Sleepkever

I'm sorry. How do you expect a jet flying to get even close enough to a satellite to accelerate a missile to it?

Highest ever flow fixed wing "aircraft" is SpaceShipOne with rocket engines. Well above what a typical fighter jet might do: 112km height at 910m/s And a typical rocket will go what? Mach 2 or 3? So let's say Mach 4 at 112 km, which is 1096 m/s

A typical Starlink orbit is either around 340km height or more typical 550km at either 7726 m/s or 7613 m/s at the different heights.

That gives a minimum distance traveled of at least 228km and a speed gap of 6630 m/s or 23868 km/h that the missile still needs to close.

There are probably ways that Brazil could try and destroy satellites if they want to. But launching missiles from (rocket powered) jets definitely isn't one of them.

Don't get your hopes up. Apparently the latest RoR2 expansion was made by the new Gearbox crew and that didn't work out so well...

How is it nonsense?

The EU law is that the reject all should be exactly as easy as the accept all button. 1 extra click, however minor of an inconvenience it is, is extra effort. And therefore strictly speaking in violation of the law.

Nothing will ever happen but it's valid criticism.

It's just a guy talking 99% of the time and the few visuals that are in the movie are not required to understand the story. I'd just listen to it like a podcast. The guys voice and pronunciation probably beats text to speech from a blogpost with images.

Well you say that but their pit wall on Friday said otherwise

But MS had nothing to do with both the testing and rollout?

It's a broken 3rd party component. Croudstrikes testing and rollout procedures were inadequate.

But that is an easily solved problem. Take the design of the James Webb, substitute the super cooled infrared camera and replace it with a superconducting magnet setup. Fly this setup to L1 of mars and start global warming.

I didn't come up with that. Someone at NASA did. Years ago: https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/how-to-give-mars-an-atmosphere-maybe/

There are ways to somewhat fix it for circuits with a single use.

Fixing the same example: A 16A breaker for the solar feed in, a single 16A breaker for all the consuming appliances on that circuit. And another 16A breaker on the feed in for that circuit is an example that is sometimes used in the Netherlands to add a feed in to an existing circuit with a single outlet connected to it. Meant for washingmachines for instance.

This ensures that the circuit on all circumstances has a maximum current of 16A flowing over any wire by also measuring the outgoing current of both feed in circuits. But if you have multiple outlets you'd still need to stiol measure at a single place or use low enough breakers per outlet that the total stays below the 16A. Which the UK might have if I recall correctly.

Then again this is not a normal setup and requires change in the electric circuit of the home. Which most consumers won't even realize. Like I said, if everyone keeps to the fine print this thing probably has and limits the extra plug-in solar panels to 1 per circuit, it's unlikely to actually cause issues because of overdimensioning of the wires. And the safety margin built in which is likely how they have gotten approval. But ignoring or not reading that text and plugging multiple in on the same circuit can and will cause a fire hazard with heavy consumers on the same circuit.

The breaker only sees the current flowing through the breaker though. Not the additional current provided by the solar panels since those don't flow through the breaker. So it will pop later then that the cables are rated for, therefore introducing an overheat and fire hazard.

Yep, I'm not exactly sure on the technical details but it works with multiple inverters. Otherwise having a street full with solar panels on every roof would still be a hazard if the power went out at a distribution junction for said street and repairs would have to be made.

If there is no powerplant feeding some energy, all inverters should shut off. Fixed installs and plug and play variants alike. I'm actually amazed that there are parts in the world where this isn't common.

Surprisingly, no. Most inverters in the EU must come with island protection. Meaning that if there is no AC from the grid it immediatly switches off the inverter or the battery, there is no stand alone operation.

There are some systems that allow it but they are rare here and require the mains side to be fed trough the inverter itsself ensuring it's never back feeding into the grid when there is no power with the same island protection, or less commonly there is a transfer switch of some kind also eliminating the issue. And either should obviously have a main kill switch on the breaker board for emergencies that also switches off the in home power with 1 action.

But most importantly, either of those options is not plug and play and will require an electrician that hopefully does know what he's doing.

The cables in your walls are designed for a certain maximum current before they start to heat up. This current is limited by your breaker.

Now if you introduce a plug in solar setup your current is limited by your maximum breaker capacity + whatever your solar setup can generate.

So if I'd use the specs from the article and apply it to a normal dutch home situation: 16A breaker, + 800W at 230V, which means ~3.5A = 19.5A max. which is probably still fine for short durations.

But now some genius doesn't read the fine print and hooks up 2 or 3 on the same circuit. There is no electrician that tells him that's dangerous because it's all self installed and he doesn't know any better. And all of a sudden you are up to 26.5A and you got glowing, smoking wires in your walls...