Kryten

That's because they had a merger with ammunition and solid rocket manufacturer ATK. Even without Antares, there are occasional Minotaur (and possibly Athena) launches scheduled out of the other launchpad. They're a similar rough configuration to the AJ-26s (Single-chamber Kerolox oxygen-rich staged combustion engines), but have a much simpler turbopump configuration and haven't been sat in a warehouse for 50 years.

'Fruit sugar' is mostly fructose and glucose. It's extremely similar to high-fructose corn syrup, and easier to digest and absorb than the sucrose is standard table sugar.

You're talking to somebody that appears not to believe in the greenhouse effect, at all. You're going to have to use much smaller words.

Because an interplanetary probe you can't communicate with is not much good.

There's a lot more dust in greenland samples, that messes with most temperature proxy measurements.

Actually the IAU decides which names stick.

ESA nominal planetary mission budgets don't cover instruments (provided by universities or national space programs instead), but usually cover launch costs, while NASA nominal budgets include instrumentation cost but not launch cost, so they're difficult to compare. Particularly as this specific contract doesn't include launch cost either.

ESA JUICE mission (some Europa flybys before spending most mission in Ganymede orbit): launch in June 2022, arrive at Jupiter system in 2030 NASA Europa Mission (dedicated Europa mission with 45 flybys in nominal science mission): launch no earlier than 2023, likely 2025, arrival in 2 years with SLS launch or 6.5 with Atlas V (LV TBD).

This was only viable due to the recent major increase in smallsats being produced, as they're now starting to overwhelm providers of ridreshares; this in turn had led to reasonably viable smallsat launch providers like RocketLab. Also, while not formally confirmed, there's a good chance this pad had already started construction for the cancelled DoD SWORDS small launcher project.

ATK just quietly stopped talking about it sometime after it lost.

Given the last attempt at a control produced measurable thrust with no microwaves, it's likely in another part of the setup entirely. Probably a magnetic effect.

Only if you assume the engine failure is benign enough not to severely damage other systems. That's rarely the case.

Falcon heavy is already too big and expensive for the current market, at least without dual-launch or reusability. Given the way both reusability and FH flights are moving, I see it being replaced by a Raptor-powered vehicle before it's flown all that much. A 5-engine design would fulfill the market needs and still have plenty of margin for reusability.

Compressed air tanks are heavy, and the energy density is poor. Like, lead-acid battery level poor.

It isn't likely to fly all that much anyway, so failures aren't too likely. With current sat designs and SpaceX's unwillingness to do Ariane-style dual launch, it's very expensive for what it would be putting up. If you take a look at the actual current FH manifest, most of the payloads could have gone on Proton for a good amount less

This wasn't the 'wrong lever' as such, it was a lever activated a little while (14 seconds) before it was necessary. It doesn't seem the pilots were aware activating it that early would have this effect (remember it's merely an unlock), and they were both under a very high workload. EDIT: Or to directly quote the report; and

Because you get your news from bloody IGN. Look at similar quality news sources 20 years ago, and you'd be convinced cold fusion was entirely legit.

Not when you're talking micronewtons of force, particularly in a vacuum.

IGN, really? That's the best you could find? EDIT: Also note this is a conference presentation, not a peer-reviewed paper.

That's the Armstrong line, at just below 20km.

They would have the right to exploit the resources (as would governments), but would be unable to meaningfully claim ownership.

The analogy doesn't work too well, because the information in a book is entirely separate from the book itself, whereas DNA is an inherent part of the system it's feeding information into. Even the protein-coding areas will produce different results in different organisms, as the genetic code proper (i.e. the codons) isn't entirely consistent.

It must always be kept in mind that DNA fundamentally isn't a code or a language, it's an actual molecule.

That does happen to some extent (e.g. the Hubble observations of Pluto which discovered the small moons), but there's very little relative time dedicated to it because they're built and funded as astrophysics missions. There have been and are proposals for dedicated planetary science space telescopes, but so far none have survived selection against more direct probes.

It's 5 earth masses plus or minus 2. It's likely not even rocky.