[Update 2020] How To Recover Lost Files After Windows

Bejeweled 3 full version with crack. Hawx 2 crack offline click site. Death at fairing point crack https://mebel-inter.ru/forum/?download=7372. Recover My Files download with Crack is the best software for recovering all deleted files from your device.

  • Recover My Files - Free downloads and reviews
  • Data recovery software download: Get Recover My Files here
  • Embroidery Files Pes - CNET Download
  • How to Recover Accidentally Deleted Files in Windows 10
  • Recover My Files Data Recovery Software
  • Ntfs Undelete Keygen Download Cnet
  • Download 7-Data Recovery
  • How to Recover Ransomware Encrypted or Deleted Files
  • Best data recovery software of 2020: Paid and free file

7 Data Recovery Software Crack with Serial Key and

If you are looking for a Recover My Files crack, torrent, serial, portable or keygen, then please use this link. Here, we show you three helpful ways to recover files deleted or encrypted by ransomware like Locky, CryptoLocker, CryptoWall, and TorrentLocker, without paying. I would have done so as the first step. Recover My Files can recover lost files from formatted, corrupt, unallocated, missing, and raw drives, or files that have been deleted and bypassed the Windows recycle bin.

  • Try Free Data Recovery Software - [Official] Recoverit
  • Free Recover My Files - Free downloads and reviews
  • 12 Best Free File Recovery Software for Windows 10 [2020]
  • How do I recover my Chrome bookmarks? - October 2020
  • Recover Files - Free downloads and reviews - CNET Download.com
  • How to Get Recover My Files Free License Key
  • Serial Number For Recover My Files 4.6.8
  • Help me recover Video from Formatted SD CARD
  • [Official] Free Data Recovery by Recoverit: Recover
  • Cracking ransomware: RansomWarrior victims can now

Deleted File Recovery Software Free Download Full Version

Serial code file Recovery - Free downloads and reviews - CNET Download.com

Inadvertently deleted images when in the My Files app on Samsung Galaxy S* +. Meant just to delete downloads, but images also were deleted and were not backed up and no SD card inserted. New Windows 10 tool: This free Microsoft app helps you recover deleted or corrupted data. To figure out why you can recover deleted files from USB flash drive, you should understand the storage principle on USB disk first. All the saved scan information files are listed.


"Diskdigger License Keygen Download Cnet" by Holly Bell

I owe the guys at BinaryBiz big time. Palisade guardian 2 hacked able games. Recover My Files is Fast and super easy - Just a few clicks and your files are back. You are reporting the following post: Recover Deleted Files from External Hard Drive?

Activation code recover My Files Crack & License

Recover my files crack cnet. Your files such as your documents, photos, music, videos and even email can be recovered. I have downloaded a free "Recover My file" software. Recover files including documents, photos, video, music and email etc.


How To Recover Data From Locked Android Phone With Broken

Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great. The "health" of your files indicated by green, orange or red lights. Step 1: Install the Recover My Photo software on your system. Omogwhyyousohard on CNET Forum.

Download Recover My Files 32-bit for Windows

A professional data recovery software like Remo Recover can recognize files that are invisible to the users. After spending many hours with other software finally I found your software and all the data that I thought was lost has now been restored. Reporting: Deletion of Images in My Files - How to Recover This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Select the files you want to recover.


Recover My Files 6.2 Crack

Here, I suggest using the MiniTool Power Data Recovery. Recuva (pronounced "recover") is a freeware Windows utility to restore files that have been accidentally deleted from your computer. How to Recover My Files without Crack Key License. Even though you deleted some files, often the files are still there, hidden in your OS.

Recover My Files Pc - CNET Download

You can help protect yourself from scammers by verifying that the contact is a Microsoft Agent or Microsoft Employee and that the phone number is an official Microsoft global customer service number. You are posting a reply to: Recover CSC Offline Files The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Recover My Files Crack is the best and advanced software used for recovery of files on computers. Recover My Files key, crack, serial, keygen, patch, full version, torrent, full Since GetData has delivered cutting edge data recovery software to home and business users at an affordable price.


Free Hard Drive Recovery

Few of us run just a single PC these days, so it's handy that a single Recover My Files license covers two installations. She has now discovered that she has not transferred 6 months off videos from our daughter's lives which were. Even the most up-to-date gadgets are prone to plain old data losses, and it's a great win to have Disk Drill around, the great app for iPad file recovery that runs on Mac OS X. Turns out it's now possible to recover deleted photos and notes from iPad, just as you would normally recover a Mac hard drive.

