Not another Stark Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 On 1/20/2022 at 2:12 AM, SpaceChampion said: They very specifically say it's not for space tourism, and talk about "other markets". They apparently have deals with some of the private space stations proposed. Wouldn't said private space stations serve as tourist hubs? 7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Ignorant comment. Mr. Northman might be a shareholder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted February 15, 2022 Author Share Posted February 15, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 26 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said: What exactly does an unpredictable solar storm damaging equipment have to do with any of that? Well, the problem is that it's not that unpredictable. They knew it was coming before they launched, and launched anyway, assuming that their 'safe mode' line-up would keep the satelites in orbit when the atmosphere expanded, which it (mostly) didn't. But then Starlink has all sorts of problems anyway, and this is just the latest symptom of the slapdash, don't-consider-anyone-else-using-space attitude of the whole project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 55 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Well, the problem is that it's not that unpredictable. They knew it was coming before they launched, and launched anyway, assuming that their 'safe mode' line-up would keep the satelites in orbit when the atmosphere expanded, which it (mostly) didn't. But then Starlink has all sorts of problems anyway, and this is just the latest symptom of the slapdash, don't-consider-anyone-else-using-space attitude of the whole project. Yeah… starlink has issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 3 hours ago, polishgenius said: Well, the problem is that it's not that unpredictable. They knew it was coming before they launched, and launched anyway, assuming that their 'safe mode' line-up would keep the satelites in orbit when the atmosphere expanded, which it (mostly) didn't. But then Starlink has all sorts of problems anyway, and this is just the latest symptom of the slapdash, don't-consider-anyone-else-using-space attitude of the whole project. This betrays a severe lack of understanding of what has made SpaceX so successful. From upstart laughing stock to the most dominant space player (including national governments) in the world, in 20 years. Failure is an option. They embrace it and it allows them to iterate and innovate faster than anyone else. They are not 10 years ahead of the competition. More like 15 years ahead. And still accelerating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Yeah… starlink has issues. What issues would those be, specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 Just now, Free Northman Reborn said: What issues would those be, specifically? The satellites fuck with astronomers, amateur and professional, when trying to observe the night sky. Dark skies are hard enough to find without the added annoyance of these bright satellites ruining visual and electronic exposures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 59 minutes ago, maarsen said: The satellites fuck with astronomers, amateur and professional, when trying to observe the night sky. Dark skies are hard enough to find without the added annoyance of these bright satellites ruining visual and electronic exposures. To clarify, that’s (some) astronomers having issues, not Starlink having issues. And they are working with astronomers on mitigation measures of course. The future sky WILL be filled with tens of thousands of satellites. It’s just a question of whether they will all belong to China or whether companies from democratic nations will stake their claims first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said: To clarify, that’s (some) astronomers having issues, not Starlink having issues. And they are working with astronomers on mitigation measures of course. The future sky WILL be filled with tens of thousands of satellites. It’s just a question of whether they will all belong to China or whether companies from democratic nations will stake their claims first. There are a huge number of astronomers affected. Astronomy is one of the few remaining areas of science where amateurs can and do make a significant contribution. Elon's vanity project is not reason enough to deny clear skies to the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ithanos Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 Ingenuity continues to prove its the little engine that could, love it! Excellent use of The Great Pyramid as a scale reference (for those who have walked around the Giza plateau). