The conundrum was that neither LEO telecom constellations nor reusable rockets were economically viable when viewed separately.
But when viewed as a sequence of problems (let's reuse a rocket, then figure out how to make money with it), the solution is wildly profitable.
👀 Kall Morris Inc.’s REACCH system capturing a target object during testing on the ISS.
Instead of a single small satellite test, the team completed 172 test runs, validating the system for debris removal and in-orbit relocation: https://t.co/HiLLKs1lGj
#SpaceDebris#ISS
"You are now orbiting Tau Ceti. ISM Shield jettison initiated. Shields are no longer equipped onboard."
*Ryan Gosling screams*
Some #interstellar visuals for you all! If you're looking for posters or dark mode wallpapers, check out these on my kofi - links ⬇️
#projecthailmary
SpaceX employee #13 @_Eric_Romo on why we don't see many Falcon Heavy launches:
"Falcon Heavy is extremely expensive, in part because it's three Falcon 9s strapped together."
"SpaceX has been clear they would prefer not to fly that vehicle."
"And it makes sense—every time they fly one of those, they have to shut down the pad for longer than they would for a Falcon 9."
"So when you look at how much time it takes to launch one Falcon Heavy and how many Falcon 9s they could have launched during that time, it's actually economically better for them to launch Falcon 9s."
" They have to launch Falcon Heavies because they've got big contracts with Space Force. Our government really needs it. NASA really needs it. But in the commercial market, those launches don't happen very often."