41–50 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luckily for you, the linked site has upcoming schedules to trivially look this up. India has 6 launches upcoming in 2025, Rosskosmos has 8 and Russian military has one more. So Russia is launching 50% more than India in 2025.
roscosmos launch is because they still get contract from NASA to International Space Station
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My problem isn’t that they used a provider for the launch. I just wanted to clarify because „X launches satellite“ sounds like X launched a rocket carrying a satellite, not that X made a satellite and had it launched by someone else. Or maybe that’s just me, I’m not a native speaker.
No, it's not just you, the phrase "launches first satellite" in the title is very similar language to what would be used about a country developing launch capability. For example, when headlines say "North Korea launches first spy satellite", the part of that which is big news is their ability to launch a satellite, rather than their ability to build a spy satellite. (eg.) https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/n…
It's even used in trade press articles about Falcon 9 launches of satellites operated by countries that once had homegrown launch capability and are actively investing in regaining it... https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/air/update...
… this does not seem like their best use of resources.
… this does not seem like their best use of resources.
Make sure the same argument doesn't apply to any of the other countries with space assets!
… this does not seem like their best use of resources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very few organizations and even countries can develop both a launch vehicle and a satellite. Botswana has done fine to develop a satellite that integrates onto a rideshare launch. They aren't working with anything close to the headcount or budget of NASA or even the ESA. Edit (rather than reply and make the comment chain long): It's fine that you read it that way. I figure that if the article were about a launch vehi…
> Edit (rather than reply and make the comment chain long): Sorry to go meta here, but this is just rude, both to OP and to other readers. For OP, you're effectively pre-empting what they say with your own counterargument, and even more so you're removing the ability for them to counter your counter. You're essentially using the edit feature to end the conversation and ensure you have the final word. For other reader…
I've noticed this more and more, especially on more controversial topics (which this is certainly not).
Adam makes a statement, Betty responds. Adam responds, and Betty edits her initial response and conversation ends, likely because Adam didn't see the edit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's so easy to clone it, where are the clones? I've been reading about Airbus' reusable/recoverable SpaceX-killers for over a decade now. They've yet to have anything to show for their work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeline_(rocket_stage) https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056 ( "Airbus unveils 'Adeline' re-usable rocket concept" (2015)) - "...Airbus says it has been working on the concept sin…
Don't get me wrong, that problem of overcoming the old, slow, expensive way of doing things is huge for any established launch organization. I don't expect Airbus or ULA to get there. But it's not because the technology is so difficult that they can't do it. A new rocket company with a couple billion dollars in funding would have a good chance.
Don’t want to belittle the achievement but they launched it as in „had it launched by the commercial launch provider SpaceX“, not on a self-developed rocket as it sounds like on the first read.
Of course, even Europe cannot launch cheaply anymore. Arianespace is crawling to space; they are left for dead. The only serious players are the US and China. It's reached a point where it has become like trying to manufacture a state-of-the-art 5nm chip in a developing nation: possible, but at an absurd cost. You might achieve an initial parametric yield of only 10%, meaning only a tiny fraction of the chips coming…
… this does not seem like their best use of resources.
Botswana is actually reasonably well developed and stable. It seems fine, and I applaud them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, even Europe cannot launch cheaply anymore. Arianespace is crawling to space; they are left for dead. The only serious players are the US and China. It's reached a point where it has become like trying to manufacture a state-of-the-art 5nm chip in a developing nation: possible, but at an absurd cost. You might achieve an initial parametric yield of only 10%, meaning only a tiny fraction of the chips coming…
SpaceX didn't spend an absurd amount of money getting Falcon 9 to where it is. It was a lot, but pretty typical, even somewhat cheap, for developing a brand new rocket. Repeating their feat should be even cheaper, since you won't be taking detours trying out parachutes and such before settling on the final architecture. It's a relatively straightforward application of known technology, not bleeding edge stuff like 5n…
That's part of the genius of SpaceX's approach, which culminated in achieving what no one else has achieved on a comparatively shoestring budget.
Credit where it's due: Elon Musk (a) comprehended enough of the technical challenge to ask great questions (and see through BS answers), (b) set and maintained a ruthlessly efficient operational vision, (c) repeatedly took existential financial risks to achieve the next milestone, and (d) set a company vision that motivated people to work extremely hard to achieve what was previously impossible, and (e) worked his butt off solving problem after problem alongside employees.
Love or hate him, very few leaders have ever existed who led companies to accomplish similar feats.