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share Posted February 21, 2022 Latest Starlink launch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted February 26, 2022 Author Share Posted February 26, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted February 27, 2022 Author Share Posted February 27, 2022 Virgin Galactic is rumoured to have spent $1 billion in recent years but only made a few million on sales so far last year. Virgin Galactic’s woes reveal why retail investors have turned ice-cold on blank-check companies. Quote The putative success of Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc.’s stock listing in 2019 helped kick-start the blank-check craze, encouraging a wave of profitless (often revenue-less) startups to merge with special purpose acquisition companies. It’s no wonder, then, that as the SPAC boom turns to bust and rising interest rates trigger a reassessment of far-in-the-future cash flows, the hype around Richard Branson’s suborbital space tourism company has also deflated. The stock has declined 84% from its June high. Virgin Galactic has lost $1 billion during the last two years Quote However, even at three flights a month, Virgin Galactic would certainly lose a significant amount of money. Going off of its most recent financial statement, Virgin Galactic's expenses are about $80 million a quarter. At $450,000 a seat—making the naive assumption of pure profit off of every customer, on every full flight—the company would require 30 full flights a quarter, or 10 flights a month, just to break even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted February 27, 2022 Author Share Posted February 27, 2022 https://www.instagram.com/p/Cae3DevsSgN/ Quote The world's largest aircraft might have become a casualty of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The AN-225 played a crucial role in transporting Buran across the Soviet Union. The behemoth of cargo carriers, the only Antonov AN-225 ever built is usually based at Hostomel Airport, an international cargo facility also known as Antonov Airport, located on the north-western outskirts of Kyiv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted March 2, 2022 Author Share Posted March 2, 2022 Yeesh. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/01/nasa-auditor-warns-congress-artemis-missions-sls-rocket-billions-over-budget.html Quote "We found that the first four Artemis missions will each cost $4.1 billion per launch, a price tag that strikes us as unsustainable," NASA Inspector General Paul Martin said. In 2012, shortly after SLS was announced, NASA officials estimated that each mission would cost about $500 million — with the rocket targeting a 2017 debut. Today, the cost has ballooned eightfold, according to the NASA auditor. There are other costs, too. Martin said the $4.1 billion estimate is only for production costs and ground operations, "and does not include development costs required to get the Artemis program to this point in time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loge Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 In other news, Russia won't supply Soyuz launchers to the European Space Agency anymore. All cooperation on scientific missions has been suspended, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted March 2, 2022 Author Share Posted March 2, 2022 8 hours ago, Loge said: In other news, Russia won't supply Soyuz launchers to the European Space Agency anymore. All cooperation on scientific missions has been suspended, too. Yes, and unfortunately that means the next ExoMars rover Rosalind Franklin is kaput. It's not just the ride to Mars that's the issue there, otherwise they could probably just go with an Ariane 5 or Falcon Heavy. But the Russians were suppose to supply the landing craft Kazachok ("Little Cossack") to get it to the surface, as well as several science instruments. The articles I read are a little confusing but it seems ExoMars was supposed to launch on a Proton rocket, not a Soyuz. The Soyuz are launched from ESA's French Guiana site, and those are what are being discontinued. So not launching on a Proton isn't explicitly announced yet, but ESA expects it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 It appears OneWeb (a Starlink competitor) will need to look for alternative ways to reach orbit: Quote All the while, Russia's main space corporation, Roscosmos, had been preparing the Soyuz rocket for launch, even rolling it out to the launch pad this week with the 34 satellites bundled into the payload fairing at its tip. But on Wednesday the chief of Russia's space program, Dmitry Rogozin, issued two demands before acceding to the launch. One, he said, OneWeb must guarantee that its satellites will not be used for military purposes. And two, the UK government must give up its ownership of OneWeb. These extraordinary demands would seem to be non-starters. OneWeb has already pitched national defense agencies, including the United Kingdom, on using OneWeb satellites to facilitate rich networks of data for enhanced decision-making during military activities. And it is virtually impossible to see the UK government agreeing to Russian demands about what it does, and does not, own. The launch is already paid for so basically Roscosmos will keep both the money and the satellites. It's hard to see them getting commercial launches from Western countries after this, but that market was winding down anyway so they probably think it's worth the gesture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted March 2, 2022 Author Share Posted March 2, 2022 OneWeb went through bankruptcy once already. Not a good development for them. But they're suppose to be just internet comm sats, they can't be used for reconnaissance or Earth Observation. The "military" application would be providing communications in battle zones, I assume, but it's for commercial customers like with Starlink. That's fast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted March 4, 2022 Author Share Posted March 4, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.