There are a few things that are different from what NASA has done in the past:

1. SpaceX Rocket is the most powerful rocket ever, surpassing everything that NASA or anyone else has ever done.

2. they are landing the rockets, with the aim of being able to recover them. If you skip the technicality that SpaceX first stage is suborbital but is part of an orbital launcher, that makes SpaceX the only entity who has achieved that, with some comparison to the Space Shuttle and Buran, though both were losing significant sections of the initial launcher, with very difficult repairs once on the ground.

3. the cost of the launcher. In terms of capabilities, NASA’s SLS is probably close to Starship. However, it costs around $2B/launch, and nothing is recoverable. Starship is meant for low cost. It is estimated that the current hardware + propellant for a single launch is under $100M. With reusability, a cost per launch under $10M is achievable in the mid term (10 years I would say) once the R&D has been paid ($1.4B/year at the moment, I would guess the whole development for Starship will be $10-20B, so same if not less than SLS).

4. the aim for high speed reusability - SpaceX aim is to launch as much as possible, as fast as possible, with the same hardware. While it is a bit early to understand how successful they will be (Elon was saying a launch every 1hr, which seem to be very optimistic, I would bet 6-12hrs to be more achievable). That was NASA’s original goal for the Space Shuttle, and they failed that.

5. finally, orbital refueling means you have a single vehicle that can basically go anywhere in the inner solar system without much issues, and minimal cost.

Also, what gets people excited are the prospects of what this enables. A 10-100x decrease in the access to orbit changes completely the space economics and opens a lot of possibilities. This means going to the Moon is a lot simpler because now you don’t need to reduce the mass of everything. This makes engineering way easier as you do not need to optimise everything to death, which tends to increase costs exponentially. And as for Mars, Starship is what makes having a meaningful colony there possible. Doing an Apollo like mission on Mars would have been possible for decades, but at a significant price for not much to show for. With cheap launch, you can just keep sending hardware there.

The more it goes, the more there will be pressure on the Russian forces to divert their resources there. It seems to be a relatively cheap way for Ukraine to alter the whole battlefield, fighting where they are stronger.

Around 20-25% power consumption reduction against native resolution, that’s neat.

To do the math, an assuming constant volume, a 30C increase corresponds to around 10% increase in pressure. That’s well within the margins of the tyre even if you go to the max rated.

If you then consider deformation and most importantly leakage over several weeks, this is a non-issue.

You cannot really hide it. The launch has to be public to warn airplanes and ships so they can avoid the area. And once the launch is public, such a failure is quite evident to anyone who was interested in following it, so you might has well publish the news instead of trying to hide the unhidable.

I wear slippers inside mostly to protect agains cold floor, coffee tables, and most important of all, Lego bricks on the loose.

Also another reason to wear shoes inside is when you are constantly going inside and outside. Which means then your floor is dirty… which means you want to protect your feet from the dirt. That’s a vicious cycle but can be one of the reasons.

I am not familiar with what is required for hydropony, but I would guess it requires more equipment. Plus growing them on Lunar soil means eventually you get some elements from the Lunar soil itself and do not need to have full recycling otherwise, which means you don’t have to have a fully closed cycle for this.

There is still the issue of the closed cycle for air though (which is where Mars is easier than the Moon for medium term colonies).

It is on the Moon, it knows it can die due to decompression at any moment and we completely screw up it’s circadian cycle with 30+ days. Of course it will be anxious, no need to prove it.

Let’s see if it wakes up once the sun hits the solar panels. Hopefully the thermal conditions do not kill it by then.

The main difficulty for this kind of tug is finding the market. There is currently only a very limited market for such missions:

1. If the customer is big enough, then the rocket itself can do the injection. Otherwise, you can try to find another customer on the same orbit
2. If it is a geo satellite, then it will have electric propulsion and adding a separate stage is hard to justify just by shortened transfer time
3. If you are planning on reusing the same tug for multiple missions, you are fighting the rocket equation. This thruster here makes it really hard, you need more efficiency.

The market fit is quite difficult, and this requires high investment. So very hard problem until we have an actual space economy with people on the moon.

He should have used a 2000 y.o. equipment. Romans knew how to defeat drones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retiarius

It means that U.S. automakers find it cheaper to have their vehicles made in China and then import them in the U.S., rather than make them directly in the U.S. in the first place.

This means that manufacturing in China is so cheap that even with the tariffs, it is more cost effective to go there. If your goal with the tariffs is to level the game, then this should not happen (no one would relocate like that unless there is a massive gain).

Can we? Yes. Should we do it right now? That’s debatable.

The question is how much this would cost vs getting a two weeks offline every 26 months?

These two weeks do not create any additional requirements (you already have to make sure the probes can survive for a few weeks without comms), science does not fully stops during these two weeks. And it gives an opportunity to do long duration maintenance on the ground segment.

Frankly, there is little need to spend >$100M for such relays satellites until we actually have a permanent human presence on Mars.

As heating network, they are and will be regulated like other energy suppliers: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-security-bill-factsheets/energy-security-bill-factsheet-heat-networks-regulation-and-zoning

That’s interesting, it looks like I may have a bias on that due to my scientific background.

I always said salt, of sodium chloride for NaCl. Who is using sodium for table salt? The only time I heard that associated was when saying that table salt is a source of sodium, which is true.

Most likely because the news is in English. And why would Natrium be better on an international forum?

It is Sodium in most Latin languages (despite Natrium being Latin), in Hindi and in Arabic. And Chinese has a different root. Among the 10 most spoken languages (according to Wikipedia), only Russian is using Natrium.

By quantity of oil, I would think an oil spill is more damaging.

However, the damage from the sum of all oil spills pale in comparison to the damage of burned fossil fuels. But that’s because we try not to spill oil too much, that’s expensive to waste it.

The cheapest ICE Dacia is 12000€. I suspect you are comparing a new car price vs a used car price, which is quite unfair.

You can get a used Dacia or a used Zoe for a bit under 10000€, which has probably less km than your car (see this one https://zoomcar.fr/dacia-spring-business-2020-33479218.html, or the numerous Zoe). Now granted these are not great cars: but it is hard to compare a 5-10 year-old ICE with an electric, simply because the electric used market is still small as these cars are new.

Now you raise a valid point on the chargers. But this is coming and that’s why no one (almost no one, I’m sure there are lunatics somewhere) wants to ban ICE right away. You ban new ones in 7 years, and this means that in 17 years a good majority of the cars will be electric. Chargers are quite quick to install, especially low power ones. There are many companies focusing on street light charging and as the number of electric cars grow, public chargers will become more available with a denser network. It’s really a chicken and egg problem - they won’t install massive amounts of chargers for them to stay unused.

Je suis curieux, tu parles de quelles voitures là ?