Tuxer

Correct. Fuel is around 16/36th of the CO2 mass it emit when being burnt. A 777 carries around 120 tons of fuel for a SF/LON flight, so that's around 300 tons of emissions per flight.

There is a ballistic chute on the cirrus SF50 (their single-engine jet). It's a 7 seater IIRC (6 minimum), and roughly the same weight (2.7T for the cirrus, 3.1 for the lilium).

This type of antiscientific/clickbait reporting shouldn't be on HN. ITER (whatever you think of its results, its competition with more modern approaches like commonwealth fusion systems, and fusion in general) has never been designed for, and has never claimed net-positive power production. It's a prototype vessel for research.

Thats not exactly right. It’s simply that you cannot sell something built >51% by the factory under experimental rules, you’d need to have it FAA certified which this isn’t ( for thousands of reasons ).

The 51% rule is extremely common in experimental aviation.

Transoceanic aircraft need lots of ETOPS time. For example the boeing 777 (twin-engine, transoceanic) has an ETOPS of 330 minutes, so it always needs to be 330 min away from an airport (which is 11 hours of flight from airport A to airport B, not taking wind into account)

Yeah agreed, even on the GA market, the eFlyer 2 is a much more aerodynamic design (low wing, wheel pants, lower windshield height) which is already claiming 36kW cruise at 100kts.

I'm surprised nobody talked about the potential implications of effectively embedding, now that the device is standalone, a lithium ion battery into your skull.

I'm not a battery hater whatsoever but in the case of a thermal runoff if the battery starts burning... there is no way to get it out.

those aren't super hornets by the way (no civilian would get an authorization to fly a super hornet). They're the A/B, original hornet version, and any superhornet would fly circles around one.

Apple does the same thing, where they claim iMessage is ETE encrypted, but the keys (so capabilities to read) are stored on their servers.

absolutely nothing. If the cost of carbon removal was 5$/ton, we wouldn't be having this climate change problem whatsoever.

If we're in nitpick land, it truly is important (especially in that 737 case) to remember that stalls on wings has nothing to do with speed, and everything to do with angle of attack (the angle between the wing and the apparent wind).

Now, to be fair, going faster DOES create apparent wind coming from the front, so it decreases your angle of attack, but that's it.

(the sensor that failed on the 737s was the angle of attack indicator, trying to estimate if the wing was going to stall).

> Driving has been made impossible

Sorry you can't drive a 2-ton vehicle through one of the most dense cities in the world, that also has a very extensive public transportation system.

For what it's worth, there is a BIG difference between 22 million tons to orbit (LEO), and the Sun-Earth L1 point, in terms of delta-v.

Tesla moved to 21700 on model 3 and newer models