PB666

With something 100 pages long I hope your are not hoping for a comprehensive response. I have to point out several logics here. 1. Private international partnership or is this an international space project (like the ISS) between GOs (government owned). My thoughts are this, I can see NASA giving the developers an intuitive+hand such as they have done for SpaceX (an in particular $$ULA$$$, though I think that is more DoD). My trouble here is this arrangement between private and governmental. People got p_o d at Obama for running GM and Chrysler despite the fact GMs profit markedly improved and the governmnet got a sizable share of the money it put into pull them out of bankruptcy. Is this Group going to be like an international CIA or something say Space Intelligence gathering agency. If NASA is only buying in services (such as robots that clean off a base for them to land, or install solar panels, or dig out an underground tunnel) I can see them throwing money into it. But if nasa is a partner is an international civilian partnership, thats difficult for me to imagine its stable. I see they are trying to casts their nets wide, and some of the fish may be poisonous to the others. 2. I am very dubious for a project that going to be a thing 20 years from now based current technology. The only reason I like the DeltaIV rocket is its RS-68A engines, you can take the rest of that overpriced [four letter word] and toss it. I like boeing, they are a good craft builder, but they evolve too slowly and drive the costs too high. I don't really know what is going to become of atlas it has only 33 launches since 2000 of the Atlas III are higher. They are kind of using an outdated Russian RD180 engine same fuel as SPace X uses but Space X can produce then engines cheaper and more rapidly 3800 kN at MSL versus 845 kN . . . but space X can currently recycle there's. Finally the spaceX generation block 5, IMO, is not likely to be the last in the series, each with evolving recyclability and power capabilities. The big changes are going to occur in the next 5 years and so alot of the document could be obsolete. 3. Strategically, you don't put ISRU as a method until you have a base, which means you probably will not be selling refueling services, not in 10 years, unlikely in 20 years. Get the base and sell base services. Yes, these will be as expensive as hell, so that base staff will be robots and the humans will be essentially robot cleaners and repairs. At one sixth the gravity of Earth you will have to rotate crews at least every 2 years. Services you could seel would be to GOs and billionaires for private occupation. Before you can even test the feasibility of ISRU business you first have to have facilties. And anyone who wants to do this will have to move fast, because government plans set for moon bases will be less apt to change the closer they are to impliment those plans. How are you going to get NASA, RSA, ESA and chinese space agency to buy into the same lunar base?

All they need is not to be detected long enough to get into an orbit that is hard to follow back to the 2S PL separation point, the orbit is not over Russia for a period so that basically makes the worlds best US spy-satellited detectors need to wait until they can find 1 or more objects who orbit go unexplained by aprioris. We should add that at the same time other stuff is being added to space, and its not like satellites call out their nationalities like Sputnik one did. Basically I think we need to cool the Zuma talk for at least a week . . . . .the challenge has been thrown out and some geek with a high powered telescope and too much free time on his hands will find it(them) and broadcast their astronomical coordinates all over the internet.

If that was california the whole state would caught on fire.

