Let’s not set the precedent of having the UN make decisions about space.

A missile would not change the re-entry time or location: just break the target into many pieces. In the one case where the US used a missile the target broke into many small pieces which mostly burned up on re-entry but I don’t think that would happen with the ISS. Uncontrolled re-entry of a single large object would, I think, be preferable to re-entry of dozens of them.

No agreement would have any effect on the headlines saying “US allows its spacestation to crash on city, killing 800 people”.

The viscosity of hot water is much lower.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/how-the-higgs-field-works-with-math/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature#Space

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature#Flat_space

Curvature is well defined for manifolds with any number of dimensions. “Flat” in this context means “zero curvature”, not “two dimensional”.

It’s been asserted that they were used for water but I know of no evidence that they actually were.

Texas regulations require that the design for a methane storage system be done by a registered professional engineer certified to do methane storage systems in Texas and be submitted for approval before construction starts. Thus it’s unlikely that they were “too close together”. More likely they just didn’t work right. Perhaps they had an excessive boiloff rate or too high a leakage rate.

Speculation: Perhaps they decided to build their own tanks because lead times for purchased tanks were too long. It worked out for LN2 and LOX.

I wonder why they have not recycled the suborbital tanks?

They’re now cutting up the shell of one of the vertical methane tanks. They managed to suck all the perlite out when we weren’t looking.

But there’s a guy up on one of the veritcal tanks working on the lifting rings so perhaps Zack is right.

That looks like a long reach from where it’s parked.

The LR11000 has moved into the space near gate D2 where they recently demolished the storage sheds. I think it’s there to handle the last three horizontal tanks (unless it’s just there to compact the new asphalt…)

Kathy Lueders said that this month is unlikely but seems to think that there’s a chance for January. I’ll go with that.

I think that a launch this year is still possible but I wouldn’t want to give odds. I think that before the end of January is likely. It would be cool for it to happen on my birthday but I’d rather see it earlier.

“Runs the risk” means it might happen, not that it will happen. When he said that Starlink was committed to switching to the version two satellites and F9 was not expected to be able to launch them. They would have missed their FCC deadlines. However, they were able to develop the “shrunken” Starlink2 that fits on F9. I also think that both the F9 launch cadence and Starlink sales have exceeded expectations.

If you never succeed you are pushing them too hard.

A test that goes to completion always returns more data than one that doesn’t. For example there is a theory that the flaps on the ship are too large. IFT2 could have confirmed or falsified it.

Disconnect arm. Looks like they’re planning on lowering at least a portion of it. (Rover 2.0 Cam)

They removed the flex pipes.

Yes. It isn’t hard to generate random numbers in hardware. It is hard to generate them very fast. This device would not help solve that problem.

They are not emitted simultaneously. The collision is messy. The GRB comes from leftover bits of neutron star.

Full levitation is not necessarily due to the Meisner effect either. It can be ordinary diamagnetism.

A way to make it quite stiff would be to sandwich stringers between an inner and outer ring.