this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023

200 points (98.5% liked)

Not The Onion

12188 readers

642 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

200

Space drugs factory denied reentry to Earth (gizmodo.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 109 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

This is actually pretty interesting.

On June 30, its first drug-manufacturing experiment succeeded in growing crystals of the drug ritonavir, which is used for the treatment of HIV, in orbit. The microgravity environment provides some benefits that could make for better production in space, overall reducing gravity-induced defects. Protein crystals made in space form larger and more perfect crystals than those created on Earth, according to NASA.

Unfortunately there's no info on why it's being denied reentry. (But my money is on the long standing secret policy of the dark world government lizard cat people to not cure space aids)(I also don't have any money)

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 47 points 1 year ago (3 children)

A spokesperson from the FAA told TechCrunch in an emailed statement that the company’s request was not granted at this time “due to the overall safety, risk and impact analysis.”

That could mean so many different things.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 year ago

[+] krey@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

[deleted]

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And I wouldn’t doubt that that played a huge role in the decision, but I’m curious as to what, if anything, changed between when they created the mission profile /launched it, and now. Did they not get some basic permit to launch it that also included the entry plan, which was approved?

That’s what I’m unsure of.

[–] nal@lib.lgbt 7 points 1 year ago

I don't think the launch permits have anything to do with this company at all. They would've just purchased a ride on another company's rocket (likely Space X or ULA). They probably assumed they could figure out reentry when they got to that point in the mission. I can't say for sure, but they very well may even have multiple plans for getting the capsule back, and this was just the first one they tried.

[–] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I think they're more worried about it landing on someone's head.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago

I mean it could hit an F-35

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Nah, they're probably afraid subject else would get to it first and steal trade secrets. The Greed Principle overrides Occam's Razor.

[–] sramder@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could just explicitly mean impact analysis, like we’re not cool with what happens if the parachute burns up or fails to deploy.

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep, definitely an option. I guess I’m just confused as to why this is just now a problem and they didn’t have a plan from the beginning. Or if they did, what changed?

[–] sramder@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Right? Like was the kickstarter only partially funded ;-)

[–] DeusHircus@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't believe there's much of a track record for private crafts reentering from orbit, intending to be recovered. Most private crafts like communication satellites breakup on reentry and don't pose much of a risk to ground population. This station was designed specifically to survive reentry intact. I'm not sure what kind of deorbit equipment that station has but I would guess that's what the FAA is concerned with. Any failure of navigation or propulsion during deorbit could result in the station losing control which would have it crashing down in some unpredictable point and time along its 25,000 mile path over ground. Undoubtedly there are some large populations below the orbit of this station

[–] sramder@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

To paraphrase the CEO they are de-orbiting a 1986 Toyota Corolla. So if you try any course correction over about 80 Mph it’s just going to crash ;-)

[–] easydnesto@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Man I really enjoyed Inside Job, I hope they get to finish the storyline.

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is there precedent for shows that Netflix canceled getting a chance to finish their storylines?

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

they go to Adult Swim

[–] moody@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

Sense8 eventually got a movie-length series finale to resolve the cliffhanger ending after the show was cancelled after season 2 was completed (in expectation of a season 3 being released)

[–] HerbalGamer@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Hey leave the kitties out of this

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 40 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I wasn't aware you even needed permission to reenter a spacecraft, just thought you needed it to launch one. How does that work then, would one need permission from the country who's airspace your craft ends up in, or the one one's organization is based in? If the former, could they get around this by re-entering it over international waters?

[–] Sasquatch58@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The FAA designates 18,000 ft to flight level 600, which is 60,000 ft above sea level, as class A airspace. Any aircraft needs explicit permission to enter class A, so that's normally only when an airliner is climbing to cruising altitude, but it would also occur when a spacecraft is descending through 60,000 ft.

Other countries, I don't know exactly, but they all function fairly similarly.

[–] Iusedtobeanadventurer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Me neither.

Makes sense though. If the reentry is botched you're essentially aiming a ~300lb projectile (or a bunch of tinier projectiles) in this case at who knows what at terminal velocity.

Launches at least control where the thing leaves from and are designed to fallout over non inhabited areas in the event of a botched takeoff.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I guess if you don't pay gravity then it won't pull your satellite back down.

They can't quanitize gravity after decades of effort but they sure can monetize it.

[–] TheLordHumungus@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Space drug manufacturing? Dope as fuck

[–] Wilshire@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Their drugs are out of this world.

[–] xionzui@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Higher than you’ve ever been

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

We are one step closer to real space pirates. This timeline might not be so bad after all.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 1 year ago

They better put the aurora in a shielded cargo bay or the FAA is gonna detect it in their scan.

[–] sebinspace@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Should try EVE. It’s lucrative as fuck.

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nothing hits quite like ninja huffing in wormholes.

[–] sebinspace@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Y’all got any more…

-SNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORT-

clouds?

[–] Lexam@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 year ago

Gravity laughs at your permissions!