NASA and the Private Sector - Page 210
Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The U.S. government has requested that Max Polyakov, a wealthy Ukrainian tech entrepreneur, sell his stake in the rocket company Firefly Aerospace Inc., citing national security concerns. Firefly, a private rocket maker based near Austin, Texas, has been backed for several years by Polyakov, who built a software empire in Ukraine. Government and aerospace industry officials have expressed objections to Polyakov’s control of the company amid fears that valuable technology could make its way to Ukraine, Russia or other nations trying to develop rocket programs. Despite putting more than $200 million of his fortune into Firefly, Polyakov agreed to step down from the company’s board and Firefly’s day-to-day activities in late 2020 to help make it easier for the company to win U.S. government and military contracts and ease some of the underlying tensions. In late November, however, Polyakov received a letter from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., or CFIUS, that called out national security worries and requested that Polyakov and his investment firm Noosphere Venture Partners sell off their roughly 50% stake in Firefly. Polyakov agreed to this demand, according to his spokespeople, while maintaining that his ownership of Firefly poses no national security threats. “Noosphere Ventures announced today that it intends to retain an investment banking firm to assist in the sale of Noosphere Ventures’ ownership interest in Firefly Aerospace,” Polyakov’s company said in a statement. While educated as an obstetrician-gynecologist, Polyakov made his fortune through business software ventures and internet gaming, dating and marketing sites. He rescued Firefly from bankruptcy in 2017 and poured money into the company to revitalize it. In September, Firefly conducted its first rocket launch from Vandenberg Space Force Base in Southern California. The rocket didn’t reach orbit but performed well for an initial launch, and the company has been racing to fire up a second one. The U.S. government halted Firefly’s current rocket launch operations at Vandenberg as the ownership issue with Polyakov plays out, according to two people familiar with the situation. The clashes between Polyakov and the U.S. haven’t been previously reported. Polyakov has said he had dreamed of turning Firefly into a massive aerospace company that could benefit both the U.S. and Ukraine. During the Soviet era, Ukraine produced some of the world’s best rocket and engine technology, but much of those inventions have languished in recent years due to lack of investment. The hope was that Firefly could pair its best engineers from the U.S. and Ukraine together to make a fleet of large rockets capable of taking many satellites into orbit and later on missions to the moon. Polyakov wanted the U.S. to gain access to Ukrainian expertise, while also finding a way to boost the prospects of Ukrainian aerospace engineers, he has said. Firefly made steady progress over the past couple of years. The company won contracts from NASA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the U.S. Air Force for various missions. It also obtained a technology sharing agreement between Ukraine and the U.S. The company has a large rocket manufacturing and testing operation in Central Texas and had operated a subsidiary in Ukraine to help with technology development. While Ukraine is an ally of the U.S., its ongoing conflict with Russia has increased worries about what might happen to valuable technology inside of the country. Russia has been building up forces at the Ukrainian border, heightening fears that it will invade the country. In November of 2020, Polyakov stepped down from Firefly’s board and then in May of 2021, he sold off a large chunk of his stake in Firefly, as the company raised $75 million and obtained a valuation of more than $1 billion. These moves, along with the appointment of former government officials to Firefly’s board, were meant to open the way for more government contracts. Polyakov pulled back from the company and has said he was leaving all of the business and technology decisions to Firefly Chief Executive Officer Tom Markusic, who previously worked at NASA and Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. “Dr. Polyakov and his companies were extensively vetted, and no security issue was identified,” Noosphere Ventures said in its statement. “Noosphere Ventures and Dr. Polyakov understand that CFIUS’s actions come amid rising tensions between Ukraine and Russia. Noosphere Ventures is working diligently to address CFIUS’s concerns in the most efficient and appropriate manner possible.” A spokesperson for the U.S. Treasury Department, which chairs CFIUS, declined to comment. A representative for Markusic didn’t respond to a request for comment. Polyakov sits among the likes of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos as the individuals who have risked huge portions of their personal fortunes on commercializing space. Firefly makes what is considered a mid-sized rocket capable of flying dozens of satellites into orbit on each launch. The company also has plans for a lunar lander and later a spaceplane. Polyakov had moved his family to Silicon Valley and, in multiple interviews over the years, had characterized his large investment in Firefly as a patriotic gesture for the U.S. He voiced fears, which others in the aerospace industry shared, that Ukranian technology could make its way to North Korea, Iran or other enemies of the U.S. without an infusion of money and interest in the local aerospace industry. Source | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On January 06 2022 01:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: It won't it has to be refueled in about a decade, which is why NASA has asked the private sector to come up with ways to launch a mission to get to it to one day and refuel or worse fix it. That was taken into account with my comment. Hopefully someone can figure out a way to do that and this thing surpasses the Hubble. I'm expecting to see some amazing images and data from the JWST so I just want it to last a very long time. | ||