The wikipedia quotes were drawn out for the OP who appears to have less experience than you or I do. The overwhelming majority of mass detected on Mercury is molecular hydrogen and oxygen Here molecules per meter cubed (remember these are static + flux divided by area at a meter (they used centimeter) thickness, my discussion is only about flux, not stasis. On one side of mercury you have alot of static molecules and on the other side you have alot of fluxing atoms, while the pressure may be greater (PV = nRT) on one side the mass on the other side my be greater. The solar photons and incident particles are compressing the volume on the hot side and increasing pressure. Molecular Oxygen 2.5 x 1013 Molecular hydrogen < 1.4 × 1013 Water . . . . . . . . . . . < 1.5 x 1013 Helium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 x 109 The amount of hydrogen (atomic) is trivial. Again if we are to compare this with space. 1E36 particles per second divided by the radius of Mercury places the density at mercury as 2.2 x 1013 assuming all is molecular the static atmosphere of mercury is only about 4 times thicker than the solar wind. Again if there was significant discharge effects the amount of atomic hydrogen would be higher than 1/100,000th the amount of molecular hydrogen (atomic hydroge is 2.5 x 108 ) so . . . . .My opinion is that the real interesting stuff is occurring right at termination that's where you need to be. Heat drives the evolution of hydrogen more so than any other element, so you need to be at the place where heat is driving the element in your direction = less work for the extractor. The trend is generally true that indications of water are more often than not proven true. But Mercury's atmosphere is in flux that is the overriding truth, but for the solar wind there is virtually no persistent atmosphere, it has a very peculiar year due to the eccentricity of its orbit, and we could have ice sublimating and then evaporating in a 2 mercurial year cycle. That does not per say rule out colonizing of Mercury, it just mean we have to be very very selective about the colonization site. There is one good protection that Mercury affords, the intense solar wind at termination affords some protection from exosolar cosmic radiation (the most damaging type), the problem however is that the suns own cosmic radiation produces X-rays upon recombination these will be difficult to avoid in the collisions at termination, it would be akin to having an atomic bomb going off in the atmosphere 50 miles over your head. I do believe with proper engineering that we can capture hydrogen and water on Mercury. The biggest problem with that plan is the dV required in the transfer and matching burns. Mercury is an easier target to land and launch from than either Mars or Venus (obviously). Extending the logic to Venus, if you asked me . . . .Is there a place on Venus were it is easier to capture water . . . meaning 4H2 + H2SO4 -------> H2S + 4H20 I would have to argue yes that place will be near termination. If you asked me the question choose a planet to capture hydrogen, obviously I would choose Mercury because we know how to do the ground kinetics. That is we know how to plant a facility in the place whereby the possibility of extracting hydrogen and water is good. I am also stating beyond static harvesting of water that the poles of Mercury should still have surface oxides not too far down, so that there should be an ample means of forming metal hydroxides with water which we can be used as both a source of metals and component water. The mass fluxes in the Venusian atmosphere, particularly at termination cannot be trivialized. Solar radiation is not only driving hydrogen flux, but also the fluxes of all the other gases in the atmosphere. Yes one could possibly set up between the back (night side) flow and front flow layer, but then access to the hydrogen would be lower, you might have to have something ( a balloon reaching that highest layer) that you also use to scavenge gas, and in the lower section as a counter flow agent something that captures SO3 or H2SO4. However, my opinion is that this is always too turbulent to exploit. Proof of the pudding is always in the eating. I believe that anyone who proposed settling the Venusian atmosphere is setting up a Hindenburg, probably shorter lived. The presence of hot sulfuric acid in the atmosphere is probably too much of a driver of unstable behavior than any Earth made vessel can withstand, at least in the foreseeable future.