File Recovery with Recover My Files

Fully support Mac OS HFS file system data recovery; Quickly clear Windows login user account passwords. Recover My Files V License Key Crack Full Version Recover My Files V6 License Key is the dazzling apparatus that causes you to recuperate different lost archives from Allocated, Missing, Deleted, and Rough drives, Windows reuse holder. Use a commercial software like Wondershare or something equivalent to recover your files. Dragonball online deutsch patch 2020 https://mebel-inter.ru/forum/?download=2588.


'What is wrong with my current cold storage method' - an examination of potential weaknesses in the most common cold storage methods

Today we are going to discuss cold storage and some specific problems with cold storage. While this applies directly to the Secret Key portion of a key-pair; it also applies to the seed used to back up HD wallets and hardware wallets.
Not to say everything is all bad but there are many potential weakness out there, and some in the Bitcoin and crypto community like to know the edge cases of things.
I will also highlight some of the aspects of the Keyois Capsule which is a 'physical bitcoin'.
A physical Bitcoin is a cryptographic key pair, a physical key printed and affixed to what has always been before a coin. The first physical bitcoin coin was the Casascius coin, since then the world of physical bitcoin coins has blossomed as a fun part of the Bitcoin world.
We will focus on mediums relating to cold storage and not ones designed for more everyday use, but this applies to the seed you save to keep your everyday spending wallets safe and backed up.
We will assume you generated your keys securely and that you already have them on some medium. We will also have to ignore endpoint physical security because they can all be carried away the same. Remember your cell phone /hardware wallet/ computer client are only as good as where you put the backup seed phrase, which can be thought of as data much like the SK discussed below.
Written on a piece of paper
  • Anyone who can see it, can steal it
  • Handwriting can be hard to read or completely illegible
  • Human error in transcription can cause errors on end product
  • Paper can rot, be torn, burn, or be smoke damaged
Printed on a piece of paper
  • Anyone who can see it, can steal it
  • Type of printer - non-laser printers can run if paper gets wet
  • Have to trust printer - some have internet connections, wifi, and memory
  • Paper can rot, be torn, burn, or be smoke damaged
On laminated paper
  • Anyone who can see it, can steal it
  • Lamination is prone or degradation over time and puncture or cuts that could allow moisture to get trapped in the paper and cause deterioration or rotting in some circumstances - store in cool dry place
  • Can burn or be smoke damaged
  • 'Fireproof' & 'Fire-resistant' boxes can help protect paper in a small house fire but be warned that they can sometimes fall apart in the fire and get wet if the fire is put out with water. Remember people can just carry out a small safe.
Engraved / etched/ ablated/ stamped on a piece of metal
  • Anyone who can see it, can steal it
  • Some metals can deteriorate or corrode, choose a good metal; also store your metal away from direct contact other metals. Some metals that are corrosion resistant have low melting points, are extremely expensive, or hard to machine. Previously we had been working with 316 Marine grade Stainless Steel for the Keyois capsule engraving material, it is the best type of steel my research led me to, however we made the switch to Titanium because it is even better.
  • Metals can still deform or melt from heat, destroying any engraved SK. "Most house fires do not burn hotter than 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature is typically associated with the hottest portion of a home, which is in the roof area. Homes that burn for longer than 30 minutes or consist of multiple levels sometimes burn at higher temperatures." You want to pick a metal that won't be destroyed by a fire. So Brass, bronze, tin, lead, silver, gold, and copper are all out as engraving materials. Aluminium should survive but I haven't tested this. At around 1500° Steel and Nickel should be okay. Titanium is what the Keyois Capsule has the SK engraved on and it has a melting point of over 1600° C / 3000°F. Tungsten is double that but can be brittle.
  • The Cryptosteel product, made of 304 Stainless Steel is in this category. It is an assemble-at-home secret key backup however it does not have tamper evident properties (but I bet it can easily). So anyone who can see it, can steal it.
  • There are multiple companies that sell laser-engraved metal key pairs about the size of a calling-card; often there are color, material, and design options. This is a great option for BIP38 addresses, although anyone who can see it can see it, they still have to crack your BIP38 pass phrase. However it is my opinion that the Keyois capsule is much prettier than all of them.
Stored digitally on a computer
  • Computers can crash, making data recovery expensive
  • Data can still technically be recovered after a system is abandoned by the user. In some cases data can be recovered after multiple overwriting attempts and physical destruction (as long as the attacker can get all or most the pieces) so if you copy files to a new computer and ditch the old one, be careful.
