• RedClouds@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    7 months ago

    Can we all get on the same page that this is pretty dumb no matter who pitches it? I don’t need the equivalent of ICBMs but for a book or whatever.

    • Magos_Galactose@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I mean, I could think of this as an extension of existing space infrastructure, allow using the spaceport as hub for extra-fast delivery.

      The problem is this require said spaceport to existed in the first place, which we still have exactly zero of it.

      • RedClouds@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Okay, I can get behind this idea if it means building the things in space because we actually have the ability to extract resources from asteroids or something. The science side of me is hella tickled by that.

        I mean, logically, we probably have everything on our planet to sustain ourselves. We would never actually need to do that. But still, tickled by that idea.

  • jmiller@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is ridiculous. There are practically no goods that would support the cost of hypersonic intercontinental rocket delivery, it would viewed as an unacceptable safety and security risk for any receiving area, and would be ludicrously bad for the environment and climate.

  • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I love when my package delivery ICBM smashes into a major metropolitan area and kills thousands just so I can get my 45 cent Landfill-ready Alibaba product in an hour.

  • Magos_Galactose@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    Chinese commercial launch sector is very, very competitive area, where at least a dozen company still fighting over each other to find their own niche to fulfill. Land launch, sea launch, solid fuel, Lox/LH2 rocket, Lox/Methane rocket, expendable, reusable, Falcon 9 clone, mini-falcon 9, small payload rocket, gigantic rocket, and more. And this is only the commercial sector. I haven’t even touch what the CASC and other state-own agencies are probably working on. (probably, because a lot of what they are working on is dual civilian-military program, which came with fuck tons of secrecy as a result). My guess is this is their attempt to gain investors and find their own place, nothing more.

    Curiously, compare to more prominent players like Deep Blue Aerospace, LandSpace, Galactic Energy, or iSpace (seriously?), I don’t think the name Space Epoch came up very often. Like with almost ALL Chinese commercial launch companies, what they will produce, if it went anywere, remain to be seen.

  • fruityloop@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Only thing this seems useful for is delivering medical supplies/humanitarian aid. How exactly is it supposed to land though??

    • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Instead of sending aid that looks like aid to Palestine and “Israel” pretending it’s actually weapons, China should just make their aid look like missiles but actually go through.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      If it’s reusable I assume it must land like falcon rockets and then take off again. Seems like you’d special landing pads where these would land and then ship stuff out from there by conventional means.

  • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Airplane cargo already exists. The time savings with launching products across the earth are basically minimal.