No. 96 767s, 71 757s, 45 A300s, and 40 747s. No ATRs or Caravans.

No assumption needed, theres video of the planes gear tearing through power lines, causing arcing all over the place.

On the contrary, MD11 pilots have the most to learn about the automated systems. Just because its automated, doesnt mean you dint need to know how it works, when it works, what it looks like when itâ(TM)s not working, what you still get when it doesnt work, what you dont get when it doesnt work,â¦

Some of the worst Airbus crashes for example have been caused when the automation has suddenly degraded from normal law to either alternate of direct law, and the pilot has not understood that they now dont have the protections that they normally get, or have straight up lost control of the aircraft in the degraded state.

Yes, but these planes can fly, and even climb with an engine entirely missing, even with a fire stalling part of the wing. The commenter is discussing what might have ultimately caused it to fail to climb at all. A compressor stall in a second engine because of FOD ingestion would do it.

Even without the direct path (which there is) theres easily enough energy to go straight theough the fuselage.

Itâ(TM)s happened before. There absolutely are such scenarios.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that this is what happened?

I think it's pretty hard to argue they haven't demonstrated rapid reuse. They've demonstrated that they can land, and reuse their booster, in later cases with very minimal refurbishment. They've demonstrated that they can land their ship. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to reuse the ship. There's still an open question about the quality of the heat shield, but it's clear that it is improving rapidly with each flight, and is likely very close to being "good enough". The most recent ships haven't seemed to have (m?)any tiles fall off. They've had gaps when they've landed, but that's because they've had gaps when they took off, to test whether the ship can survive missing tiles during reentry.

As far as mass to orbit, yes, it's reasonably clear that they have a problem with the dry mass at the moment. That said, it's become reasonably clear that they understand how much of a dry mass problem they have, and therefore figured out how much larger the ship needs to be to solve that problem. Version 3 is clearly designed to solve the dry mass problem in two ways. 1) Adding a bunch of fuel. 2) Making the engines more powerful.

As you say, for Starlink, they're fine at this point, they can launch a bunch of satellites, they can reuse the booster. That's at least as good as Falcon 9. As far as tankering, it's clear that they're planning on starting tankering next year, again, with version 3. It's clear to me that that indicates that they think they have enough mass margin to be useful at that point.

The point I'm making is that his "pfft, obviously Ukraine should have given up its nukes" stance is a Russio centric view that is biased towards treating one state more fairly than another. Not that it wasn't obvious that Russia treated the other soviet socialist republics that way before.

Not true. The radiation levels on the surface of Mars are around 230mSv/yr. The radiation levels in Ramsar, Iran, are 260mSv/yr. That's not because Iran has been doing all kinds of weird dirty things with nuclear material, that's just the natural background radiation level there. Want to know what issues they have living in such a high radiation area? Absolutely nothing. It actually has a *lower* cancer rate than the average. Our preferred model for determining how much radiation is safe for nuclear workers assumes that there's a linear relationship between how much radiation you receive, and how likely you are to have negative effects. It assumes that that's true no matter how spread out the dose is. The model says

- If one person receives a dose of 1kSv, 50 people will get cancer.
- If 1,000 people receive a dose of 1 Sv each in one second, 50 people will get cancer.
- If 1,000 people receive a dose of 1 Sv each spread out evenly over the course of 100 years, 50 people will get cancer.
- If 1,000,000 people receive a dose of 1mSv, 50 people will get cancer.
- If 1,000,000,000 people receive a dose of 1Sv, 50 people will get cancer.

It's a clearly, ridiculous model that doesn't in any way represent reality. In reality, you need to tie an individual's dose rate, and total dose to their risk of health issues. When you do that, you discover that below about 60mSv of radiation exposure health outcomes are actually better than baseline. The amount of radiation that we have actual solid evidence causes problems is 100mSv in a single exposure. That's. far far higher dose rate than anyone on Mars would experience

All that is to say, the radiation levels on Mars certainly are elevated, but they're not elevated to the point where our body can't handle it. The dose rates are low enough that it's likely people will have absolutely no ill effects, and may even have some small health benefits. If there are issues, there's a really easy way to deal with it - build your shelter underground.

There are some problems potentially with the trip *to* mars where radiation levels are around 1Sv/yr. Of course, we do have solutions for that. The steel sheet on the outside of the ship alone will attenuate radiation levels by about 10%. Wrapping the water storage around the outside of the ship, assuming a 20cm thick layer of water, around the ship, you're going to get attenuation of around 87.5%. With just those two, we've reduced the dose rate to around 100mSv per year, which... guess what... Perfectly fine.

Your estimatations are honestly way off. It takes NASA aproximately 3-4 years to build a single SLS, which is the only ship they have that can reach the moon with humans. They'd need 2 to send a rescue mission, due to the limitations of Orion's reentry, and that's assuming the Starship only has 3 people on board, which it has capacity for many many more.

So... chance of NASA sending a rescue mission to the moon? 0%. Literally 0%. There's no way they can do it. The only ship able to rescue a stranded Starship crew on short notice would be another Starship.

As far as xplodeship... Yeh, they've had a couple of failed launches recently. They've also solved the problems with them. They've got even more fixes coming in Block 3. Specifically, the problem was caused by a leak in the plumbing in the "attic" - area above the engines, but below the tanks, that you can think of essentially as a giant manifold. They've figured out the vibration issues that caused the leak, and changed the flight profile so that those vibrations don't occur. They've increased the capacity of the purge system that forces any leaked gasses out of the area. They've redesigned the plumbing that had the issue to not resonate in the same way. Version 3 eliminates the attic entirely, and mounts the engines directly to the bottom of the tanks. They've now had two consecutive successful launches, and reentries. I see no reason to think that next year they won't be able to get a pair of ships fully into orbit, and test docking, and fuel transfer between ships. Once they've done that, the only thing left to get to the moon is to nail the landing, which, frankly, if SpaceX can't nail landings... I have no idea what's going on.

NASA really hasn't paid for much of it. The HLS contract was for $4.5bn, of which, NASA has paid out $2.6bn so far. Starship development has so far cost somewhere around $10bn, so NASA's funded maybe a quarter of it. That said, you're right that SpaceX will do it for PR alone. They're trying to get to Mars. The problems you need to solve for that are a superset of the problems you need to solve for the moon, so they're going to be solving all the problems for the moon anyway. They'd be mad not to go to the moon.

Because you need to measure what happens when it goes off. You donâ(TM)t just want to find out if big boom happens, you want to find out what the properties of that boom were and if they match your modelling. Just finding out if one nuke goes boom tells you if one nuke is in working condition. Measuring everything you can about that detonation tells you if the entire arsenal works.

The problem is that Ukraine couldnâ(TM)t maintain nuclear weapons anyway. Giving them up was partly done because having a bunch of aging nuclear weapons hanging around in unguarded, unmaintained facilities is a terrible plan, and because guarding and maintaining facilities is expensive.

Why would âoeSoviet nukesâ get returned to Russia? Russia was only one Soviet republic, just like Ukraine was, or are you saying g that everyone was equal except some were more equal than others?