Imagine a stream of water, if you place in the stream a stick, the water has to go around the stick or go into the stick. If it goes into the stick then there is flux. dH/dt for venus (or mercury) is positive. In the case of Venus if dH/dt is positive then we expect the conversion of H2S04 --------> +H30+ -HSO4 ----------> Me+ SO42- + H30+ H20. There would be a flux of ions in Venusian atmosphere from their anhydrous form (SO3) into the state observed on Earth (oceanic 2-SO4). The assumption is that there are enough oxides trapped in the rocks on Venus to convert back to hydroxides then water. Observation reveals that state of Venus is dehydration, surface water has been depleted and H2SO4 is a minor state of S in the atmosphere most in is sulfer dioxide (which hydrates to H2SO3 and then oxidizes to H2S04) This has too bits of information, first that there is a flux of hydrogen, that which goes into Venus atmosphere and that which leaves. THe proportion that has recently come from the sun is much higher than that of the planets formation. OK so if anything the H flux is negative but D flux may be positive. Given that In the analogy the stream of water must flow around the obstacle. In a river the water would build amplitude (a standing wave) and travel around the obstacle faster. However in space the dynamics are different, for example on Mercury the hydrogen collides with the then atmosphere, slows down and travels around mercury to the termination were it then in flows back into space, this is going on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mercury Source. you can see where the space craft detected gas while passing some distance around Mercury. If you would have followed those isoquants back to the surface you would have seen the peak concentration very close to the termination at the poles. In other words Mercury is creating a manifold that redirects and concentrates solar-derived mass. That mass is largely hydrogen. Just like a stick a stream of water, mercury cause the mass flow to increase in some areas an decrease in others. Keep in mind what the image is showing what is sampled as a plane through mercuries axis to the sun, so that the boundary layer that is observed is largely a polar focus. At more than 2 mercurial radii from the surface the concentration remains up to 5 times more concentrated than the surfaces well behind the planet. If we were to diagram that flow. . . . . Yes I know expansion is misspelled Before I leave Mercury I want to point out that unlike water here on Earth, the hydrogen that flows around Mercury is rich in deuterium and the cold flow is particularly rich in deuterium, dueterium accelerates less slowly in response to X-rays and interactions with the solar wind, this is also true for other elements. The grey bar represents termination. So venus is bigger than mercury but further away which means that it receives about 2.5 times the amount of hydrogen. We can see from the diagram above that hydrogen is not likely to flow back in the direction of the sun, in either case mercury or venus. Venus has almost no magnetic field, Although Venus is further from the sun than Mercury we have to remember that mercury is travelings at 10s of kms per second and the solar winds 100s of kms per second. So that the wind barely slows down as it reaches Venus. These are our givens. Lets see if we can make heads or tails of H flow around Venus. 1. The flow is unlikely to be directed Sun-Rad since the pressure is both + - Conjecture the outflux of hydrogen is much greater at or beyond termination. 2. Venus does not have a magnetic field - conjecture hydrogen cannot be repelled back into space before hitting atmosphere. 3. The -Flux of hydrogen from the Venusian surface is driven by heat + -conjecture - and in the upper atmosphere is driven by sunlight. We can stop here and theorize about Venusian hydrogen. The only place where the flux statements are simultaneously true is close to termination. But we have to argue that 1. because Venus has an atmosphere and no van Allen belts 2. because sunlight and solar winds drive hydrogen toward Venusian surface 3. that the flux of hydrogen/deuterium/helium on the sunlit side must be positive. 4. This roughly means, looking at the surface of Venus that the necessary outflow is concentrated somewhere on Venus, so the question then becomes where and how much. And we can look at the atmsopheric flows and see that there are other reasons not to place a tremendous about of hydrogen out flux on the extreme back side. If this is true and if hydrogen is a significant component of the upper atmosphere at oxygen airglow then water would be readily forming at the cold maximum, but this is not likely the case, because H2S04 rains out of the cloud layer before reaching the cold maximum which means little H2S03 is forming. So that hydrogen is most likely leaving the Venusian atmosphere along the same angles relative to termination as Mercury, probably slightly behind because of the cooling and heat redistributing effects of that atmosphere and the distance for Venus from the sun relative to Mercury. If I were to redraw the image We can see that hydrogen is mixing into the thermosphere layer and working into the upper atmosphere. Two forces are fighting each other, thermal heating of the Venusian atmosphere is pushing out and the photon force and solar winds are pushing in, the atmosphere swells but cannot release the excess gas. As it rolls around to termination the photon force and the solarwind are no longer pushing -rad, they are pushing tangential with the flow of atmosphere which allows the gas to regain some of its incident (solar wind) velocity so that the atmosphere is free to degas, as the circulation moves to the back the gas is now free to escape, albeit at a much lower velocity. The gas continues to evolve beyond termination because sunlight (UV scatters better than light) is being scattered into the gas keeping the tangential pressure high. thereis also, at distance outflow scattered solarwind the provides tangential pressure. As the air flows behind Venus the thermospheres temperature drops and hydrogen no longer has the kinetic energy to escape Venus field and must be carried back to the sunlit side and driven out in a different pass. Again there are capture mechanisms for hydrogen in the Venusian atmosphere so that if this was significant hydrogen should persist. So in theory at least there should be concentrated hydrogen outflow tangential to the termination plane originating at the termination position vectors. This is all I can give you on the theory, its more developed for Mercury than Venus. Edit: Disclaimer, before everyone starts salivating here, remember we are talking about a total flux per day for the entire planet of 10s of kilotons, the images are above are magnifying the presence of hydrogen so that we can examine potential behaviors to determine if concentration of free hydrogen is possible. It is plausible based on theory at least, that does not mean its possible to support an Airship.

Sure that explains the Mercury sized crater in Egypt where it was found.

Why would you start with earth, start with something smaller . . . . . . . .say a black hole.

Well, if it must blow, let it get about a km up so we can see a nice KSP style disassembly. None of this hobnobbing about for days over whether it made orbit/alive or not, I wanna see a fancy red Tesla sucking stingray scum at the bottom of the gulfstream.

Since it launch from canavaral and middle east would have been the last of the circularization burn points, that also mean it was in orbit. They would of hear the planned reentry of the F92s

Parts will wash up on some beach someday.

