That's what the 'Quiet' part of the name is trying to solve.

From another source:

The X-59 has been designed to achieve a PLdB of 75, similar to what might be heard when standing next to a heavily trafficked road.

Not mentioned in the article is that NASA has also been experimenting with the viability of using Nvidia GPUs for space-based applications:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

Not anymore. Especially not if you google "RHEL laser".

That is definitely not how China would enforce it.

You need a Starlink terminal in order to communicate with the satellite. China will most likely just block the sales of Starlink terminals in the country if they want to enforce a ban.

That seems reasonable, but easier still is putting your thumb on the Gigafactory 3 from Tesla. As long as Tesla understands that things will go smoothly as long as Starlink happens to not work there, it won't.

Your statistic in no way diminishes the losses that each country suffered during the war.

I find it hard to believe that they are completely re-designing the avionics/flight computers because of this gamma ray incident. There must be another reason.

If it's seriously the main concern, wouldn't it be much easier to just encase the computer in several inches of lead shielding?

There's also currently a push by many countries to have carbon monitoring satellites above their countries.

For example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-satellit...

It’s likely that your work and life has greatly benefited from technologies that originated from the military.

That's true, but:

1. My life (and more so, the life of many around me) has greatly suffered from the operation of military bodies. 2. Those technologies could have, instead, been developed in civilian spaces, had the world, especially the great powers, not been so militarized. We might have had some difference in emphasis in what technologies get developed faster of course.

Do you use the internet? GPS? Where do you think those technologies come from?

1. It's not always feasible to launch your spacecraft with Starship (e.g. it wouldn't make sense if you are just launching a cubesat).

2. That's a pretty aggressive timeline to have Starship built and flight-proven.

> it wouldn't make sense if you are just launching a cubesat

You’re both thinking through the consequences of complete system reusability and rapid reflight. What costs less, throwing away a complete cube stat launch vehicle, or refuelling Starship?

Imagine you are SpaceX. You are going to be launching a Starship. Given how booked your launch manifest is, would you rather launch a cubesat or a full-sized payload? Which would earn you more money?

Oh yea?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2215303-spacex-satellit...