Thank you! This is why I have a very mixed opinion of Louis Rossmann. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he provides extremely slanted view of reality.
It would increase operational costs. The satellite lifetime is limited by propellant capacity (especially at the low altitudes where Starlink operates). Mercury thrusters would be significantly less efficient than the krypton thrusters they currently use, due to Mercury's higher atomic mass.
The torch would, most likely, be for emergency methane venting. They had previously used a torch for burning gaseous methane during de-tanking, but have since switched to a condenser to cool it back to a liquid. There would essentially be no reason not to continue that practice, particularly when they'll have a nearly unlimited supply of liquid nitrogen.
What it ignores is that to perform the maximum number of launches permitted under this new license will consume around 1% of the methane this would produce. This equipment will be be used, at most, a few hours every month, but he's producing numbers under the assumption that it would be running 24/7.
His arguments don't make sense. This environmental study is being performed so that SpaceX can make five orbital launches per year from Boca Chica, but ESG Hound's numbers would be for more than ten per week. I've pointed this out to him and he responded with personal insults.
There are already good solutions to this issue. In particular, simply placing the app package in a zip file, then checking to see if it's installed correctly when opened.
If there isn't a backup, it should at least notify the user of the error. But the OS would know about backups, since it has a built-in backup system.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple adds a cloud-based backup for macOS once APFS is the default filesystem, since change sets would be extremely efficient.
> There is not really a UX flow apart from telling the user to recover the file from backup.
There absolutely is, since that could be performed automatically. Inform the user about the corruption, rename the corrupted file, then restore the most recent backup in its place.
Not quite reversal since it doesn't negate the vertical motion, but yeah. Definitely the most significant of the three burns.
Though it's not quite that simple. Based on the trajectory of last week's launch, they're actually going to use a much steeper trajectory during the first stage launch. The result is that the first stage uses significantly less propellant to make that first burn (since its downrange velocity is much smaller), but it cuts into the payload capacity quite a bit by forcing the second stage to do more work.