YES! why wouldn't we. The reason I do that is the same reason a forensic pathologist claims there are no traceless crimes. The point from a physical point of view is that every action has a reaction. So whereby we apply this to our logic. If we are detecting the motion of two neutron stars 2 million light years away detecting the gravitational effects of a local object would be all the more powerful. Step 1 a celestial . . .Celestials are found where, in space, surrounded by other matter stars planets, other, parts, of the galaxy . . . . so are we to remove these. Most solid celestials either orbit stars or other planets. Step 2 a dig a hole . . Most celestials of any given size do not have rigid interiors, if you dug far enough down you would start seeing the effects of pressure on its structure . . .so the celestial have to be absolutely rigid and cold at the center. Step 3 drop and object into the hole . . . wait a second most bodies have some atmosphere, and even if a little by the time you finished digging the hole would have filled with something. Even the moon would if you dug a hole through the middle accumulate significant hydrogen over time because a hole is a lower energy state for the hydrogen. . . .so you would have drag. Step 4 you also have friction. . .all celestials rotate even tidally locked celestials are rotating once per orbit . . . to prevent frictional encounters. . . . .there would have to be no motion. So now we need something that does not exist. A celestial with no companions . . .anywhere.... not rotating . . . .solid as a diamond. (although how did we dig a hole through solid diamond). we drop an object into a space that has nothing but space . . .and we observe . . .but without a meter (light source and a mass that measures) how do we know. IOW if you remove the universe from a problem, you cannot use universe's information to deduce a solution.

They assume that SI composed a shell and that hypatia stone was surrounded by a silicon shell, so the question is how did they get a layered meteor. The answer is that the core and the shell were derived from different cosmic sources.

I don't think they could know the fate of Zuma unless the customer informed them. Unless the gyros on the F9S2 experienced a shift in gyros due to an independent explosion on Zuma.

Space would have known apriori. They would not have deorbited if PL was still attached unless ordered to by the customer. The ships have gyros, turning for a burn is effected by the inertia of the added mass.

That of course is a question, but the logic is this, and again I would repeat that the studies of Mercuries light-less craters indicate that this process does happen, the sun produces hydrogen which has already saturated the very thin surface layer of mercury as it travels around its still in a more or less plasma state (potentially with no electrons to rejoin it reaches the other termination were if rejoins with oxygen to form water. Here is the assumption. So lets say the solar wind is 300km per second, and lets say its concentration is 1E-9 (the exact number is not neccesary) and the boundary layer as it passe around an object is 1 meter (again its just for demonstration. So if a circle was a meter in radius of the boundary flow around venus would also be a meter. 1m radius (area = pi) (perimeter = 2pi) 1E-9 per meter + 0.5E-9 ( There are errors here that disappear as the circle gets larger, this is an over estimate, its just a way of setting up the arguement) 2m radius (area = 4 pi) (perimenter = 2 pi) 1E-9 per meter + 1E-9 (see above) 4m radius (16pi) (8pi) 1E-9 + 2E-9 8m radius (64pi) (16pi) 1E-9 + 4E-9 So eventually we can speculate that if the radius is say 2500000 meters in diameter and the flow along the edge remains tight that the concentration of hydrogen becomes 1250000E-9. If the planet is venus this certainly could be higher. The perimeter of Venus is not a hard surface the boundary flow is not expected to be tight, that hydrogen might mingle for a while in the upper atmosphere. So one might have to scoop atmosphere and extract the hydrogen and release. More than likely this is where the H2SO4 in the Venusian atmosphere comes from, but again if you are trying to rest on a cloud the H2SO4 in the cloud does not help you until after you have rested and established equilibrium, its just that the H20 part of the H20 + SO3 never makes it to the ground. The sun carries away 1E36 particles per second (about a 1E9 kg per second, so at mercuries orbit this would be 60,000,000,000 meters so the surface area is 3600000000000000000000 3.703E-13 kg/m2sec at mercury. Along the face of mercury that is 7.27kg per second. So this slips around the perimeter of mercury we don't know how thick so lets just argue a meter thick and if its wider one can just divide by the width . . .at the rate of 0.00000154 kg/sec. So that we can see that in a day you could collect 0.125 kg/day of H2 with a handwaving meter square capture system. THat does not seem like a lot of hydrogen, but for a blimp, at say half an atmosphere that is 2.781 m3 of gas. So then the question is how much resource does one place into this, so if we imagine we have a heat resilient surface weight something like 1 mm in thickness, it would cost minimally 1.4 kg per square meter, so over a few days we could recover the cost, but again you want to make something big, 100s of kilograms in size so that you are capturing say 1000 meters. So that is the theory, hydrogen moves over planetary ellipticals at the rate of 1E9*0.75/pi*r2 kg/m2sec were r is the magnitude of the position vector. Anything in the path of that flow (van allen belts, a rocky non-atmospheric planet, a very cloudy planet without a magnetic feild) that does not absorb hydrogen deflects the hydrogens towards its perimeter parallel to the direction of light, so that the hydrogen is concentrated as it passes the perimeter. This is hardly rocket science. So how do we make it work for Venus, thats a question. We don't know it happens on Venus, but at least on mercury the theory is consistent with the presense of ice in areas beyond the termination and ice that is not likely source from Venus.

