branchan

5 ms·

1.
by branchan 7y ago
That's what the 'Quiet' part of the name is trying to solve. From another source: The X-59 has been designed to achieve a PLdB of 75, similar to what might be heard when standing next to a heavily trafficked road.
2.
by branchan 7y ago
Not mentioned in the article is that NASA has also been experimenting with the viability of using Nvidia GPUs for space-based applications: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
3.
by branchan 7y ago
Not anymore. Especially not if you google "RHEL laser".
4.
by branchan 7y ago
That is definitely not how China would enforce it. You need a Starlink terminal in order to communicate with the satellite. China will most likely just block the sales of Starlink terminals in the country if they want to enforce a ban.
5.
by branchan 7y ago
Your statistic in no way diminishes the losses that each country suffered during the war.
6.
by branchan 7y ago
I find it hard to believe that they are completely re-designing the avionics/flight computers because of this gamma ray incident. There must be another reason. If it's seriously the main concern, wouldn't it be much easier to
7.
by branchan 7y ago
There's also currently a push by many countries to have carbon monitoring satellites above their countries. For example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellit...
8.
by branchan 7y ago
Do you use the internet? GPS? Where do you think those technologies come from?
9.
by branchan 7y ago
It’s likely that your work and life has greatly benefited from technologies that originated from the military.
10.
by branchan 7y ago
I think we have been desensitized by all these SpaceX rocket landings. Propulsive landing is not as easy as it seems.
11.
by branchan 7y ago
Imagine you are SpaceX. You are going to be launching a Starship. Given how booked your launch manifest is, would you rather launch a cubesat or a full-sized payload? Which would earn you more money?
12.
by branchan 7y ago
1. It's not always feasible to launch your spacecraft with Starship (e.g. it wouldn't make sense if you are just launching a cubesat). 2. That's a pretty aggressive timeline to have Starship built and flight-proven.
13.
by branchan 7y ago
Oh yea? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2215303-spacex-satellit...
14.
by branchan 7y ago
Starship still needs to fire rockets in order to land. I would say it's a crazier idea than the ones you have mentioned. The previous solutions you have listed were used precisely because they were less crazy ideas.
15.
by branchan 7y ago
You can be sneaky sure, but that what background checks are for - to see if you are a trustworthy individual.
16.
by branchan 7y ago
I mean, the whole statement is not correct. Sure JPL manufactured some things but it also acts just like NASA, managing the Mars projects. Most of the spacecraft I would say were manufactured in partnership with other industry aerospace com
17.
by branchan 7y ago
An electronic watch is ok. Just not with cellular, wireless or bluetooth, USB capabilities.
18.
by branchan 7y ago
Every manufacturer needs a good revenue source. Unless you are a manufacturer that is making mass market cars like Honda and Toyota, you need to create cars that people will buy if you want to continue making your niche sports cars. when t
19.
by branchan 7y ago
So is your idea to have spacecraft go to LEO first instead of direct GTO? Is this an efficient use of fuel?
20.
by branchan 7y ago
Who is "we"? Care to identify yourself? What existing interface are you talking about? Which GEO manufacturer is making 5000 lb spacecraft?
21.
by branchan 7y ago
I didn't research every spacecraft but if you look at GTOSat, its intended orbit is GTO, so it won't really need the services of Epic since a rocket can place them there directly. And if you look at the spacecraft, it doesn't
22.
by branchan 7y ago
Is this even true? https://gomspace.com/shop/subsystems/attitude-orbit-control-... https://www.cubesatshop.com/product/ifm-nano-thruster/ https://www.vacco.com/space&#x2F
23.
by branchan 7y ago
I totally agree. You still need to get the fuel to space regardless of who is doing the propulsion work. Let's say that your tug is already on-orbit, how is the fuel going to be brought up? Would you not need to launch another spacecra
24.
by branchan 7y ago
They also mentioned that they can afford to have satellites fail since they are cheaper and sending up so many. Also won't be possible with one-off GEO birds.
25.
by branchan 7y ago
I think this is only true for small LEO spacecrafts that are more or less 'disposable'. For higher cost GEO and interplanetary spacecraft, consumer electronics are not going to be hardened sufficiently and flight-proven to be used
26.
by branchan 7y ago
This would be rare and it would only affect the pilot if the laser was tracking the plane as it flew overhead.
27.
by branchan 7y ago
You can't see the garbage patch from space. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/03/great-pacifi...
28.
by branchan 7y ago
I don't think that has anything to do with field of view. It's just that higher res = higher cost so they can't afford to have high res global coverage at LEO.
29.
by branchan 7y ago
I think llmapx's comment still applies here.
30.
by branchan 7y ago
"Compared to cardboard boxes, which can be easily recycled, that’s a hassle most consumers likely won’t bother with. Kent recognizes this is a problem" Is this even true??

More ›