But, if he wants to plow a billion dollars into a social experiment that packs thousands of undergrads into a tiny space with no windows

He's not paying for the building... He's donating $200 million and the school has to come up with $1.2 billion balance.

Also consider that the Soyuz capsules are originally 1960s technology with some retrofitting along the way.

In the same way you could describe your PC as "originally 1970's technology with some retrofitting along the way" and give an equally misleading impression.
  In many respects, the Soyuz MS (the current generation) bears about as much resemblance to the Soyuz 7K and 7K-OK (the 1960's generations) as a 2021 Corvette does to a 1967 Corvette. Despite the visual similarity, many systems have been upgraded or replaced over the decades.

Not that technology in the real world has an "age" anyhow. (Setting aside the fact that "technology" is mostly a handwaving buzzword in the first place.) That's a very modern and recent conceit and comes out of Silicon Valley and from Madison Avenue. In the real world, either it works or it doesn't, or it's appropriate to use or not. Age doesn't matter. In high risk situations, there's often an advantage to using "old" but well understood and well debugged designs and techniques.

The problem with Soyuz isn't the age of it's design. The problem is that the Russian space industry is underfunded (and very likely corrupt if the rumours are true).

Other countries have caught up and have completely passed us in the space race.

In order to catch up and pass us in a race - there must first be a race. There isn't.

So in this case the UK lost a chip factory due to Brexit, but (also due to Brexit) more of the tax revenue stays in the UK.

There won't be a factory, there won't be any tax revenue.
 

it gets worse if the MSM highlights that one report and downplays others, swaying the public opinion one way or the other based on the narrow, highlighted aspects instead of the overall benefits or costs.

Yeah, no. The problem here isn't the media. It's in your mirror.

You can also get such channeling effects with the bay near the New York Port of Embarkation, the largest Atlantic port for the Allies.

Yes, deep inside the bay, you could get an effective surge. Completely without affecting the multiple other ports in use at the time. And given the industrial capacity of the Americans and their known accomplishments, you probably put the Port out of action for 3-4 months tops.
 

let's assume an approximately 5 mile radius of deadly radiation for a 10 kiloton weapon

That's almost eight times the actual radius for such a weapon. So, no, let's not assume something so patently ridiculous.

One nuke, underwater, dropped off anywhere near the largest ports, could have annihilated allied supply lines.

ROTFLMAO. No.
 
To wipe out the supply lines, you'd have to get at the port facilities themselves... a pretty tall order. And you'd need half a dozen or more just to wipe out the receiving end in England.

Nuclear mines left on the invasion routes into Europe could have helped isolate Germany from the Russians approaching from the East, or the Americans, British, and rescued allies approaching from the West and South.

ROTFLMAO. No.
 
A bomb could (temporarily) wipe out an area (on land) a dozen miles or so across. There's no viable chokepoint that small anywhere on the routes to Germany that would stop the allied advance.
 
If Germany managed to get their hands on a dozen or so weapons... Maybe, they might have been able to accomplish something. But they didn't have the industrial capacity to spare.

It is known that Japan had a nuclear weapons research program.

A low rent threadbare research program - one that hadn't successfully developed a means to enrich uranium.* (Let alone enlarging it on the massive scale needed to produce enough material for a bomb.) Thus, any theory that the Japanese tested a nuclear weapon is by definition a crackpot one - because it runs counter to the facts of the matter.
 
* It was more of a program than the Germans had, and actually got further, but that's a pretty low bar to clear.

Hopefully, SpaceX will succeed with their Starship which will facilitate launch of massive components at cheaper rates than we've ever had before.

A billion dollar facility is still pretty going to be a billion dollar facility - even if launches were free. You'll save some money because you don't have to be as clever with weight... But all the other requirements are still going to be there.

We had one back in the 1970's - it went away when Congress deregulated the airlines.

Use proper units and stop confusing the rest of the world, would you?

Or maybe you should get educated and get comfortable in thinking in multiple systems. Or grow the fuck up and stop expecting to be catered to.

Why did you even bother to reply when it's very obvious couldn't be bothered to read what I wrote?

Go back and read what I wrote - which has nothing to do with the complexity of the plumbing. Nor does it have anything to do with operating pressures.

It has long been noted that using molten salt as a coolant would enable reactors to run at a higher temperature, and at ambient pressure, than current pressurized-water reactors. Higher operating temperature would enable reactors to be built in deserts, with dry air to be used as the heat sink.

It sounds like you're making the same mistake as the summary - only you're confusing the operating conditions in the core with operating conditions inside the turbines. High temperatures in the former do not necessarily mean higher temperatures in the latter.
 
Either way, the problem with dumping waste heat to the air isn't so much the operating temperature as the abysmal efficiency of doing so.

There is a large and fundamental difference between traditional journalist bias and partisan clickbait bullshit peddled for hype and ratings' sake.

No, there isn't. In fact, during the heyday of newspapers, it wasn't uncommon for a city or town of any size to have both a Democratic and a Republican newspaper. What you refer to as "traditional" bias is actually rather newer, a product of the 1950's.

If I understand correctly, the professional astronomers should be able to filter out the satellite interference in their observations.

You do not understand correctly. Whether you realize it or not, you're just echoing muskmelon bullshit.
 

And when they are visible, it is at dusk and dawn.

Again, not true. All else being equal, visibility is directly proportional to altitude... The ISS, for example, can be visible as much as two and a half hours before or after sunset. Quite a bit of the Starlink and other constellations are higher still (and thus visible for much longer periods).

BS does not kill people, what kills people is not being able to get all sides of a story to make up their own minds properly.

Bullshit.
 
The coronavirus is lethal. Masks slows transmission. The vaccines basically stops it in it's tracks. The vaccines are safe.
 
Those are facts. There are no alternatives. There isn't "two sides" to be had.
 
Bullshit, such as that you're spewing, has killed people. It's continuing to kill people.