Orbital mechanics is a mind fuck all in its own.

Even if you are in an identical orbit to the ISS, and 500km behind it on the orbital path, how do you catch it up?

Well, you have to slow down.

By slowing down, you put yourself in a lower orbit, which actually is a shorter orbit, which means you orbit faster, which means you catch the ISS up. You then speed back up to slow down to match the ISS orbit.

If you thrust yourself toward the ISS (ie by firing your rockets behind you), you slow down in relation to the ISS because you move yourself into a higher orbit, which is actually a longer orbit, so you take longer doing it, so the ISS speeds off into the distance.

All of that is just assuming you are matching perfect orbits and are trying to catch up with the object in front of you. You burn fuel changing orbits twice.

Changing the direction you are heading takes even more fuel. A lot more.

Neither Soyuz nor the Space Shuttle have that sort of fuel on board. Their manoeuvring systems is for small adjustments to catch up with something as described above - they depend on the big ass rocket or fuel tank they rode to orbit on in order to get them into the right orbit.

Well, the MAX isnt the most popular commercial jet ever. That would be the A320NEO family.

Currently the NEO stands at 10,350 orders and 3,200 deliveries.

The MAX meanwhile stands at 6,200 orders and 1,400 deliveries.

In fact, for an aircraft family that was launched nearly 20 years after the 737 family, the A320 family will this year surpass the 737 family in total number of sales - the NEO is that popular.

Ironically, it did get broken up a long time ago.

In 1934 it was forced by changes in law to split into Boeing Airplane Company, United Airlines, United Aircraft Corporation and Pratt & Whitney.

No, no ones saying that...

ISS is at approx 51 degrees inclination.

Columbia was in an orbit at approx 39 degrees inclination.

That difference doesn't sound like a lot, but it is.

People have asked the same questions as you for the past 21 years, and each and every time the answer has been the same - the math just doesn't work out, there was no way for Columbia to get to the ISS or for something to get from the ISS to Columbia. Those ~12 degrees difference in orbital inclination takes a *lot* to overcome - people just never understand the amount of energy needed to do things in space, its not like Star Wars where you point and go.

Columbia was in an "ideal" orbit for a space shuttle, because it was just carrying out a science mission and not visiting anything.

ISS is in its own orbit.

Sure, a Soyuz from the ISS could have lowered itself to the same height as Columbia (ISS is at 400km, Columbia was at 170km), but they are still going in very different directions.

Its the change in direction that needs the energy here - and neither Columbia nor Soyuz has the required energy available to make that change.

So lets say that you manage to lower the orbit of a Soyuz to the right level, and you are lucky enough that you cross paths with Columbia on your current orbit...

Without changing direction, you are trying to jump on a train which is going through a station at full speed without stopping. And you might get *one* chance at that because on the next orbit your paths wont intersect at all. Theres no prospect of docking or anything, you are going too fast in different directions. And even if you do jump correctly, you are going to go splat against Columbia because of the speed difference.

Columbia wasn't too heavy to reach the ISS, it was just less desirable because of its weight.

In fact, if it hadn't been lost when it did, Columbia would have been fitted out for STS-118, which was intended to deliver a truss and stowage system to the ISS in November 2003.

The *only* reason Columbia couldnt have used the ISS as a refuge was because it didnt have the fuel to change orbits by that much.

Tell what to the FBI? The fact that I said that not everything needs to be treated the same?

Sure, the failure of a door plug a few mere weeks after the aircraft was delivered is *entirely* the same as the failure of a cowling latch on a part which is opened several times a week by airline maintenance personnel on an aircraft which was delivered many years ago...

One falls within Boeings remit, the other likely does not, and even if it did it would result in a minor AWD.

People need to stop over dramatising everything in life. This is one example. The door plug failure is an example of when some things should be treated differently.

I think you forget the amount of publicity that Airbus received for the AF066 uncontained engine failure - it was significant, especially given the fact that this was the second uncontained engine failure of an A380 during the A380s operational life.

But why didnt it reach the epic proportions of scrutiny that Boeing received after the MAX issues and the subsequent Alaska Airlines door blowout?

Because both A380 uncontained engine failures were fully investigated and no evidence of either poor culture, cover ups or a manufacturing decision based on cost alone was uncovered. Each engine failure was from a different engine manufacturer, and in both cases the root cause was identified and rectified, with an appropriate course of action implemented for airlines.

It wasn't because it was an Airbus that it was largely ignored by the public, it was because there was no scandal around it.

The issue with Boeing wasn't that an incident happened, it was the subsequent investigation which lead to the uncovering of systemic issues within the manufacturer that was newsworthy.

Every aircraft has whats called a "Minimum Equipment List" that an aircraft can operate with - which means that things can and do break and so long as it doesn't violate the MEL then operations can continue.

Its perfectly possible that you pointed out something that the pilot was either already aware of or that they could diagnose from the cockpit and a brief visual inspection when next on the ground.

If the issue didn't violate the MEL, then the next flight can go ahead without concern.

Southwest Airlines operates nearly 820 Boeing aircraft and has more than 3000 flights per day. And they *only* operate Boeing aircraft.

I don't at all find it surprising that if you actually looked you could find incidents for Southwest pretty much any day of the year, at that operational tempo - and of course all of them are going to be involving Boeing aircraft....

Engines are the responsibility of the engine manufacturer, but often cowlings (which is what failed here) are not. These are highly optimised coverings for the engine which have a big effect on airflow efficiencies, and are often designed by the aircraft manufacturer rather than the engine manufacturer (the engine manufacturer often designs the intake, as that has a lot of effect on the engine efficiency itself).

But this is a 737NG, been in service for years, so its probably a maintenance issue or failed part rather than a design defect.

People need to stop highlighting every failure of a Boeing aircraft now, the vast majority of the ones we have seen talked about this year have nothing to do with Boeing or its culture, and instead are pretty normal failures that wouldnt have been talked about prior to the MAX issues. There are thousands of flights a day, sometimes shit does happen a few times a year - the last time this type of failure was featured on a prime time news segment it had nothing to do with Boeings culture, and it doesnt this time either

Just because a part failed does not mean there is an inherent culture or cost cutting issue, in either the construction or maintenance.

Google supported the GDPR because it doesn't matter to them.

When you have as much money as Google, laws no longer apply to you. You can literally do anything you want, and if anyone tries to stop you, you just keep throwing more lawyers at them until the problem goes away. Or bribe a few more politicians to get the law changed. In the rare case when this doesn't work, you agree to pay a fine that amounts to less that the profits you have made in the last 27 minutes.

Based on what evidence? Faith in Musk?

Over one billion miles driven using FSD.

Looking that that graph is should be obvious where it is going, and how soon.

The last I heard about the taxi idea, they mentioned they were considering letting people send out their cars as taxis when not in use, and thus owning a Tesla could actually make you money.

That does depend on true self driving to work but it seems like they are pretty close now.

Most space launch companies are inefficient and ineffective. SpaceX has the margin to pay these taxes, those unfortunates don't. If you want to kill competition in an industry, tax it enough that only the large corporations can survive the loss, and add some complicated regulations in for extra effect. No one else has anything close to what Starship may become, and further reduction in margins will ensure that SpaceX will have a defacto monopoly on non-military space launches while their competitors are strangled paying for FAA services that is disproportionately benefit owners of private jets and charter flights for the rich.