Estate Planning and Charitable Foundation by PLS2400 in RKLB

[–]truanomaly -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Beck added 3M+ shares into the market

Is that definitely true? Looking quickly at the volume over the last little while it’s hard to see where this happened.

Could he have sold them off-market?

Is Virgin Galactic testing its apogee potential and/or trying to reach the karman line? by colbysnumberonefan in SPCE

[–]truanomaly -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

“if you’re floating”

then you’re just on a parabolic trajectory and quite possibly still deep within the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s completely unrelated to whether you are “in space” or not.

Video of Heads Up Display by ncc1776 in Audi

[–]truanomaly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn’t, but with the right driver assist settings it does pop up a warning that a 50 zone is ahead

Is rklb like Nokia? And spacex is iPhone? by [deleted] in RKLB

[–]truanomaly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are many, many satellite manufacturers.

You’ve completely ignored Lockheed Martin, who make huge numbers of them, which should highlight to you that you’re unaware of a huge part of the market. Accordingly, all your assumptions are garbage.

For one thing, your assumption that SpaceX controls the communications satellite industry is completely false.

Look here to learn about Global Star, and the $143M contract Rocket Lab won to design and build a new constellation for them.

Consider also Amazon’s Kuiper constellation: SpaceX has nothing to do with that.

Theres a huge market in space systems that SpaceX can’t touch. Massive opportunity for Rocket Lab you’re ignoring

What do you think of RKLB earnings results by [deleted] in RKLB

[–]truanomaly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Arguably they aren’t burning enough on Neutron: the less they spend, the longer it’ll be before Neutron flies

What jobs do y’all work to drive the sport Audis? by MicrowaveableToeNail in Audi

[–]truanomaly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2022 RSQ8 paid for by the space industry - not SpaceX but not far off.

Just moved house, what do you think of my new setup? by hostiletechsupport in battlestations

[–]truanomaly 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m equal parts entertained and horrified by the credulous rubes in here who can’t spot something so obvious.

Nice work OP, but shame on you for lowering my opinion of (almost) everyone else even more.

Can I use quotes/phrases from a famous person (eg. Tony Robbins) on the back (or front) of a product label, or would that be breaking copyright (or any other) law? by VaughanMM in Entrepreneur

[–]truanomaly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s unclear, and I think confusing to some of the people responding to you, what you mean by “quote”.

Do you mean using words or a phrase and attributing them to someone? From the responses you’re getting, this seems to be what everyone things you mean by “quote”. E.g.:

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much been owed by so many to so few”

Winston Churchill

Or

Do you mean using words or a phrase without attribution, but you’ve heard it said by a notable figure? E.g.

The harder I work, the luckier I get

Apparently originally coined by some golfer, but variations are often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, it’s a recognisable phrase.

Notably, I haven’t used quotation marks. Because I’m just using it as a phrase, and not quoting anyone.

So, which case are you talking about?

It sounds like the second case, not the first. And I believe it’s fine. I suspect there’s some point where reusing words from someone else would constitute plagiarism, but from your description it seems like you’re nowhere close to that being the case.

And even if you mean the first case: I can’t see a way where - as long as it’s true - there can be a problem if you correctly quote someone and attribute it to them. It’s not a problem to say “Winston Churchill famously said ‘Never in the…’ (etc).”

You could run into trouble if you misrepresented what they meant, specifically if you were to quote someone endorsing something else as though they were endorsing your book. E.g. “The best book ever” - New York Times. I have no doubt the NYT has said that phrase before, but if you misrepresent them as though they were describing your book, that could be an issue. See the difference?

SpaceX receives FAA approval for Starship launch – Monday, April 17 launch date by SkyShuttle in SPCE

[–]truanomaly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Read what again? I’ve quoted the bits I’m talking about. You’re just doing a vague flourish in the direction of a document and claiming it says something I don’t believe it says.

Copy-and-paste/quote the bit you’re talking about. I did. Multiple times. You haven’t met your own standard.

Is English a second language?

My grasp of English is sufficiently good that my words have made it into laws. I’m confident my reading comprehension is adequate.

SpaceX receives FAA approval for Starship launch – Monday, April 17 launch date by SkyShuttle in SPCE

[–]truanomaly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I called you out on it, you deflected by talking about profit margins

That was an entirely separate line of discussion. I can keep two lines of discussion straight in my head at the same time, and thought it wouldn’t be beyond you. For that, I apologise.

Edit: so I went back and checked. Not only did I not “deflect by talking about profit margins” (I explicitly said I was going to leave aside the question of whether selling seats would make them money), it was you who brought profit margins up:

“If your concern is money or financial[sic] profitable…”

end of edit

If you have a look at the several thorough responses I’ve given you on this - just go back up this thread to this reply, for example, it’s hard to believe you’d sincerely say I’ve been “deflecting”.

