Well we all know how space enthusiasts are well known for reading Fortune.

[removed]

Every single time an MBA manages an engineering company they run it into the ground.

Forgive my lack if understanding, but youre saying the radius is 1,800 lightyears? Or the length?

Why bother? They can actually render the fake footage in a very reasonable time with post-1969 CGI! /s

Familiarity with space and payloads of that size implies it is ridesharing.

Why would anyone need such a large shoebox? People's feet are only so big

Welp, alright. Sounds pretty good!

If you feel like that, you might cry your eyes out watching this video.

A journey to the end of time

I feel like Rocket Lab would be a big beneficiary of this

Boeing didn’t merge with but were devoured by MDD. Ever since the company has been trying to move away from commercial aviation and into the D.C. Area.

One thing about commercial sales; your goal is to keep your customers happy and well-supported. Something Boeing appears to have given up on. With government sales its all about keeping key Representatives and Senators happy by keeping constituents employed. Once a procurement pipeline opens the goal is then to keep it open.

Thomas P.M. Barnett gave a talk about this to TED back in 2007. He described how government agencies come to congress for appropriations. If NASA, say, said “SLS will be billions over budget and launch twice in 8 years” then congress wouldn’t fund it. But, if you say “Its a new rocket and spacecraft with amazing engines that will take us to Mars and beat the Chinese/Russians” then they ask “Will you build it in my district?”

Old cartoon in the New Yorker during the Reagan years: “It doesn’t have to fly. It just has to fund...”

[removed]

That isn’t how the rocket launch industry works. If there is an a failure with one. They have to inspect them all. That’s not to say it would be a long process, but quantity of Falcons is not important here

SpaceX has several Falcon 9s, with significant bandwidth from Starlink missions even if something happens to one.

Sending humans to the moon on old, expensive technology is not valuable.

Moon launches should be a way to innovate and get costs down to move us towards a more sustainable(eventually self-sustaining) space program.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, logic doesn’t always win when it comes to politicians who control the money… and the companies that can influence them.

I'm sorry, you aren't allowed to post this until you've gotten clearance from legal, HR, and we'll need to toss it up to the C-suite. Honestly it's probably just best if you don't think outside of the box again and focus on your metrics. Synergy.

Grammar Check - A group is; some students are . . .

Agreed, but when I first read the title, my immediate thought was about how they would be able to launch something so small. The headline isn't misleading, but could be worded better imo

Probably better to word it like "are having it sent" rather than "sending" which have different implications

Yeah for as much bad rap as SLS gets, it had an actual spectacular maiden flight which is pretty rare for rockets.

The closest one that'll go supernova in the near future. There are a couple of other candidates as well in the far future.

Ahhh yes the prime example for why MBAs shouldn't be allowed to touch companies like this.

Betelgeuse is the closest at 650 lightyears from my understanding.

[removed]