• superkret@feddit.orgEnglish
    1 year

    Is there a source that isn’t “US analysts”?
    That’s about as reliable as “Russian analysts” or “Chinese analysts” right now.

  • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
    1 year

    I’m not sure how much of a setback this is.

    If it failed and it’s out of control, I assume that it’s an issue with normal “satellite” things — the computer or the thrusters or whatever, stuff that’s involved in maneuvering the satellite. A failure in systems that Russia can and has done before. Not with the radar systems onboard.

    And I’d guess that the costs are mostly in R&D rather than the manufacturing of the satellite, costs that wouldn’t need to be repeated for Russia to build such a satellite over again.

    I assume that if Russia wants to do so, they can launch a replacement satellite.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zoneEnglish
      1 year

      How much do you think it costs to build and launch a new satellite? Do you have enough faith in Russian manufactthat this won’t happen again, in a slightly different way? Will all the replacement money end up where it should?

      • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1 year

        Especially since they’ve currently got a big, expensive war on their hands, that they’re all-hands-on-deck for.

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1 year

        OP has a solid point about costs sunk into R&D. A second unit is an order of magnitude cheaper to launch. OTOH, Russia broke as fuck.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zoneEnglish
          1 year

          Oh, I certainly agree that r&d is probably higher than manufacture, but they are ninijisibg the cost to replace. There is also runk cost fallacy to consider.

          Russia doesn’t have the spare cash lying in the couch as you say and the cost to manufacturer is higher when under sanctions. The ability to manufacturer is also hamstring.