> But the satellites also have greater latency (about 500ms to LEO, IIRC, due to limits on the speed of light)

LEO (Starlink) latencies are more like 50 ms. Geostationary satellites are the ones feeling the light-speed-limit with 500 ms ping times.

Interestingly, over long distances, Starlink is potentially faster than fiber, as the speed of light through a vacuum is near c, but through fiber is 0.7c at best.

I think it's fair to argue over schedule. But short of humanity collapsing, I believe it's inevitable. Indeed, if permanent space-based colonies (planetary or otherwise) become fact, I believe that alone will drastically reduce the odds of collapse.

Sadly, none of this is useful for determining whether or not multi-year living in constant 0.38 g has any permanent deleterious effect. And there's only one way to get such data.

The nearest real data available are from the ~year long stays in 0 g. They bode well for partial g, but given the relatively short periods that's merely intuitive extrapolation and yields no information on thresholds.

> 1/3 gravity would be pretty fine physiologically speaking. There is pretty decent data on this.

To my knowledge, there's no data on this. Have you a reference?

The long term physiological effects of partial gravity are unknown at this time. There's no data as to the relationship between partial g and what, if any thresholds there are. Only by trying will it be determined whether or not it's feasible.

With such ignorant, opportunistic fringe groups, indifferent-to-hostile public policy, and general under-appreciation for engineering and manufacturing in modern day Britain, it's a testament to the tenacity of those trying to develop launch capability in the country.

If the environment becomes too hostile, there are demonstrably friendlier countries in the Anglosphere to where they can relocate, such as the US and NZ, not to mention other, non-English-speaking lands.

Due to an earlier link error, this is a repost.

Yes. That's very true. However, as I see it:

• meanwhile, SpaceX also dominates the launch market with a reusable booster

• Raptor development challenges engineering and materials limits in ways BE-4 doesn't.

I'm now in danger of coming across as anti-BO. I'm not. Nothing would be better for all were BO to excel. But I don't seem them there (yet).

A big problem with balloons is the much lower altitude, requiring many more to cover an equivalent area (horizon is much closer).

Also, currently balloon relay technology has thus far proved impractical for long term, high reliability coverage, with longevity and long term station keeping being thorny problems.

Meanwhile, Russia understands well Molniya orbits, having used them for decades. So it wouldn't surprise me if indeed these new satellites are destined for such.

Pure speculation on my part ...

Either they mean polar orbit as you say, or perhaps they mean Molniya orbit. Without being mentioned by name, the latter is perhaps an outside chance.

Instead of sketchy Youtube (and Tubi) videos, you'd gain more credibility were your references refereed, or at least published in credible journals.

Meanwhile, without solid, tangible evidence, you are off in the land of ghosts, goblins, gods, and gremlins.

> "Within a few years their engines will be on multiple orbital class rockets, ..."

When that happens is when I think they'll prove their credibility. Not that my thought on this has any sway.

But they are many years late on BE-4 delivery, and they've yet to reach orbit. Thus, to me, they haven't yet truly proven themselves. Not that BO would care about my opinion, of course. :-)

It's interesting how often Blue Origin seems included in plans related to space activity. Yet they currently have less real, orbital experience than, say, even Astra.

Perhaps it's a reflection of the funds available via their benefactor, but from my view in the peanut gallery, they've yet to earn real credibility - especially with their very late delivery of BE-4s to ULA.

> " ... if only SpaceX would allow it."

Is there some concerted effort at submitting click-bait headlines today? Three in a row in a space of minutes.

To be fair to the OP, the rules in the sidebar are clear on this:

> SUBMITTING IMAGES & GIFs

> Only allowed on Sundays UTC. Short videos without meaningful audio content qualify as GIFs.

Curious. That doesn't gel with what I've read. For example, in this Wikipedia entry:

> "The Didymos system is not an Earth-crossing asteroid, and there is no possibility that the deflection experiment could create an impact hazard."

Further, in this preliminary presentation (PDF) by the planners of the DART mission, and in their subsequent paper (PDF), there's no mention of the system's binary nature being selected specifically for safety. The ease of measurement afforded by it being binary and its well understood parameters are the reasons given.

It's a shame Science Magazine didn't include a reference for the claim:

> "Didymos served as a gravitational anchor during impact, ensuring that Dimorphos wasn’t inadvertently ricocheted toward Earth."

To avoid future misunderstanding, I'd love to see a more direct reference for that if you know of one!

> I suspect such a system was chosen precisely because the degree and even direction of movement was unknown and unpredictable.

This target was chosen because the orbital parameters of Dimorphos about Didymos were precisely known, and its short orbital period of hours made it relatively quick and easy to determine the magnitude of change.

ETA: Also, Dimorphos' relatively small size made the changes larger, thus easier to measure.

These are for two space probes - Euclid and Hera - not astronauts/cosmonauts. Arianespace no longer uses Soyuz for obvious reasons, and development of Ariane 6 is behind schedule.

The garbage here is not around the solar system. It's in the article. Assuming it's not manufactured outrage, the author demonstrates a misunderstanding on the scale of things so extreme it approaches a Monty Python parody.

For his example of Mars, the surface area of which approximates all the land mass of Earth, he writes with apparent concern:

> "... we’ve dumped an estimated15,694 pounds of trash on Mars from the past 50 years of exploration alone."

That's roughly five cars - in an area the size of Asia, Africa, the Americas, Australia, Europe, and Antarctica combined.

For vivid perspective, this image shows the Earth (and Moon, but too close to separate in that single pixel) and its immediate neighborhood in the solar system, taken by Voyager 1 in 1990. Were the whole planet fragmented into garbage, it would make no meaningful difference at such scales.

It seems you think you get to set the threshold of appalling, and those poorer than you who think you're a wasteful polluter by their meager measures are laughable. You even expect the government to enforce your opinion, no doubt with your car ride being within bounds.

"Rules for thee, but not for me."

I wager probably the same reason you'd want to visit unusual, interesting, or exotic locations on Earth. Curiosity, wanderlust, etc. - all basic and healthy human drives.

If you've ever travelled for frivolous reasons - vacation, sight-seeing, etc. - you have no room to complain. For much of the world's population, even that is an extravagance, and by your logic they'd have every right to be appalled at you.

Propellant contributes very little to current launch expenses. Vehicle and infrastructure costs dwarf it. For example, it costs SpaceX less than $20 million to launch a Falcon 9, yet propellant is only ~$200,000 of that, or around 1%.

Via full reusability and simplified operation, SpaceX hopes with Starship to dramatically reduce expenses to the point where it'll cost only a few million to launch 100 t to LEO.

To illustrate, assume a full Starship will cost $10 million to launch (that's five times Musk's most quoted estimate, just to be conservative). Launching 200 kg then costs $20,000. Still high relative to air transport, but it's getting there.