  • Can burn or be smoke damaged
  • A traditional hard disc drive can have data corrupted by powerful magnetic fields and can physically shatter
  • A non-negligible amount of HDDs suffer from factory defects that will cause them to fail unexpectedly during their lifetime
  • Accidents can happen that could result in loss of data
  • Solid state drives (SSDs) will lose data if unpowered, they may last years before this becomes a problem but it is unwise to store long-term data in unpowered SSDs
  • If connected to internet it is another attack vector and the safety is only as good as the encryption used; I don't know what I would recommend but it wouldn't be BitLocker. Someone could be trying to break into the computer constantly. Even with good encryption if the machine or location is compromised the key could be stolen as soon as it is decrypted.
  • There are a lot of ongoing threats with computers, from 0-day exploits to firmware exploits and malicious USB cords
  • External hdds are good for storage for a few years at least if stored properly
  • If not connected to internet, safety is only as good as the physical protection encryption used; could someone break into the location and copy the data without anyone noticing?
Stored digitally on CD, floppy disk, laserdisc, or mini-disc
  • Plastics break down over time and with exposure to heat, humidity, regular light, all sorts of chemicals, even the oxygen in the air. This can lead to the loss of your data when stored on a medium made of plastic or written/printed on plastic.
  • Can burn or be smoke damaged
  • Can be physically damaged, making data recovery expensive or even impossible
  • Magnetic media (tapes, floppy disc) can be damaged by magnets
  • Data can become difficult to recover if the software and/or hardware to decode is old, don't use proprietary formats
Stored digitally on a flash drive
  • Can break and have to be physically repaired before use
  • Rapidly changing magnetic fields can damage the data stored on flash drives
  • Can be burned
  • Can become corroded from salt water or some atmospheric conditions
  • If they break apart, some lighting conditions can cause data corruption (you can also put them back together and often still get the data)
  • Different devices are all different, even similar devices from the same production batch can be different. There are large quality differences in drives but I am assuming you aren't using these for anything but storage.
  • There are some fake flash drives that look like they saved the data but you can't get it back later
  • Flash drives are not advised for long term storage; they can be used as one part of a multi-medium-location-format plan.
Backups are essential for digital data Computer code for performing operations can be corrupted in transfer or in operation. Special systems exist and procedures help data to last longer. For ideas, see this archive.gov page Remember to store in multiple locations. You can lose everything in single structure
A physical bitcoin coin
What can solve most of these problems? A combination of good backup procedures and encryption.
If you have permeant access to more than one location (people who live in big cities, without family or cars have a hard time with this) or have people you trust with your money (don't) then look into using some form of Multi-signature option.
The Keyois Capsule is a crypto piggy bank; it can be funded from the outside but you to break it open to get them out. You give me a BIP38 encrypted key pair (well the address not the public key) and I engrave it in this tamper evident and time resistant package. You still have to hold on to the pass phrase that allows you to decrypt it; that is however the same problem as all methods with BIP38 encryption. How to store this without having to trust anyone but still being assured of it's security?
  • Engraving, embossing, or stamping on a sheet of metal is one option; however the metals that are easiest to stamp are ones that melt in a house fire. They could be put in a glass jar that's filled with aerogel and buried. These is the best readily available option for most people but it really can be tedious.
  • The cryptosteel is another ready-made option
  • Have the words etched onto glass at home with off the shelf products; but be carful of this idea because the glass can shatter from impact and heat or even sudden temperature changes
  • Anodize the words yourself on a pieces of metal, there used to be a service to help use your home printer to print the words with some chemicals you can buy
  • Bake them in clay, then encase that in epoxy resin so it can't shatter. then paint the outside, in the future you can solvent the paint off and see the written seed
  • Use a combination of techniques to split the seed so that it is safe(because split and separated) and redundant (because backed up).
Characters stamped on Aluminium is probably the most cost effective way to keep a secret key or seed safe from fire and rot.
submitted by ProfBitcoin to btc

Leitenberger strikes again (More SpaceX Debunking)

Almost two weeks ago, I linked to the Blog of Bernd Leitenberger, a german SpaceX Critic and author of several books about Rockets and Space Travel.
Yesterday, He posted a new blog post, summing up again how the company is lying about the Falcon Rocket Data, simply by using math.

