Wild that this about behavior from 7 years ago - imagine additional fines that will need to be paid in 7 years for current market manipulation by some of these giant players (incl in US). Things are moving really slow. The amounts are also just a drop in the bucket...
Splitting up Google seems more and more likely, probably would raise the overall market cap and drive innovation
A lot of people wrongly believe this means no firewall. If you don't use firewalls (yes, even for web traffic and SaaS, limit who can access your stuff), you are doing something wrong.
For anyone who didn't know Google apparently deleted (like in making it unrecoverable) a larger customers subscription (and GCP data) and also all backups as far as it sounds. The customer luckily had their own backups elsewhere outside of GCP.
UniSuper is a large financial organisation. It’s managing $100 billion plus in pension funds.
I think because it’s an Australian company the reported news hasn’t been picked up more as nobody knows who they are. The wording of the official press releases has also been carefully worded/managed to reduce what is really damaging news for the GCP sales department who are on a big push in Oceania for the large corporate companies dangling free credits.
I think each test served exactly its purpose and it's incredible to see the rapid progress. Unclear why you believe the first two were not a success at all? Did you expect a novel vehicle like this would just work the first time?
Going by total program cost, both of those are cheaper than Starship. SpaceX does this sleight of hand where they don't count their R&D cost in their calculations, but they do count it in other peoples' programs when comparing. SLS so far is about $2 billion in, and Starship seems to be at $2-3 billion. Vulcan is way cheaper than both.
SLS flight cost is $2B. Each launch. Did you forget to include the decade prior?
It's so expensive that it can fly no more than once a year. The next flight is scheduled for Sep 2025, three years after the first flight. I bet you think that isn't absurd.
SLS use leftover engines from the Shuttle era. Yet it still cost 160 millions. Each. Thrown away after each flight.
Vulcan is a conservative design with no reuse. It also uses BE-4 engine, which costs them nothing to develop.
- Source for Vulcan total program cost? All I can find is their per-launch pricing. Tory Bruno himself apparently said that "new rockets typically cost US$2 billion, including US$1 billion for the main engine."
- Not sure where you're getting the SLS number, the GAO report at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105609.pdf claims, "Since 2011, NASA has spent $11.8 billion to develop the initial SLS capability."
- I think the marginal cost is a fair question. The whole party line out of NASA was that this time Moon exploration would be sustainable. If each trip costs > $1B before you even put a payload on the rocket that's a big problem.
I completely agree with you on marginal cost, but I don't believe SpaceX to provide accurate numbers for their own rockets before they are actually built (they love wishful thinking) or their competitors' (making your competitors look bad is better for you).
The word reputable was an interesting choice to describe Boeing. It also carries a bold implication that the space company shuttling astronauts to and from the ISS—only two days ago [1]—is… disreputable? Meanwhile, Boeing Starliner certainly didn't perform nominally on its first orbital flight test [2].
Space flight is hard and different testing methodologies are no silver bullet. But, I suppose we will know them by their fruits.
Splitting up Google seems more and more likely, probably would raise the overall market cap and drive innovation