Took 3 kids from Norfolk, VA to PA and NYC this past summer. In the middle of returning from our Norfolk to Orlando, FL trip.

We went double Tesla this summer when my wife got a MX. I was worried about long trips, but we’re in the middle of returning from a Norfolk, VA to Orlando, FL road trip with no problems. Took the same car to PA and NYC this past summer, also with no problems.

I saw trucks used on a farm all the time growing up. It’s where I learned to drive. I can count on one hand the number of times we had to stack things over the side of the bed. Even then, we had to have someone rude in the bed hold on to the stuff. Zero times was it even a good idea.

Yeah, because that is a normal use case for a pickup truck.  Troll harder.

The bed size is actually a little bigger than the F-150 (same width, a little longer, and no wheel wells.) The angled sides actually give it more capacity, so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about.

Very few military problems can be solved by tech alone.

Purposely vague

That’s why I said that no one is relying on CIWS in 2019. It was effective in the 80's and 90's. Somewhat effective early in my career (early 00's).

But nowadays no one is relying on CIWS except for against low level adversaries. My last carrier didn’t even have a CIWS...just RAM.

In other words, CIWS is irrelevant…

I’m a Navy Captain (O-6) and an E-2 pilot. Well, technically I am an E-2 pilot...I’m too senior to fly anymore (*wipes tears*).

I know its true.

I’d have no problem being on an aircraft carrier during a hot war with China.  

1. I’ve personally seen CIWS work in real world simulated conditions...back in 1996.

I can absolutely, positively say that you are not fully informed.

My model S is 7 years old and going strong, so....

Totally anecdotal, but my model S is 7 years old (2012 model) and has over 100k miles.

Xc90 was our top choice for my wife’s new car . (Just over Audi). In the end, we couldn’t get over how bad the infotainment system was compared to my Tesla model S. Finally said screw it, and bought a used mostly X instead.

Lol...I’ve resorted to copying all my posts to clipboard before hitting publish. F’ Kinja (and what does it take to get out of the greys!?)

1. The delta wing was needed because it needed a long cross-range capability. It had to launch out of Vandenberg and be able to land at Edwards on a once-around about. Otherwise a…

That’s a good point about the Buran system being different than STS. I’ll still argue that the Buran orbiter was almost a direct copy of the shuttle. There are different ways to tackle the aerodynamics...compare x33 to starship to dcx to shuttle...etc.

The biggest issue was that with reduced funding, NASA could only afford one space vehicle. And the USAF was imposing some stringent design constraints.

That opinion is revisionist history and debunked by the facts.

The shuttle had the most volume for crew experiments than except for Skylab, Mir, and eventually the ISS. Especially with spacelab attached. And it was reconfigurable.

This has been covered a lot. The fact that you even posted this demonstrates that you didn't even do a cursory amount of reading.  I hope you're not really an engineer .