The link is broken, because it is attempting to create a new archive.org snapshot whenever someone clicks on it.

• Original URL
• Working archive.org link

Selbst wenn Biden jetzt seine Kandidatur zurückzieht, wüsste ich nicht, was irgendjemand diesem Bild entgegensetzen könnte.

Wow, it really seems to be one of those crypto scams, you are right! I specifically checked for this, but apparently, I was fooled!

I was suspicious of the -2024 suffix. Things that tricked me:

• 139k subscribers: I guess this channel just renamed itself?
• Lot’s of official esa videos on the channel: Apparently, it’s just playlists.

I will redact my post to remove the cryptoscammer link. So far, no cryptoscamming was observed.

3 weeks, roughly in line with faster Space Shuttle turn around times

The shortest shuttle turnaround time was 55 days. Almost three times as much as Falcon 9. The fastest post-Challenger turnaround time was 88 days, I believe. After Columbia, the fastest turnaround was around 5 months.

NASA claimed that the shuttle could achieve a turnaround time of two weeks (page IX). It looks like SpaceX is not the only one setting unrealistic timelines?

That was some Columbia-level damage that Starship experienced during reentry, and yet it successfully retained control authority, completed a soft landing, and everything was live streamed. Amazing!

The booster seems to be almost ready for the first catch attempt (depending on the accuracy of the landing).

I wonder to what extent they can retrofit Ship 30 to reinforce the hinge of the flaps, and how long that is going to take? On the other hand, the ship did survive, so maybe they will just repeat the launch without any major fixes, and try a few different things? (Deorbit burn, maybe even suborbital test-mass deployment, or more aggressive tests of the heat shield?)

The next-generation Starship design has less exposed flaps with reinforced hinges already. But is it already in production?

This article has been removed at the request of the Editors-in-Chief and the authors because informed patient consent was not obtained by the authors in accordance with journal policy prior to publication. The authors sincerely apologize for this oversight.

In addition, the authors have used a generative AI source in the writing process of the paper without disclosure, which, although not being the reason for the article removal, is a breach of journal policy. The journal regrets that this issue was not detected during the manuscript screening and evaluation process and apologies are offered to readers of the journal.

The journal regrets – Sure, the journal. Nobody assuming responsibility …

Then the editor, all extensions, language servers, etc. are all running as root.