Once again, I'm allowing myself to translate this.

SpaceX Technology Fact Check
Posted on February 5, 2019 by Bernd Leitenberger
Today's blog is not new in principle. The facts can be found in older articles. Unfortunately, it's in the nature of the blog that this, because it's in the past, likes to spill because you can't easily get to the articles. It is again about the bubble company SpassX. (Translation Note: "SpassX" means "FunX", and is his nick for the company.)
As at least those who deal more with it know, it shines above all by statements, which then prove to be wrong.
With the many project announcements this is easy to check by everyone. Just take one of the SpaceX projects, type in the name plus "SpaceX" in Google and read through some search results from different years. If you do this with the keyword "Red Dragon", you will get the following headlines:
28.4.2016: The unmanned Red Dragon landing on Mars is announced.19.2.2017: The launch is postponed by two years.19.7.2017: Red Dragon won't land, but will rather be dropped1.10.2017: The mission is discontinued
In my system, that's 1.8 Musk and 5.6 Elon. (Translation Note: He made a Formula for "Elon Time" in an older blog post.)
You'll find this in almost all of SpaceX's projects. They will be announced big. Then first shifted, then substantially modified and finally adjusted. Be it Falcon 1e, Falcon 5, Falcon 9 Block II, Falcon 9 Heavy or Gray Dragon. The BFR is just in the state of substantial modification, Starlink in the phase of rescheduling.
Technical facts are different. These are more persistent and are denied only after years and are also usually not falsifiable by outstanding directly. At least one needs space travel knowledge, in order to evaluate them as wrong or untrustworthy. In this blog I will illuminate some of the wrong technical details. They all revolve around the Falcon 9.
If you take the information on the SpaceX website and other information from tweets, as given by Wikipedia, the Falcon 9 is a marvel of technology with an enormous payload for the technology used. If the information is correct, it can also be accessed, I have calculated it myself. The stupid thing: I think they are wrong.

Record-breaking vacuum impulse

Let's start with the second stage record impulse. It is given as 348 s. The value in imperial units is in seconds, because a velocity (m/s) is divided by the acceleration due to gravity (m/s²). If you take the factor 9.81 m/s² for the acceleration due to gravity as multiplier, you get the SI unit in m/s for a velocity, namely that of the gas, when it leaves the nozzle. (If you are still used to calculating in kilopond instead of Newton, you will get the same numerical value without any problems).

The specific impulse is coupled as a quantity to two other quantities: the thrust and the fuel throughput.

Since the Merlin 1D vacuum of the second stage is a variant of the first stage engine, the fuel throughput is the same. But the thrust is not. It is more powerful: 987 instead of 914 kN. (According to the current user manual from January 2019). This is due to the only change there is: an extended nozzle. It has an area ratio of 165 instead of 16. But the specific impulse is 348 instead of 311 or 363 m/s more. Anyone who knows a lot about engines will be amazed - 363 m/s more just by a longer nozzle? This is not the case with other engines. Typically you get 150 to 200 m/s more.

It goes even further: The Merlin is a by-pass engine with an average combustion chamber pressure of 97 bar. Such an engine is comparable with other LOX/kerosene engines of the USA like the F-1 or RS-27. While the impulse of the first stage is in the same order of magnitude as this, the impulse of the second stage engine is much higher, higher than with mainstream engines. These engines have a higher combustion chamber pressure and make full use of the fuel. Bik bypass typically loses 2 to 5 percent in the gas generator, depending on the combustion chamber pressure. They must be subtracted from the total impulse. In short, anyone with technical expertise will doubt this value. But with the dependency

Specific impulse = thrust / fuel throughput

you can also write in first and second stage per engine with the same fuel throughput:

Specific impulse second stage engine = specific impulse first stage engine * thrust second stage engine / thrust first stage engine

and in values:

335.8 s = 311 s * 987 kN / 914 kN

So you get a specific impulse of 335.8 and not one of 348. 3294 m/s is an essentially credible value. You can also use the known data on combustion chamber pressure (97.2 bar), expansion ratios (16 and 165) and mixing ratio and the NASA FCEA program. This does not provide the real data of the Merlin, but only limits for idealized conditions, but one can take the difference there between vacuum value at 16 and 165 and comes also only to 278 m/s gain and not 446 m/s. That is a maximum of 3328 m/s, close to the value after the thrust calculation.

