It would be lovely if he manages to save it, because this is a historic and lovely ship.  However, I am not particularly optimistic.

Patent trolls.

I think it might indeed be admissible in a lot of states.  If you’re in a one-party state, only one party needs to consent to the recording, and you can be the party consenting.

Gotta be 3. The fact that she had him pay money into her *own* account, and accepted the payment without verifying that it actually went through or providing a receipt (which she would have had to do if it were a real fee), is a pretty serious tell.

I thought about including Buran, but it’s kind of in the same bucket as Dream Chaser, since it never became operational. It made one unmanned test flight and then was mothballed. The final insult came decades later when the roof of its assembly hall collapsed, crushing the orbital test article, still stacked on top of…

I sooooo want to see that thing fly finally!

As a heavy sleeper myself, I completely believe that part to be plausible, especially with alcoholic assistance.  :-)

*ba-dum-pish*

Same. Just show up and take a car.  Of course, you *do* see an actual human when you leave the lot, and that’s why they look at your id and offer you upgrades like a transponder for the tollways.

Actually, as I look at it a little closer, it’s not a copy of the X-37B. It’s got a lot in common, but it’s also got a lot that’s different. For instance, this has a vertical stabilizer, like the Space Shuttle did. The X-37 doesn’t. But unlike *either* vehicle, it has extremely oversized winglets — so large they’re…

How exactly do you propose stopping them? It’s not like the external shape of the X-37 is particularly obscure.

There’s not one specific shape that is exactly perfect for a spaceplane. As it happens there have been only two orbital spaceplanes so far, and one was based on the design of the other. It’s tempting to conclude that this must be the only reasonable shape for a spaceplane, but this would not be accurate.

“Sadly, it appears the lesson here is that waiting for rewards is better for your brain, which no one wants to hear.”

I know we all want to focus on the poor monkey, but let’s not gloss over this other crazy actual part of the story:

It’s very likely true, but it’d take more than that to prove liability, that’s my point. What I’d like is to see a thorough investigation to conclusively prove it so that the government gets off its butt and actually does something about this sort of idiotic design choice. But with our incoming administration actually…

No matter what you’re anecdotal experience is, there is no doubt at all that these people died because of this stupid design.

Reminds me of the protagonists of “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” trying to get the sundiving ship to stop its fatal sundive, and discovering how frustrating its cool black-on-black color scheme is, because all the text is written in black and the buttons are black and when you get it right, a little light lights…

Oh very much. In weaponry, a huge amount of requirements specification revolves around when the device *doesn’t* do things, because you want it to become lethal only in the extremely specific circumstance that it’s supposed to be. It kills exactly when you want it to. No other time.

This is fantastic. Wildland firefighting is some of the most dangerous peacetime flying there is, so being able to remove the pilot from it would be enormously helpful. And being able to automate such a heavy aircraft, and one that already exists, is a huge bonus.

THEY’RE ALL IN IT AGAINST US!!!11!!!ELEVENTY!!!!