It's actually a lot worse than that, for two reasons:

1) 325kg mass is not accurate for iROSA, as that was for a prototype unit that was permanently jettisoned after the test and presumably didn't provide the same power as the final design. For the final design, SpaceX CRS-22 launched the first two permanent iROSA arrays with a combined mass of 1380kg, or 690 kg per array (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/spacex_crs-22_mision_overview_high_res.pdf). This also ignores the mass of the parts of the existing solar system that are being re-used, which includes everything from the mounting hardware to the station, the motors to re-orient the panels, and all the electrical systems. 690kg is for basically just the bare panels and nothing else.

2) You did the math of 325kg against the entire iROSA system instead of just a single array. The new arrays (at 690 kg) provide 28 kW of power each, expected to drop to 20 kW within 10 years.

Even if we ignore the mass of all the electrical equipment and mounting equipment a standalone install would require, we still get 690kg for 20 kw, which gives us 185 watts = 6.4 kg, more than an order of magnitude more than 0.5.

Let's assume that the only advantage of space-based is that it can produce stable power 24/7 from geostationary orbit and thus doesn't need storage (any differences in efficiency or amount of power is simply a potential mass reduction). How much would a traditional land-based photovoltaic and storage system cost that can provide constant stable power 24/7 (meaning it has to be over-spec'ed to provide a certain minimum amount of power even on days with poor weather conditions)? Your space-based power system, including the cost of launch, orbital infrastructure, and ground infrastructure, needs to be cheaper than that.

Instead, I think you'll find that the space-based approach will cost multiple orders of magnitude more, and as the cost of ground-based solar power systems continues to fall, space-based solar power will probably always be orders of magnitude more expensive.

Each interlaced field represents a separate point in time, 60 discrete points in time per second. Interlaced television was not typically 30 progressive frames split into two fields, it was effectively 60 progressive frames with half the scanlines of each discarded.

480i60 content when viewed on a CRT does indeed look like 60 FPS. In fact, compared to modern displays, it would have looked even smoother than what we think of as 60 FPS due to CRTs being low persistence displays. The only time it would look like 30 FPS is if it's poorly deinterlaced for progressive display.

As far as I can tell, there is no motion interpolation going on here. The 24 FPS telecine'd film content of the special still looks much lower framerate than the 60 FPS live action scenes.

I don't see any evidence of motion interpolation here? This was a TV production, which means 60 fields per second. A giveaway is that the film elements are visibly at a lower framerate (because it was telecine'd 24 FPS).

If it was TV and not telecined, it'd have been 60, not 30. 480i only had 30 distinct frames per second, but each field in a TV broadcast represented a discrete point in time.

Things can always change, but the liberals are projected to lose the 2025 election in a massive landslide, and the first thing the conservatives will do is eliminate this regulation. The new regulation conveniently doesn't take effect until 2026. The liberals have been in power for the past eight years, they had plenty of time to do this sort of thing, and if they had, it would be much harder to reverse.

This is a language from the guy that decided that comments should be forbidden in JSON "to prevent developers from using them to specify parser directives", which makes the files extremely unfriendly to humans, who can't include any embedded documentation or explanation of why a certain configuration setting was set to one value instead of another. Luckily, many JSON parsers ignore this nonsensical restriction and are fine with comments.

Why is the entire summary about whitespace? Who cares about the whitespace? It's the least important thing about a language.

I read too quickly, I saw "But what makes his box of white-hot rocks so significant is they were not heated by burning tons of coal or gas, but by catching sunlight with the thousands of photovoltaic solar panels that surround his prototype west of Fresno." and summarized it in my head as concentrated solar due to the whole "catching sunlight with panels that surround the prototype" bit, missing the word "photovoltaic". In reality, there's no need for the photovoltaic panels to be near the hot rocks, let alone surrounding it.

This is literally how solar concentrator power plants work. They point a bunch of mirrors at a receiver, and some variants dump that heat into molten salt, so that the power plants can provide constant power for the entire day.

The thermal storage variant has existed in real-world power plants for nearly three decades, but this type of plant has been on the decline because the falling price of photovoltaics made it a far more economical option, and this will only be more true in the future.

What are you talking about? It's perfectly clear that the Intel i5-1370P is their latest and greatest mobile chip, and much newer than the Intel i5-10210U, despite the latter having a bigger product number. And nobody would be confused that the i5-1340P is faster than the smaller i5-13420H. And of course their i5-1035G7 is obviously a seventh, sorry, no, tenth gen CPU too, as is the i5-1035G4 and i5-1035G1.

Both companies have intentionally abandoned understandable CPU naming schemes to obfuscate what you're getting.

Starlink phased-array antennas are already certified by Transport Canada, the FAA, and EASA. It's not intended for navigation use, but it could be (without any hardware changes) if they wanted to:

https://www.technologyreview.c...

Of course you'd then also need certification to use it as a navigation device.

WAAS data is only provided to aircraft from the GPS satellites themselves, so I'm not sure how it's relevant here. It also only covers North America, so doubly not relevant for GPS spoofing in the middle east.

Then it sounds like it should be possible to spoof GBAS but not GPS, and that GPS should be the fallback when GBAS data diverges too much from GPS.