I think the current mission being explored is docking a dragon trunk and boosting it and servicing it. That could buy us enough time until starship cargo is ready. STS-125 added a docking port for capture, which is going to be used by a satellite to deorbit if it comes time to do that.
The starliner configuration is designed to take 100 people into leo and back. I think that alone could be close to the 12 tons that Hubble weighs. It'll be interesting to see capabilities when the variants are produced, specifically the cargo version for me.
I mean, Elon did put his Tesla into orbit out to Mars. A PR boost to save one of the most beloved science projects sounds like a winner after the crap he's been pulling with x.com fka twitter.
Not OP, but middle America resident here. Family vacationed in my Bolt EUV 2023 to Florida and had to plan activities at most of my charge stops because of how slow it DC fast charges (50kw). Mostly meals, but locating museums and other stuff wasn't to hard. CCS network is not good, but it's good enough with the right planning. Yeah road trips aren't ideal in the Bolt, but since Ford didn't make but 15 base model F-150 Lightnings and I wasn't paying $30,000 over MSRP for 1 of 3 trucks in stock East of the Mississippi, I bought the Bolt instead planning to put my daughter in it when she's ready to drive. I would've preferred utility and faster DC charging, but had to make do with what was available. Road tripping in a Tesla would be much easier and quicker.
Before you ask, no you can't buy the base model Lightning direct from Ford. You can all other trims though.
You already have my answer: try to derail tram in order to save both. If I fail, I fail. Knowing that I tried to save 101 people is all that matters because in the end the tram operator will be the one sued to make the family(ies) whole.
Some libertarians are minarchist meaning as little government as possible, some are anarcho-capitalists. Pro-life minarchists would be fine having punishment of abortion be treated like any other killing of a human. Anarcho-capitalists would rather not have government have a monopoly on violence.
If the NAP could be easily dismissed by just reclassifying who is and isn't a human, then yes some form of law setting clarifying what a human is would be necessary. You bring up THE most interesting debate though in libertarian circles IMHO. Tom Woods did an interview with Gerard Casey about this topic. I highly recommend listening to the interview and giving Casey's book a read.
Your last paragraph is why I want nothing to do with killing humans just for convenience. Also look at my last comment with wantd. I posed a question about when a human is viable outside of the womb at any stage of development. Would it change how you view its rights?
Although I don't agree with expanding government, I do agree with extending rights and protections to humans at all stages of development. I do consider that a different debate though mostly in line with who should pave roads, how police should work, and who should deliver mail (once again libertarian, not authoritarian Republican)
Also don't worry about down votes. This topic is highly contentious and both sides generally see it the other side as a direct assault on their beliefs.
But at far as from conception goes, it has DNA distinct from both parents and starts developing until stopped. Even if not developed to whatever your standard is, it's like a picture developed from film. The picture (or in this case, the human) is still there, it just needs to be developed.
I see justifying violence on certain humans as opening the door for society to justify violence on other humans. We look back on times when slavery or genocide was condoned and abhor that time and the humans that gave their approval to it. I truly believe that will be the way humanity will see society as it is now when medical technology advances enough to not need a human womb to develop a human to birth. That in and of itself begs the question, when a human is viable outside of the womb from no matter what stage of development, does that change how you view its rights from the earliest stages of its life?
Not really what your criteria is being that I'm a pro life libertarian as far as ideals I align with most on what you're looking for.
Even though I am religious, my argument against abortion is firstly a scientific one then on moral principal second. On the science side it's a human from the moment of conception. On the moral side it's that I believe all humans deserve human rights no matter at what stage of development there are. Just as soon as you make exceptions to kill for one type or subset of humankind you open the door to others. Usually this is done by labeling a certain group as not human to justify oppression of said group. Terms usually used to justify acts of violence against other humans are property, subhuman, animals, savages, clump of cells, parasite, etc. Usually for libertarians it boils down to having a code called the non-aggression principal which is essentially don't fuck with other people. This is also why I'm anti capital punishment.
I hope that helps. Also, good luck at your family get togethers, lol. It feels like you're looking for ammunition for debates.
That's usually my way to evaluate if a government should have a power. I ask myself if the other side were in charge and had this power, would it be really bad? If the answer is yes, more than likely the government shouldn't have that power.
It needs to be replaced. It's about 15,000 pages past life expectancy