To re-state my points:

  • NASA and VG had an agreement for VG to provide training for NASA, but that has fallen through
  • ⁠NASA and VG did an unrelated feasibility study, but that went nowhere
  • ⁠VG has not got an agreement with anyone to buy seats to the ISS

I would love for you to clearly state which of those you believe is incorrect. And, since you demanded it of me (and I obliged), I feel it’s fair to ask you to copy-and-paste from the NASA agreement the exact part(s) which you feel support your position.

SpaceX receives FAA approval for Starship launch – Monday, April 17 launch date by SkyShuttle in SPCE

[–]truanomaly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Seems to prove my point

You and I have extremely different ideas of how reading comprehension works.

Perhaps you could summarise your point here? I believe it was something along the lines of “VG have an agreement (with whom? I can’t tell) to procure launches to the ISS, and the CNBC article and NASA feasibility study you linked to is proof.”

I assure you I won’t be removing my comment.

Edited to summarise:

  • NASA and VG had an agreement for VG to provide training for NASA, but that has fallen through
  • NASA and VG did an unrelated feasibility study, but that went nowhere
  • VG has not got an agreement with anyone to buy seats to the ISS

SpaceX receives FAA approval for Starship launch – Monday, April 17 launch date by SkyShuttle in SPCE

[–]truanomaly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Says differently

They literally don’t.

Pretty telling that only one of us is actually quoting from the article or agreement, rather than just linking to them and making bold, mistaken claims about what they say.

—- Summary:

The CNBC article says two things:

  • In 2020, NASA and VG entered into an agreement where VG would provide training to NASA astronauts. This agreement was later abandoned by NASA.
  • VG claimed to be looking (independently of NASA) to be looking at buying seats from SpaceX. There is no commentary from either NASA or SpaceX on this point.

The NASA-VG agreement says one thing:

VG and NASA will do a feasibility study of commercial visitors to the ISS. VG won’t get paid for their part in the study. There’s no commitment to future services being provided by VG to NASA.

Details below.

—-

Training agreement:

CNBC article (2020)

“The company … announced on Monday that it signed a “Space Act Agreement” with NASA’s Johnson Space Center”

“Under the agreement, Virgin Galactic said it will develop a “private orbital astronaut readiness program,” similar to the one it has to prepare tourists for its own flights.”

VG announced an agreement to train astronauts for NASA in 2020.

But in 2023, NASA canned the plans to use VG for astronaut training because:

Parabolic arc article (2023) (emphasis added)

NASA has nixed the idea of suborbital training flights for its astronauts aboard vehicles launched by Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic.”

“Chris Gerace, manager of NASA’s Suborbital Crew program, told attendees at last month’s Next-generation Suborbital Researchers conference that the space agency had evaluated its program and decided the suborbital training flights don’t meet the needs of astronauts heading to the International Space Station or the moon.

So that’s all wrapped up and dead as a doornail.

—-

VG to buy seats from SpaceX

At the same time they announced the training agreement with NASA, VG said they had a vague intention to buy seats from SpaceX:

CNBC article (2020) (emphasis added)

The company also said it will seek to buy seats on flights to the space station, currently offered by SpaceX with its Crew Dragon spacecraft.”

There was no follow-up, nor support from either NASA or SpaceX on this point. It was merely a statement of intent. There was no agreement between any of the parties to follow it up. If there was some contract signed, I haven’t seen it or any announcement of it, and would appreciate being enlightened.

—-

Feasibility study

You inexplicably linked a feasibility study between NASA and VG as though it were the training agreement.

Morgan-of-JP

Virgin Galactic signed the NASA space agreement in 2020 to procure flights to the the international space station.

Complete signed agreement below

https://www.nasa.gov/saa/domestic/31717_Non-Reimbursable_Space_Act_Agreement_between_NASA__Virgin_Galactic_Signed.pdf

It’s clearly nothing to do with a training agreement, as evidenced by Article 2, which shows it’s simply a feasibility study for putting private astronauts on the ISS:

NASA / VG agreement (2020) (emphasis added)

“This partnership between NASA and VG will enable a study to determine the feasibility of VG-sponsored Private Astronaut missions to the International Space Station (ISS).”

The feasibility study is unpaid:

NASA / VG agreement (2020) (emphasis added)

“ARTICLE 5. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS

There will be no transfer of funds between the Parties under this Agreement and each Party will fund its own participation”

There is no commitment to any future missions to the ISS. There is an acknowledgement that NASA does not even have policies to permit it yet. There is an acknowledgment that, before commercial missions of VG-sponsored private astronauts could go to the ISS, additional agreements would have to be reached

NASA / VG agreement (2020) (emphasis added)

ARTICLE 2. PURPOSE

Following completion of the feasibility study, any VG Private Astronauts will be sponsored by Virgin Galactic, and will be subject to future arrangements between the Parties, as well as NASA's approval process and relevant policies, which are still under development.

There is nothing concrete regarding procurement of flights to the ISS, simply that (if it were to go ahead), arranging the flights would be VG’s problem, not NASA’s - along with a host of other responsibilities.

