Well, technically each of these sugars is metabolized somewhat differently, and uses up different amounts of B vitamins in the enzyme conversion chain. IANA biochemist but it takes, IIRC, two molecules of B-something to assist in the splitting of a sucrose molecule to its constituent frucose and glucose molecules, and so forth. I forget which vitamins are used where. So again, different people will be affected differently depending on your vitamin levels as well as your phenotype.

Funny how these things go, it wasn't that long ago that you could buy fructose at the health food store, as a 'healthy alternative' to sucrose - coming from fruit and all.

The odd thing is that IIRC Boeing and Lockheed were among the first to design machines (airplanes in their case) entirely in CAD with 3D modeling of the entire plane, including part fitting, wiring, ducting, etc. I would have thought that they would have provided that capability as part of the outsourcing agreements. This problem need not have happened even with the outsourcers doing the part design, if they could also test fit the parts into the 3D design. Perhaps there were proprietary and/or security interests involved that prevented Boeing from allowing that access.

Open up your laptop battery. What you'll find is probably a bunch of AA cells wired together with a controller.

IANA A+P mechanic, but I think the differences are not that simple. Space-qualified equipment has to handle much higher acceleration and shock and IIRC wider temperature range and atmospheric environment. FAA may require more paperwork, and probably a longer testing regime? But aside from the weight, especially since the various Shuttle problems, I suspect NASA requirements have become much stricter, even taking into account the weight considerations. Weight is a factor in aviation as well, although not as much as space. But I dunno, really.

SpaceX batteries are used in the Dragon, which is now man-rated, which means it has to pass NASA standards and inspections.

Having said all that, I am befuddled as to why Boeing would go for Lithium Cobalt instead of LiFePh. LiCo is always one glitch short of catching fire, and requires lots of control systems to keep it from doing so. LiFePh is heavier and larger, and takes longer to charge, but that's a reasonable price for the difference in safety. Interestingly, the weight consideration goes against your argument - weight is a factor in aviation as well as in space.

I would take this with a grain of salt. Japanese investigators have been found to whitewash problems in other situations - Fukushima, for example. The culture is apparently so attuned to avoiding loss of face that it's hard to actually criticize one's own, in this case the maker of the batteries. IMHO the conclusion that the batteries were not at fault was remarkably quick.

I think that's just one battery, and that there are several of them on the plane - I don't know how many.

It's the ladies, man. Most ladies just don't like beards. Also my beard went grey 10 years before my head (which is just starting). I wasn't ready to look that old quite yet so I cut it off.

I didn't include the link to the project within the body of the posting, so here 'tis: Our Future in Space - A National Space Society Video.

The interesting thing is that, if predictions pan out, it will be difficult for any one organization to establish a monopoly (of the sort now maintained by DeBeers), with regard to any particular resource. As such, your plan won't work for long. It would be too easy for someone to go out there and find another 1000-ton asteroid filled with 1% platinum, or whatever, and no reason for them to participate in a cartel.

Caveat: the real monopoly may be various resources required for those wanting to get out to the asteroids, mining them, and delivering them back to near-earth. I expect that the early players are going to work very hard to establish monopoly power by lobbying for exclusivity with the UN, and proceed with rent-seeking. The most likely argument will be the need to limit vehicle re-entry to licensed paths, and 'volunteering' to provide that traffic control for free (and optimizing for one organization's traffic). I hope that they fail in that.

Therefore I hope that an internationally-chartered body is established (perhaps descended or merged from the various national satellite tracking organizations, and/or from the national air traffic control organizations) to provide near-earth orbital traffic control, without favoritism to particular entities.

Shameless plug, which is relevant: Support the National Space Society's Kickstarter project! Our Future in Space to produce several videos that demonstrate the opportunities and the need for space development, with award-winning production team.

I think there's at least two standard ounces: the Troy ounce (used for gold and other precious metals, = 31.1034768 g) and the Avoirdupois ounce (the 'common' ounce, = 28.349523125 g). Also there is a liquid measure, the fluid ounce, but that's another topic. And TIL that avoirupois is from Old French, meaning "goods of weight".

There are also less-used ounces, including the Apothecaries' ounce, the Maria Theresa ounce, the Spanish ounce, and a couple of different metric ounces. And the ounce-force, and the areal density ounce for fabric ("8 oz. denim"), ... fun with Wikipedia! :D

While I agree with this sentiment in general, I'm not sure it applies strongly here. Private commercial space development is a new industry, and as such many things having to do with the legal structure are poorly defined or not defined at all. One of the areas that must be filled in is how to handle liability related to activities on the way to space, and in space (outside the gravity well of Earth, let's say for the purposes of argument). Some of this is certainly covered by existing US law and regulations regarding commercial satellite launches, etc. But just as the rise of the Internet has required a substantial body of new law to cover things not previously anticipated, space development is going to require a similar effort.

As one example, there is presently no legal basis for private ownership of objects such as asteroids. There is a treaty (The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, IIRC - see Wikipedia) that no governments (that are signatories of the treaty) can assert sovereign rights. This theoretically would prevent a repeat of the European colonial process 'put a flag on it and you own it, at least until somebody bigger comes along' for nations. But depending on interpretation, this may or may not have anything to say about a private entity.

At present most everyone concerned appears to be trying to work within the existing body of international and national laws, treaties and precedent, making analogies from, for instance, the historical maritime traditions. Those analogies will eventually be embodied in new law by new precedent and/or legislation.