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9490 Posts
On January 06 2022 04:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: That was taken into account with my comment. Hopefully someone can figure out a way to do that and this thing surpasses the Hubble. I'm expecting to see some amazing images and data from the JWST so I just want it to last a very long time. I don't know if we will see Hubble level images, because it isn't analyzing in the visual spectrum. Any images would have to be extremely heavily processed. I think new physics and cosmology developments to do with the extremely early stage of the universe is the priority, rather than spectacular images. | ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On January 06 2022 05:05 Jockmcplop wrote: I don't know if we will see Hubble level images, because it isn't analyzing in the visual spectrum. Any images would have to be extremely heavily processed. I think new physics and cosmology developments to do with the extremely early stage of the universe is the priority, rather than spectacular images. Any image that is taken from deep space is heavily processed. It just depends on what they're looking for. The data returned will allow them to better understand the chemical makeup of early stage universe and compositions of planets. That will then allow them to model more accurately what planets they come across and other star clusters. So you can expect them to get more information on gaseous nebulas to get a better chemical understanding and then we could potentially see either updated renders or something completely different. I agree that the primary mission isn't to give us Hubble quality images, but for them to continually market it as a replacement for Hubble, they should/could also deliver us spectacular images. If they're not going to do that, then I would like them to start on a true Hubble replacement because delivering images of deep space cannot stop. IMHO. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Lmui
Canada6211 Posts
Because of how good the performance from Ariane was, the lifespan of Webb before refueling is over 20 years. The odds of us having a good way to refuel it, or even outright replace it (Assuming starship or any other big rocket is available in 20 years) is a pretty good bet. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/01/all-hail-the-ariane-5-rocket-which-doubled-the-webb-telescopes-lifetime/ | ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On January 11 2022 01:19 Lmui wrote: Some really good news about Webb. Because of how good the performance from Ariane was, the lifespan of Webb before refueling is over 20 years. The odds of us having a good way to refuel it, or even outright replace it (Assuming starship or any other big rocket is available in 20 years) is a pretty good bet. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/01/all-hail-the-ariane-5-rocket-which-doubled-the-webb-telescopes-lifetime/ That's dope. If you can place it further into orbit and save it from burning as much fuel, then that fuel can be used to keep it alive longer. I didn't know a lot about the Ariane 5 but it's good that it overdelivered on launching the JWST. Waiting for summer to come to get any information is going to be harsh lol. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Lmui
Canada6211 Posts
On January 11 2022 02:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: That's dope. If you can place it further into orbit and save it from burning as much fuel, then that fuel can be used to keep it alive longer. I didn't know a lot about the Ariane 5 but it's good that it overdelivered on launching the JWST. Waiting for summer to come to get any information is going to be harsh lol. It's not just how much power it had, it's how precisely it delivered the power. The design of Webb meant that it could not, under any circumstance overshoot the L2 insertion. If it did, there is no way to turn Webb around and decelerate the vehicle. This meant Ariane needed to undershoot the L2 value, and have Webb's thrusters do the precision work. Ariane's engineers put the very best of the best into the vehicle, resulting in tighter error bounds for the vehicle than would otherwise be possible. That's paid off handsomely in getting it basically within spitting distance, so Webb had pretty much twice as much propellant as they were hoping for. | ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On January 11 2022 04:36 Lmui wrote: It's not just how much power it had, it's how precisely it delivered the power. The design of Webb meant that it could not, under any circumstance overshoot the L2 insertion. If it did, there is no way to turn Webb around and decelerate the vehicle. This meant Ariane needed to undershoot the L2 value, and have Webb's thrusters do the precision work. Ariane's engineers put the very best of the best into the vehicle, resulting in tighter error bounds for the vehicle than would otherwise be possible. That's paid off handsomely in getting it basically within spitting distance, so Webb had pretty much twice as much propellant as they were hoping for. I wonder if the Ariane group had the same design philosophy (or most other space outfits for that matter) as SpaceX, where would they be at the moment? I know they do a lot of launches, but I haven't heard of their heavy lift vehicles or any other plans besides the 5. If they have precision like this, then I can only imagine if they took to making larger vehicles for more ambitious projects. | ||
| ||