3 ms·

> This is clearly a military oriented startup. This is good spit balling take, but an bad top comment. I assume on HN if someone says something is for the mili

> This is clearly a military oriented startup. This is good spit balling take, but an bad top comment. I assume on HN if someone says something is for the military it has to be up-voted without thinking? > specifically engineered satellites that no existing manufacturer knows how to build. Your consumer phone could be launched fine as is. Most satellites are not different, this is a known problem with a know solution. There is nothing magical here. Electronics are fine. > It's a fantastic first strike weapon. No one wants this. North Korea doesn't want this. It means it will get bombed. They want second strike weapons. Obviously all locations this is at will be well know, to test it has to be fired. Rockets you can just put randomly under 200 tents. https://dailyuknews.com/us-news/china-is-spotted-building-a-second-new-nuclear-missile-base/ https://dailyuknews.com/us-news/china-is-spotted-building-a-... > This is possible but very expensive, you will need huge structural mass to hold what would appear to be thousands of tons of propelant at 1G. But you are politically happy to test nukes in this when civilians seem scared of propellant blowing up? This has clear civilian potential. This has limited military potential outside of the crossover with civilian. The economics is questionable, but if it works it'll be a game changer. It's great people are working on this stuff.

yholio 5y ago
> Your consumer phone could be launched fine as is. Most satellites are not different, this is a known problem with a know solution. Communication sat buses have critical mechanical components: solar panel assemblies, gyros, reaction wheels and momentum sinks, unfoldable antennas, propellant tanks and valves. Earth observation sats have optics so fragile that even applying 1 G perpendicular to the design launch vector will damage them beyond repair, so they can't be mated with the rocket in the horizontal state. All these can be probably beefed up and redesigned to withstand thousands of Gs, but it's certainly not a solved problem, and there is very little incentive for satellite designers to attempt it. > But you are politically happy to test nukes in this when civilians seem scared of propellant blowing up? A mechanical destruction of the warhead will not trigger a nuclear explosion, nuclear weapons are designed for this, it will just contaminate the launch stand. You also need much less conventional fuel if any since you are aiming at suborbital, and this reduces the loads and the damage after an explosion. Military risk tolerance is high, if there is a 10% chance if internal detonation then each facility will get to launch 10 warheads on average, probably more than they will ever have the chance during a real nuclear exchange - considering spinup time. An explosion inside the commercial orbital launcher will wipe out a large investment and might put the whole company in jeopardy, the energies are significantly higher while the acceptable probability of failure is much lower.

yholio 5y ago

> Your consumer phone could be launched fine as is. Most satellites are not different, this is a known problem with a know solution. Communication sat buses have critical mechanical components: solar panel assemblies, gyros, reaction wheels and momentum sinks, unfoldable antennas, propellant tanks and valves. Earth observation sats have optics so fragile that even applying 1 G perpendicular to the design launch vector will damage them beyond repair, so they can't be mated with the rocket in the horizontal state. All these can be probably beefed up and redesigned to withstand thousands of Gs, but it's certainly not a solved problem, and there is very little incentive for satellite designers to attempt it. > But you are politically happy to test nukes in this when civilians seem scared of propellant blowing up? A mechanical destruction of the warhead will not trigger a nuclear explosion, nuclear weapons are designed for this, it will just contaminate the launch stand. You also need much less conventional fuel if any since you are aiming at suborbital, and this reduces the loads and the damage after an explosion. Military risk tolerance is high, if there is a 10% chance if internal detonation then each facility will get to launch 10 warheads on average, probably more than they will ever have the chance during a real nuclear exchange - considering spinup time. An explosion inside the commercial orbital launcher will wipe out a large investment and might put the whole company in jeopardy, the energies are significantly higher while the acceptable probability of failure is much lower.