I have to say, this image starts to grow on you after a while.

NSA definitely exists, they question is whether they exist within or out side of the law and the second question is which law (US or international). The NSA is just closer joined to the hip to the executive branch as he acts under the Director of National Intelligence (cabinet level position-although technically part of the defense hierachy, the DNI is appointed by the president, not the SoD) and is a constitutive member of the National Security Council. The CIA has equal ability but they are tasked with human-based resource gathering overseas. The other defense intelligence agencies follow the more traditional chain of command. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community#Members You can see that there are a number of agencies that could afford as part of their budget Zuma. Don't worry, be happy, smile for the cameras, keep sending those snaps, . . . . . .

I think he was talking about chitter-chatter not Zuma's performance. The weeds being collective odds of the curious and confused.

And well have to start another thread to explain why super secret rockets are not observed reaching orbit. That insulation sure didn't last long after ignition. But I guess they didn't need the weight.

deja-vu

1

It is obvious that Venus has lost hydrogen it previously had, so I don't need to cite a source, the atmosphere is simply too hot to retain it. The question whether there is sufficient amount to harvest it is an orbital issue, the question of replenishing is non-orbital issue. Both are valid, again since I am not in favor of the blimp colony scheme I find this all rather silly. The next issue is equipment size, again I am only assuming that 100kg was a scalar, that the OP wanted some numbers that could be used to scale in size, from 100kg to 100,000kg. So that of course a large airship could support the machinery. The harvestability in space around Venus is an unknown, but given collections of Oxygen-hydrogen oxidation products on Mercury this seems doable, the question is how. Again hydrogen is preferred by on Venus would be difficult and expensive to acquire (I think I said this). The next most obvious issue is Methane, again it can be pressurized, its density is not very good, but it leaks less quickly than hydrogen, and the number of gases that can be used a refridgerants in space to keep it cool and recycled are higher than with hydrogen. Potentially you could use a new age plastic to store it. Methane can be stored as Lithium Methide, if storage is the largest issue and it can be treated with hydrogen to release it. Li-CH3 in the presence of Acid forms methane (again acids are heavy but can be recycled from lithium chloride). Of course one can also make lithium hydride, which was used in the first hydrogen bombs. Neither compounds are particularly stable around water or oxygen. Making methane on site requires the conversion of CO2 to CO, and the conversion of H2S04 to water and Sulfate. The water is then used to create hydrogen gas and Oxygen which would be released. The hydrogen is then use to make formaldehyde and then methanol, the methanol would then be used to make methane. It is expensive but . . . . . . Ammonia gas can be readily stored in the presence of water, it is released under application of vacuum. It can be obtained by the reduction of Nitrogen with Hydrogen (see above) at high temperature. Of all the gases CO would be the most economical interms of insitu recycling but the hardest to use in terms of volume containment.

You are trying to fabricate hype. It could also be a giant statue of Vladimir Putin on a horse riding with a bear-chested woman. It could be designed to drop USB drives on N. Koreans. It could be an alien from Roswell NM stored at area 51 that the wanted to place in orbit before the News media could find out. IT could be a laser designed to cut the Earth in half, it could be NTR rocket that the want to test in Deep Space. It could be Obama's secret Kenyan birth certificate . .It could be the RV from Witch Mountain.

