Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

nooshaw t1_j21gknd wrote

Nailing it at night too. Those landings never get old.

2

anti-torque t1_j206dg9 wrote

Our local meteorologist spent time last week explaining that these satellites would cross our skies at such and such a time, almost like it was an asteroid shower, not light pollution.

It was weird.

1

psyon t1_j243tng wrote

Because it's neat to look at things in orbit. A lot of people like to look for the ISS, and you could just as easily say it's just light pollution.

3

anti-torque t1_j24bb54 wrote

It is, when it's in the way.

But it's also singular.

edit: It's also good to note this gen of sats are dimmer than the originals, because Starlink is actively trying not to ruin space for people. So while they can be a pain in the rear, at least they know it and are trying to fix it as best they can.

1

true4blue t1_j22elnu wrote

NASA is years behind the private sector in launch technology

−1

Cyberpunk_Delayer t1_j23c6ik wrote

It doesn't have to be that way, but it comes down to funding. NASA has a relatively small budget compared to the military for example.

2

Jackleme t1_j23stuv wrote

That really isn't the issue.

NASA has significantly more funding then SpaceX, they just happen to not be as nimble. They are constrained by having a lot of things they are responsible for, and for a long time being locked into a way of doing things.

SpaceX had a novel idea, and it isn't like just NASA is behind. Basically everyone is.

3

Ancient_Persimmon t1_j256753 wrote

NASA funds SpaceX, they aren't in competition.

NASA should review the fact that they've thrown way too much cash at so-called "old Space" and perhaps increase their investment in the various start ups that are promising, but they should also get credit for supporting SpaceX from their early days.

3

Jackleme t1_j256hix wrote

I understand, my point is that SpaceX does it with way less money... It isn't a budget issue :)

2

Ancient_Persimmon t1_j257gu1 wrote

Oh definitely. It's more an issue of allocation and having to navigate the politics that they're bound to.

There's a bunch of different people vying for their own idea of what project/mission should be prioritized and there's the whole "pork barrel" thing with defense contractors and manufacturing.

NASA have been increasingly cozy with SpaceX as time goes on and they keep hitting targets though, whereas Boeing don't have the same luster they once had with politicians.

2

Ancient_Persimmon t1_j255mxd wrote

NASA themselves fund research and they run missions, but they've never developed launchers themselves, they've always relied on the private sector for that.

Unfortunately, they've been giving ULA/Boeing most of the money and those guys have proven to be essentially useless.

The flip side is that they've also supported smaller companies like SpaceX from the get go and now we can all benefit from what SpaceX has accomplished over the last 15 years.

1