Actually quite the opposite. As far as I know, this planet here is the only one in the existing universe that produced chlorophyll. Quite seriously, if aliens ever came to Earth, I wouldn't expect them to mutilate our cattle but rather steal our trees.
You have a rather odd concept of the looks and the space travels of Icelanders...
It's like the difference between having moral values and having a religion.
So if someone went and, say, cut a deep scar right across her face...
No child left behind.
In 1984, people also weren't always under observation by their telescreen. Actually, they almost never were. What made them "behave" was simply that they didn'T know when they would be.
So just not having a camera "trained on you" every second of your life doesn't make the total surveillance any less invasive. When you cannot tell whether you have privacy, you have none.
They don't have nearly as much to offer if they can't do launches quickly. I'm sure they would make that a feature of their offering.
They can carry about 110kg to LEO, compared to the Falcon 9's 13150kg. That's 0.84% of the payload capacity. A launch is estimated to cost $4 900 000, compared to the Falcon 9's $61 200 000. That's 8.01%. That means cost per mass to orbit is nearly an order of magnitude worse.
Yes, this is a really small rocket. If you are a government or some other entity that needs to put something small in orbit right away, the USD$5 Million price might not deter you, even though you could potentially launch a lot of small satellites on a Falcon 9 for less.
And it's a missile affordable by most small countries, if your payload can handle the re-entry on its own. Uh-oh.
Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.