Is a launch company that can’t field rockets for new customers still a launch company? If not, should European leadership still be taking its advice?
I’ve got neither the looks nor the brains, but there are a lot of opportunities. Beware, though, folly is opportunity’s constant companion.
What’s a bureaucracy for but to keep Icarus down? Virgin Orbit is facing its own Brazil and may do so again…and again…and again…
Soyuz is a Russian-made rocket, no longer available to Europe’s Arianespace. Is contemplating a particular alternative not in Europe’s interest? Especially if there are no logical alternatives?
Northrop Grumman’s latest subcontracting announcement to fulfill an SDA contract is part of a U.S. space industry trend. But does that trend expose weakness or opportunity?
When NASA and the USSF acknowledge the difficulty of space operations, does that mean they expect a gold star? Or are they looking for a Daddy Warbucks to adopt them?
Viasat's 2021 annual report makes for some interesting reading: it's still aiming to slow Starlink while claiming some New Space cred.
DOD’s vision of how commercial space markets work seems to be generated from a standpoint of self-importance. But history and current healthy markets diverge from the DoD’s vision--thankfully.
Are some of the struggles some of the space startups are dealing with more to do with a lack of "Pure Imagination?" Is this why we see them offering similar products consumers aren't interested in?
This is not the first time we've heard the launch market can't support new players. Do reasons for that assertion make sense? Maybe for ULA.