Obviously. You couldn't be bothered to research the hint I left behind. Or perhaps you missed the hint entirely. Oh well.
There is no research needed. You have no idea what you are talking about.
You are away one of the major components is the computer right? That takes years to get them ready for space. By the time they are ready, they are very obsolete compared to what the average consumer can buy.
No they don't. It certainly helps to reduce it, but only an UnknowingFool would think a flipped bit or two is necessarily either catastrophic or flight ending/endangering. Even somebody with a basic computer science understanding would understand why that may not be the case.
BAHAHAHHAHAHA. You are an idiot. Components not radiation hardened is believed to be the cause of Fobos-Grunt failure as it did not leave Earth orbit.
I didn't say that. What I am saying is there's a faster way to iterate, and even though it has been conclusively proven to work, the ESA still sticks to the old ways.
Most things ESA works on is not for the private sector. Most of what the ESA works on is the leading edge of science. For example, space telescopes. You seem to miss this point. The ESA is not putting up telecommunications satellites or GPS satellites.
Actually the private sector has a lot less tolerance for this. Unlike the government, they can't just issue bonds for it and go infinitely into debt.
1 or 2 Starlink satellites fail every day. Every day. There are over 10,000 of them. Small numbers are designed to fail. The projects that ESA works on cannot fail every day.
- Hubble (not ESA) certainly could, and was, so preceding that with "ESA/NASA projects like" followed by exactly one satellite is just something an UnknowingFool would say.
1) Hubble is not JWST. I am not sure how to make that any clearer. 2) It is a lie that ESA was not involved with Hubble: "ESA agreed to provide funding and supply one of the first generation instruments for the telescope, as well as the solar cells that would power it . . "
James Webb (also not ESA)
That is another lie. "The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) led Webb's design and development and partnered with two central agencies: the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA"
is rather unique because of its location, not because it's inherently unserviceable.
Please list all the ESA satellites, probes, etc. that ARE serviceable. I'll wait.
- NASA lets ESA have some time for JWST because it allowed them to provide the launch services, even though the ESA introduced three very long delays because of repeated launch engineering faults on their part. By the time it was ready, NASA had alternative launch services available, but it was too late to switch because it was already engineered specifically within the constraints of Ariane.
Why do you lie so much? ESA contributed over €300 million in 2004 to JWST. ESA also built one of the instruments: NIRSpec. These are easily discoverable facts yet you choose to lie about them.
I'd tell you to do some basic research, but that username kind of precludes the possibility of you at least retaining any of that knowledge after you did.
Bahahahaha. Your lies about Hubbles and JWST alone says you did ZERO research. But you missed the point. Starlink was DESIGNED to launch thousands of satellites of which 1 or 2 fail every days. There are currently over 10,000 of them in orbit to cover the whole Earth. Space telescopes, observation satellites, space probes, etc are not launched in numbers of 10,000 per satellite. They generally make and launch only 1 of each.
I see you're unfamiliar with the initial failures that Hubble dealt with, because it wasn't operational at the time that it first reached its intended orbital parameters, and required manual servicing just to get it operational. Or the micrometeor strike that slightly degraded JWST. Though JWST is huge compared to starlink birds. And as you said, there's only one of each.
Again missed the whole point: When you are making ONE of something development costs PER UNIT are extremely high. When you are designing something that is to be mass manufactured, costs per unit go down as it is manufactured because capital investment and planning are not spent to make ONE of something.
Because the only thing that ever goes to space are telescopes. And they get there entirely by themselves. I also believe you don't understand the entire purpose of Ariane, or why it won't actually fulfill that purpose. But do go on.
Again missed the point. Mass manufactured satellites numbering 10,000 is not the same as special purpose satellites that are made once. Compounding your lack of understanding is your penchant for lying.