Thrust-To-Weight Factor

For each engine you can specify an additional characteristic value, the TW or Thrust to Weight Ratio. It indicates how many times the engine weight the engine can hold in suspension due to its own thrust and is calculated after:

TW = thrust / g / weight

with g as acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s²) and is dimensionless if the units are considered:

TW = thrust [N = kg*m/s²] / [m/s²] / [kg]

The TW depends on the size of the engine - as with most machines, it becomes more efficient when it gets bigger - a gasoline engine in a passenger car also delivers more horsepower per kilogram of mass than a lawnmower engine. The choice of fuel also plays a role. LOX/LH2 engines have a different factor than LOX/kerosene because temperatures and mean molar mass of the gas and thus combustion chamber pressure are different and last but not least the pressure also plays a role: the higher it is, the higher the TW factor.

From 1000 kN thrust, the TW hardly rises and LOX/kerosene engines in the bypass process reach a TW of about 90 to 100. The Merlin 1C was also in the range: 483 kN vacuum thrust at 522 kgh mass, giving a TW of 92.5.

A TW of 180 is now given for the Merlin 1D: This corresponds to a weight of 468 kg and a thrust of 914 kN. The question is, is this credible? One can of course believe the SpaceX specification, which implies that all other companies that have developed rocket engines for 60 years are unable to build a lightweight engine. Not only in the USA, but also in Russia, China, Europe, India and Japan. This is particularly piquant to ensure that all Russian engines are also beaten. From the mid-sixties onwards, the USA hardly developed any new engines: the existing ones were sufficient for the launch vehicles and military missiles were only powered by solid matter. Russia continued to develop engines powered by liquid fuels and used the mainstream process at high pressure. The record of TW I know so far was held by the NK-33 with 125:1. (There are still some Russian engines with higher TW factors, but the facts are relatively imprecise, and none reaches a TW of 180).

But there are some reasons to doubt it. The main reason is that the Merlin 1D was developed from the Merlin 1C. This worked at 58 bar. But the Merlin 1D with 97 bar and a bigger nozzle. Even if I assume that the SpaceX on the Merlin 1C used a combustion chamber that can withstand much too high a combustion chamber pressure and has already designed it for 97 bar, the Merlin 1D has to be heavier than the Merlin 1C due to the longer nozzle (area ratio 16 instead of 14.5 to 1) and the more powerful fuel delivery system that has to inject more fuel at higher pressure and the actuators that move the engine. According to SpaceX, however, it is lighter! That's like when Porsche develops a 600 hp engine from a 300 hp engine and then weighs even less, a physical contradiction.

In addition, the combustion chamber pressure is high above a bypass engine, but not at the level of the NK-33 of 146 bar. The higher the pressure, the better the TW can become, because the combustion chamber becomes smaller and so does the nozzle. I suppose the value only refers to the combustion chamber, which weighs about half of the engine. Then the total TW would come into a range of 90 to 100 and thus into a range that is plausible.

Structural Factors

The structural factors of the Falcon 9 are also suspect records. Musk names 30 for the first stage and "nearly 25" for the upper stage. The structural factor is defined as:

Structure factor=full mass of a stage/empty mass of a stage

Very large LOX/Kerosin stages (it depends on the fuel because of the tank size) come to 17 to 18. So the Thor and the S-IC but also the Atlas D-F as carrier rocket. Early ICBM first stages of Atlas and Titan were higher, but they were not designed to transport heavy upper stages and aerodynamically unfavourable payloads. The Atlas collapsed at MA-1, the first use of the Atlas for the Mercury program, because the aerodynamic load by the Mercury was too high. Later versions of the first stages, which had larger upper stages, also had 17 to 18 take-off masses/dry masses. A structure factor of 30 means that SpaceX can produce the stages with half the dry mass that is usual elsewhere. Today, the trend is towards poorer structural factors and less expensive production.

The reason for the Falcon 9's structural factors, apart from the Merlin 1D with the TW factor of 180, is said to be light aluminum-lithium alloys. Now SpaceX is inventing nothing new. The alloy really does exist, it is AL 2195. As the number reveals, it belongs to the group of aluminium-copper alloys but also contains some lithium and is therefore wrongly called Al-Li alloy. As with many alloys, the weight advantage of the 2219 and 2014 depends on the application and thus on the type of forces acting. SpaceX uses them for tanks. NASA did the same when it switched from the LWT of the Space Shuttle to the SWLT in 1998. In the LH2 tank, the alloy reduced the mass from 13,155 to 11,340 kg, 16%. This does not mean the structural factor of 30, especially since the first stage is equipped with a very long stage adapter due to the large nozzle of the second stage engine. In a LOX/kerosene rocket, the tanks make up about half of the mass. Thus, if you save 16% there, you can achieve a total of 8%.

