Kryten

Depends what you mean by 'cockroaches'. Wiping out the four or five species that act as pests is s a very different proposition to taking out the entire order Blattodea, and I don't see how you practically do the latter without taking out entire ecosystems.

Darnok, do you know what the process of science is?

Thermal effects on sperm count are on the actual production of sperm, it doesn't kill the cells.

Again, science is made up of news reports. The link in that report doesn't work and it doesn't give a paper title or reference, so it can't be seen if it's been retracted or is otherwise dubious. Even if it isn't, it doesn't exactly represent normal use conditions, and it does involve a plausible mechanism; we know microwave signals can cause heating, we know small levels of heat can severely effect sperm count (hence why the ....... is where it is in the first place rather than safely ensconced in the abdomen), and the long times and complete lack of movement could allow the heat to build up. You haven't been ranting about sperm count though, you've been ranting about real harm. You're talking about something that would have to involve higher heat levels (or some unknown BS EM mechanism), on something much larger than a mouse, and which would have sufficient movement to prevent the buildup of these kind of hotspots.

No. Here's a clue; it isn't news storeis and corporate press releases. A statement not backed by the evidence. Because it was the 1920s and nobody gave a toss about environmental hazards.

Darnok, do you know how the process of science works?

I'm doing an experiment with magnets and the human brain right now; I'm wearing in-ear earphones. Given the strength of the magnets and the proximity to the brain, the field strength is going to be dozens of times higher than could be achieved from a phone (almost all of which would be from the magnets in the speakers BTW), but nothing significant is happening.

That's not what 'correlation' means. Give a mechanism by which this could be harmful.

You're completely missing what people are saying to you. We know there's a mechanism for lead to be neurotoxic, we know there's a mechanism for CFC's to produce ozone-destroying free radicals; you haven't come up with any plaussible mechanism for mobile phones being harmful. Just making analogies is not an argument, and it certainly isn't scientific.

Falcon 9 for planes, and I think they were looking at LauncherOne for single-sat replenishment.

It's a completely different process; electrochemical, not electrical. And again, mobile phones do not produce strong magnetic fields. And when I say 'strong' I mean 'the same order of magnitude as a bloody fridge magnet'. If the kind of magnetic field you'd get off a phone had a significant biological effect, earphones would be lethal and NMR machines weapons of mass destruction.

It almost looks like there's just ice there, below a shallow rocky crust. Like a gigantic comet.

There aren't any strong magnetic fields, and fields of any plausible strength would not effect neuronal signals. An action potential in a neuron is not the same as a signal in some copper wire. Restrictions in aircraft and hospitals are in place because both contain plenty of electronics that could be affected by radio signals; there's no plausible mechanism for a biological system to be affected by the radio part of the spectrum.

Last time I checked, neither aircraft nor medical equipment were biological systems.

Hint: people can see when you've edited something.

Phones don't produce 'strong magnetic fields', and 'radiation' isn't in itself a mechanism. Radiation can cause biological effects through ionisation or photoismoresation, but neither are possible with the wavelengths involved in a mobile phone.

Darnok, biological effects require a mechanism. Through what mechanism could cell phone signals possibly effect biological systems?

Biology isn't magic, it's chemistry. It's trivial to demonstrate that signals of these wavelengths and intensity do not have effects on chemical systems.

Trying to get multiple large payloads for any deep space destination at current demand is an exercise in futility, and with the current state of the SSO/LEO market it would be pretty close. D-IVH isn't going to be able to put up station resupply missions this way due to waiting for other payloads inevitably messing up the scheduling, Russian or Chinese government sats aren't going on one before hell freezes over. Launch of NGSO communications satellites like Iridium or Globalstar are also non-starters; it wouldn't be possible to launch more than one plane at a time, and even for the large Iridium sats a single plane is well within the capability of Proton. That leaves you with the commercial remote sensing market, which isn't much; the average mass of a satellite in this class is well south of a ton, and there are only a few launches a year even with current launchers. You'd have to wait decades to fill something like a D IVH.

Nobody is putting constellations of large satellites into LEO, and LEO payload figures are in most cases a red herring. Delta IVH can put 14 tons into GSO, which would be just under 3 large modern comsats. The go-to launcher for putting something about 5 tons GTO alone would be proton, at about $70 million per launch; whereas Delta IVH is somewhere in the region of $400 million. Also, that's not how pounds and tons work.

Burns will increase cancer risk in all people, temperatures high enough to cause them will damage various proteins needed to protect and repair DNA. The effect is negligible in that it doesn't cause significant hotspots inside the body, and certainly not burns.

There's no mechanism for radiation in that wavelength to damage cells except heating, and the heating effects have been shown to be negligible. You might want to look up the photoelectric effect, one of the basic foundations of physics; radiation below certain wavelengths cannot cause ionisation no matter the exposure time or intensity.

This is one of the stupidest thing I've ever read.

It's not really a tandem launch from the Spacex side; these sats are built to connect together without any extra support structures, and separate after orbital insertion.

All parts of the spectrum, plus quite a lot of particulate.