized my life for without demonizing me because we place different levels of importance on different items in life. I am happy spending $33/day to commute in exchange for a walkable area, larger house, better schools and more family-friendly environment.
Just curious, how do you factor in an hour+ of commuting per day? For me, that seems like it would far outweigh the costs of moving further away from the office. Time away from kids, time not working/sleeping, etc. Money can be earned or received in investments, but Founder time is a finite resource at the business. Obviously if you're married with kids there are a lot of factors that determine living situation, but in isolation it seems like a false economy.
It seems like just multiplying by your effective comp rate would make this commute far more expensive than living closer. For instance, if you bill at $100/hr, you've just told me your commute costs a minimum of $133/day (~$2,660/mo) [at $150/hr, that's $3,660/mo, etc.]. This should easily cover the price delta between e.g. midtown and 30 miles out. And that's before factoring in the other benefits that come along with not spending that much time on the road every day.
I can't make the math work, I'm wondering how others justify it.
There are many ways to turn this into productive time. Think. Listen to audiobooks/podcasts. Run through a few key work phone calls. Catch up with friends.
I really enjoy my commute.
I'll also point out that while that's theoretically $3660/mo if you aren't productive throughout any of the drive, that's not actually something many people can convert into cash. Many people spend time during the day with various items to unwind or provide a mental break from work. Working more is not always a goal. I don't want all my time to be spent working or sleeping.
You also have to account for where you spend your down time. I chose to live near friends and family in a place I can raise my kids. If I didn't live where I do, I'd be driving out here on the weekend and maybe once a week.
In addition, if you're living in town with kids and you want a quality education, you might be able to bill more $ a month (presuming you're building a business where you're selling your time, which I'm not and I don't want to do), but you're going to spend more money on a quality education or a house.
Everyone has different circumstances. My math works out for me. It might not for you.
The delay was actually because the Range hadn't approved the Flight Termination System on board F9. The Range is really not the gatekeeper for orbit, their job is to protect the public and ensure that the rocket doesn't harm the uninvolved public. Thus the sea lane closures, airspace clearance, clearing of the immediate area, and FTS in case the rocket deviates from it's proper course (within margins, of course).
Thanks for the correction. I wasn't sure what the range issue was. I wonder if it was because the FTS was different than the one they flew on Kwajalein on the Falcon 1's or due to different range requirements.
NASA has shown itself incapable of meeting deadlines or staying within budget on many projects, and Obama is right to turn access to Low Earth Orbit over to commercial companies (on fixed price contracts, not the normal cost plus contracts). We've been building the same boring "get us to orbit" rocket since the 1960s. Wouldn't NASA's leadership (doing science and developing technologies that private companies cannot afford) be better spent on LEO and out? The moon, asteroids, Mars, Phobos, etc.
This is a great plan. It's a Good Thing for the aerospace economy in the long run even if there's going to be some displacement in the meantime.
It also opens the door for entrepreneurial companies - building rockets, engines, payload integrators, whatever - to make money in a way previously not possible. It's impossible to make money when the government is competing with you. This is a great thing for entrepreneurs, scientists, researchers, and people everywhere. There's a better chance your kid will be struck by lightning than be a NASA astronaut, but now the door has opened and we'll see private astronaut corps pop up from a few different sources.
Get behind this plan, folks. It's a Good Thing and great for other entrepreneurs, even if we're not building web software. :)
It's reusable - something the government hasn't been able to produce. There are a lot of applications - vertical takeoff and landing testbed, acceleration of Technology Readiness Levels, microgravity research, upper atmospheric research, heliophysic observation, etc. It's not a "space program," but vehicles like ours and John's have a very real market.
I work for Masten Space Systems. What we've done on $2M could not be done for less than $50-100M by the government. It's unfortunate but they have ridiculous amounts of overhead that companies our size just don't have.
I think it's great that he's making records public and all, but before we start judging his character and how he's going to govern, let's realize this is only Day 2.
You can't summarize a man by one (extremely highly scrutinized) day of action. In a few years we will be able to summarize the man. I for one hope it's a good summary.
I lived in West Midtown for five years post-college. It's the epitome of hip re-urbanization and all that comes with it. I walked from my house to a local restaurant or shop exactly 0 times during those five years.
I moved to a cul-de-sac in a northern suburb six months ago. I'm 1 mile from 270,000 ft^2 of retail shopping and 1 mile from a walkable downtown with tons of shops and restaurants.
Do I drive 60 miles to and from work every day? Yes. I've also walked to restaurants and shops on numerous occasions. And as pointed out by rkischuk, I live in a house I couldn't begin to afford in West Midtown and we live in good school districts.
If you want to live in a small apartment in a high density area away from cul-de-sacs, good for you. Let me make my decisions based off what I've optimized my life for without demonizing me because we place different levels of importance on different items in life. I am happy spending $33/day to commute in exchange for a walkable area, larger house, better schools and more family-friendly environment.