There are some indications that the values are not correct. The best is provided by SpaceX itself. When the Falcon 9 was still flying in the first version, it was said that the engine block weighed 7756 kg, half the total mass of the stage, which NASA says weighed 17,726 kg. Now the current Falcon weighs 550 tons at launch, compared to 333 tons for the first version. The tanks are identical in diameter, only longer. Nevertheless, the current Falcon first stage would have to be lighter than its predecessor with 60 % fuel mass if the fuel quantity was calculated on the basis of thrust, burn time and specific momentum. This is only possible with materials that have a negative weight.

This is even more fun if you take the current data from SpaceX. From the SpaceX website of the Falcon 9:
  • GLOW mass: 549.054 kg
  • Thrust vacuum first stage: 8227 kN
  • Firing time first stage: 162 s
  • Specific pulse Vacuum 303 s
  • Thrust vacuum second stage: 934 kN
  • Firing time first stage: 369 s
  • Specific pulse Vacuum 348 s

If g = 9.81 m/s² is added to convert the US impulses into the metric system, the fuel quantity can be calculated as follows:

Fuel quantity = thrust * burning time / specific impulse / g

You get 448378.6 and 100954.3 kg. If you subtract this from the GLOW, you get -279 kg for the residual mass, i.e. the dry weight! Yes, you have read correctly, the Falcon 9 has negative structure mass! And this, although the GLOW (Gross-Liftoff-Wetmass) still contains the payload fairing and payload itself. A real marvel of technology!

With other suppliers of launch vehicles one could now look into the Users Guide for potential customers. There you can find the essential data of the rocket like structural mass, fuel and specific impulse. Not so with SpaceX. There you will find - this is absolutely unique - as a launch service provider who wants to launch satellites - not even a single specification for typical payloads for certain orbits.

Last but not least, SpaceX disproves the information itself. In this statement, SpaceX's carrier rocket payload manager writes that the maximum GTO payload (without recovery) is 6500 kg, not 8300 kg as stated on the website. If you take a look at the list of launches, you will also discover several launches where there was no landing and still only a sub-synchronous GTO was reached, even though the satellite was far below 8.3 tons.

In my opinion the website is also completely useless as an information medium, because SpaceX doesn't have something like a media department. It has people responsible for it, but they are not allowed to give out any information. So it only keeps the information that Musk himself has already tweeted. But Musk probably doesn't talk about real data, but about his specifications, no matter if they are reached or not. Much of what he decides makes no sense on closer inspection. So he fired the managers of his Starlink project. The satellites are too heavy and expensive. Since SpaceX has a deadline of the FAA to launch half of the more than 4400 planned satellites within six years, this is sometimes suboptimal, because there are delays in any case. The weight (the two prototypes weighed 500 kg each) should not be a problem. Because now you can reuse the Falcon 9 first stage 100 times. Then you only have to re-produce 1/5 of the rocket per launch - the upper stage and without the many Starlink launches a first stage wouldn't even have 100 missions due to the lack of other launches. In addition, you now have the Falcon Heavy, which could launch 100 to 120 satellites at once. With 20 Falcon Heavy in six years the constellation would be possible. So not logical.

Also not logical is the transition from CFRP to steel at the BFR. Clearly CFK is much more expensive - Musk talks of a price drop from $135 per kilogram to $3. But the vehicle is supposed to be 100% reusable and even regularly flights to airports for passenger transport from continent to continent. So it is logical that the one-off manufacturing costs, even if they are higher, can be quickly recovered through more payload. The CFRP weighs at least 50% less than steel with the same load, so more payload or passengers can be transported. I suppose Musk thinks about what's cool and others have to do that and if it's not possible, then there are such twists.
  1. Once again, I hope the translation is correct, since DeepL is not 100% perfect with german grammar. (And Leitenberger has a tendency for typos.)
  2. If you look into the comments of the original blog post, you can see that it alsmost immediatly got attacked my a Musk Cultist, who, as you might have gussed, instead of trying to debunk Leitenberg's post, just attacks him personally.
submitted by S-Vineyard to EnoughMuskSpam