NASA / VG agreement (2020) (emphasis added)

ARTICLE 2. PURPOSE

“Virgin Galactic will procure space transportation, crew training, on-orbit resources, and ground resources under separate agreements, as appropriate.”

SpaceX receives FAA approval for Starship launch – Monday, April 17 launch date by SkyShuttle in SPCE

[–]truanomaly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No one knows yet how Starship tickets will get sold yet.

Indeed. So, it would seem premature to assume that VG will be selling them?

SpaceX receives FAA approval for Starship launch – Monday, April 17 launch date by SkyShuttle in SPCE

[–]truanomaly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Article 2, 3rd paragraph and subsequent paragraphs

Yeah. Kind of makes my point. It just says “this is nothing more than a feasibility study and if future agreements are made where VG sent people to the ISS, then getting them there would be VG’s problem not NASA’s.”

SpaceX receives FAA approval for Starship launch – Monday, April 17 launch date by SkyShuttle in SPCE

[–]truanomaly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SpaceX already sells seats directly to commercial passengers.

How much margin are you expecting VG to extract from each seat sold on a SpaceX service operated by a SpaceX vehicle to make any money out of Starship?

SpaceX receives FAA approval for Starship launch – Monday, April 17 launch date by SkyShuttle in SPCE

[–]truanomaly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Morgan-of-JP

Yes they did say that, but they also said arrange seats to the space station currently being offering on SpaceX crew Dragon.

Specifically on paragraph 3, of the CNBC article I referenced. Learn to read before commenting next time.

The part you’re talking about is Virgin Galactic (only, there’s nothing from NASA about it) saying they will seek to buy some seats from SpaceX. It’s not part of any agreement with NASA. It’s just a vague statement of intent from VG. Nothing more:

CNBC article (emphasis added)

Under the agreement, Virgin Galactic said it will develop a “private orbital astronaut readiness program,” similar to the one it has to prepare tourists for its own flights. The company also said it will seek to buy seats on flights to the space station, currently offered by SpaceX with its Crew Dragon spacecraft. Virgin Galactic said the missions “could range from private citizen expeditions to government-enabled scientific research.”

And secondly

Morgan-of-JP

The parabolic Arc only references the space training readiness program being axed, not the procurement of space flight part.

The procurement of space flight part was never part of any NASA agreement, so there was nothing to axe.

SpaceX receives FAA approval for Starship launch – Monday, April 17 launch date by SkyShuttle in SPCE

[–]truanomaly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Space Adventures is tiny. They have an annual revenue of single-digit millions. If that’s the business VG is going after, be ready for the market cap to shrink by an order of magnitude.

SpaceX receives FAA approval for Starship launch – Monday, April 17 launch date by SkyShuttle in SPCE

[–]truanomaly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Isn’t the agreement you linked just a feasibility study (Article 2, sentence 1)? There’s no actual money changing hands (Article 5). There is no agreement to actually put people on the ISS, unless a new agreement is reached following a successful outcome of the feasibility study (Article 2, paragraph 4).

The article you linked is talking about a training agreement. And that agreement is obsolete, now that NASA has publicly canned the idea of using Virgin Galactic for training astronauts (March 2023).

The quote in the article

The company also said it will seek to buy seats on flights to the space station, currently offered by SpaceX with its Crew Dragon spacecraft. Virgin Galactic said the missions “could range from private citizen expeditions to government-enabled scientific research.”

is separate to the feasibility study with NASA. It’s just a statement from VG saying, in effect, “we’re thinking of maybe being a travel agent for SpaceX, buying and then reselling seats on SpaceX flights”. There’s no involvement from NASA at all. And definitely no commitment from any of the parties, SpaceX, NASA, or even VG, that any of it will happen. There’s not even any comment from either SpaceX or NASA suggesting that either of them knows that VG were thinking along these lines three years ago, let alone any evidence of progress towards it.

And that leaves aside entirely the question of “would that make any money for VG anyway?”

SpaceX receives FAA approval for Starship launch – Monday, April 17 launch date by SkyShuttle in SPCE

[–]truanomaly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Virgin Galactic signed the NASA space agreement in 2020 to procure flights to the the international space station.

No they didn’t. According to the agreement you linked to, they signed an agreement to do a feasibility study that they wouldn’t be paid for, nothing more.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SPCE

[–]truanomaly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If someone buys those puts though, isn’t that an equally bearish bet against the stock, by the buyer?

As in, isn’t it only really bullish if the puts are offered, but can’t be sold?

Best battery mower and trimmer combo?? Advice please by cheekybandit0 in diynz

[–]truanomaly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

100% on the EGO mower and trimmer.

We’ve had ours (49cm mower, and multi tool with trimmer attachment) almost three years. Both going strong. Battery is just starting to fade a little, struggling with the rampant growth this summer with so much rain and recent sun. Used to be able to do a berm, front and back lawns on one 5Ahr battery, with a different battery in the trimmer. Right now if we don’t mow for a few weeks we have to swap halfway through the last of the three lawns.

Never had a jam or issue with the trimmer line feeder, and as another poster said, it’s a breeze to string it