Not hypersonic (except at launch), was in orbit, and could have only deorbited itself or waited for drag to do the same. The video above listed Zuma numeric designation as nominal, a status that is only supplied once a craft is in a stable orbit of its desired "a". And we have pretty good idea that second stage reached its targeted altitude and deorbited we also have a pretty good idea that the second stage and payload fairing separated. We also know one other thing, that for someone to report on classified material would be a violation of the espionage act and they could be prosecuted. Only the president can report its status or someone has to declassify it. Obviously not done. So the people who are arguing it failed are either criminals are misleading the public. Finally to address the comment that they secretly put Zuma in orbit... It was put in orbit and its not secret, its current status is in orbit . . . .on whether they intentionally dropped it again that would be classified so you cant really trust someone who says otherwise. Lets go through this again. F9 launches, heads northeastward between 40 and 50 degrees on a launch trajectory, over Saudi Arabia it makes a circularization burn. If F92nd stage did not do this the F92s could not have orbited one more time and deorbited. So F92s and PL were in orbit, the only exception is that they separated before the second stage circularized as some sort of subterfuge, which means that the purchaser did not get their moneys worth, because SX sells contracts to LEO. If they separated before circularization then its really not SpaceXs problem, but if the separation occurred prematurely it would be SpaceXs problem. But the government said "ask Space X if the payload reached its target", SpaceX says they did, all mission objectives were accomplished , which implies either the government is lying or SpaceX is lying or both or niether. Again if we approach the problem from a null hypothesis, that the default state or expected state is the actual state, until proven otherwise. In this case SpaceX defines the expected state (nominal) thus we assume that is the actual state, the government says that SpaceX knows the status and does not contradict that status, claiming that SpaceX is the authority on the success. The lack of evidence for an unexpected status does not support an unexpected status conclusion. The second logic is appearances. What appears to be is not always what is. For example gravity appears to be a force, and spacetime does not appear to be curved. But neither gravity or spacetime have a fathomable appearance, we can only mark space-time in very abrupt changes. This is not to argue that rigorous physics and mathematics can unveil them, just in appearances they go unobserved. This situation then has a logic, the satellite either is or is not a stealth satellite. If it is neither will the government will confirm or deny it. If the satellite is a stealth satellite then its default state while in orbit is not to appear (be dark from the ground), and if it isn't then we have to beg the question how certain can amateur astronomers be at detecting it. Either could be true and neither reveal its status. As far as authorities. ABC News, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg news are not an authorities on classified stealthy satellites. If they were then the US Govt is doing a very poor job at keeping national secrets. They can only report what sources say, their sources would be, if reporting a true status be violating the espionage act (questioning their credibility), of course calling the report anonymous obscures that, but an anonymous source could be reporting subterfuge or fact. Daniel Ellsberg reported facts, classified, that were true, but he also documented his sources, increasing his credibility, he was also to be tried but was not convicted because the plumbers broke into his Psychatrist's office and stole documents (decreasing the government's credibility). So an anonymous source can be a Shrodingers cat (truthful or deceptive) until you peal back the layers of the source and disclaimants, one is uncertain . The object of the classification is a 1 billion dollar satellite, an ample motivation for an anonymous source, its either disclosure of a massive government waste or a smoke screen to hide a very expensive and sensitive government program, the cost of the project can be justification for both behaviors. I should point out that ABC News, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg all predicted that it was likely that Hillary Clinton would be president. And finally for actors (pretenders, competitors) <==== We are. We pretend to know the status based on appearance and know the facts, again a null hypothesis is something when proven has a 'false negative' rate, and when disproven has a 'false positive' rate. So if the status is nominal based on logic, we accept that this will be wrong sometimes, and if we reject it based on logic it will also be occasionally wrong. So that unless multiple valid perspectives are provided, the risk of a wrong answer is pretty high. But the whole idea of warfare and espionage is the thwart a 'competitors' plan. His plan is going to be based on his own logical analysis of the facts, and so its not in the interest of the principle to provide facts that can be used to direct his logic, so that we take any government report on a classified project to be an invalid perspective, because such reports are a self-contradiction. So the government cannot be a source on whether SpaceX was successful or not. Whatever spaceX says is true may or may not be true, it could simply be a default answer to any question concerning a 'disappeared satellite'. Therefore there is only one valid source, SpaceX and SpaceX does not apparently know the current status of the PL, which means the current (vocal) valid source is a null set.

Population 3 star supernova created a seed that was not part of a star system which later accumulated silicon and other minerals as it passed through a nebula created by a population 2 star supernova. As it passed through the nebula the latent heat burned of volatiles at the center leaving concentrated carbon, a space later crushed by that accumulated on top.