Slashdot Mirror

Can't find the link either - the latest article on Arianespace was either Friday or Monday and I did comment on it. There is http://aviationweek.com/space/... which was part of the discussion and I commented on that as well.

AvWeek has the world's worst website for a news organization. Amazing articles, shitty, slow website with content appearing and disappearing all the time.

Depending on how many g the pilot wants to feel

Except that the plan is for the SR-72 to be unmanned.

I expect that g-forces will still be an issue, though. Hard manoeuvering stresses the airframe of modern fighters, and they're designed for it. The SR-72, optimised for speed, will probably be more fragile.

I think both NASA and ESA said they had looked at reusing booster but did not find the idea economical after simulations.

Links I could find 1: Europeans. 2: Russians. These agencies have various ideas of how to compete with Space-X, I guess this is very good news for whoever wants to put a satellite in LEO.

happen often and are in many cases fatal: http://aviationweek.com/busine...

There is the technology to conduct the cables underground, but it is more expensive than hanging wires in the airspace. It is a really serious problem, which concerns medical, military, police, etc. aircraft.

Dealing with this problem requires investing in the research and development, rebuilding infrastructure. It is much easier to make noise about RC model aircraft hobby.

First of all it is not a drone on a photo in the article (unless it was one powered by gaz, what is uncommon).

Secondly the powerlines can be hidden underground. There is a reliable technology already to transfer electricity via underground cables. It is still 1.5 times more expensive, but only because it is not widely used yet.

If they build the powerlines underground it would be a good news not only for migratory birds, home owneres, but also for helicopter pilots http://aviationweek.com/busine...

obligatory citation needed.

It's a geostationary satellite. If you need more, I'm sure you can read some basic materials. If it were a twenty tonne satellite, it would have been all over the news. Furthermore, the GTO capacity of CZ-5 is "only" fourteen tonnes anyway.

WTF are you smoking?

You can read something on gravity losses as well.

You have STUPID tattooed on your forehead too? Where does it say any of that?

For example here: "Falcon 9 retains 30% performance margin over the company's advertised mass-to-orbit capability of 4,850 kg to GTO - margin SpaceX is using to conduct operational trials of a reusable Falcon 9 first stage"

So the 4850 kg figure includes the performance decrease caused by retaining the propellant to land the first stage. Those extra 30% bring it to 6.3 tonnes. Suddenly the 8.2 figure for the most recent iteration of the vehicle when ditching the stage into the ocean appears much closer, doesn't it?

"I" more authoritative than wikipedia? That's quite impressive.

Wikipedia claims that the current thrust level is 36% higher than the v1.1 level. Intermediate improvements happened. Even the original figure from Wikipedia comes out as a 22% increase. For some reason you mentioned 16%. It's not clear why.

Look at it another way, given that F9:FT and F9:v1.1 are exactly the same size (FT is like 2% taller), so the amount of propellant capacity is exactly the same.

This is not true; the upper stage has been stretched by about 10% and the fuel has been densified. This is quite vital for GTO performance with a heavy second stage doing most of the delta v.

There are, however, a number of other aircraft that are suitable for close support. If you look at this this table, the venerable B-52 can drop more close support weaponry at lower cost than anything else in the inventory and the F-16 is a close second. Several turboprop planes are also being used.

And of course there are helicopters and perhaps eventually UAVs.

The F35 is really a stupid concept for CAS. Expensive to own and maintain. Not particularly well armored.

The whole premise of 'one plane to rule them all' has shown itself to be poorly thought out and more of a pipe dream than anything else.

They don't have to steal the plans, they obtained them perfectly legally and are allowed to produce the engines. However, the US cannot do so economically, so they do not.

Huge amount of group think going on here.

The F-35 May have been made invisible to the EMF spectrum used by radar, but there's far more frequencies that it will show up on.

https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
http://aviationweek.com/techno...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I like this one. Clutter can be solved with good software.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And this one is gold:

a series of in-field modifications carried out by the Yugoslavs further reduced the frequency of the 1960s vintage P-18 VHF acquisition radar under Dani’s command, which enabled his men to detect Zelko’s F-117 at a distance of 30 to 37 miles (50-60 km).

*In-field modifications* That's bad-ass.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/08...

Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency

It wouldn't work with 100% efficiency, so why would increase in efficiency matter as far as making it practical? What is happening to critical thinking skills?

Regarding critical thinking, why couldn't we just use solar panels on the ground to make jet fuel(*)?

Jet fuel in this instance is just an energy carrier, and has a much higher energy density than lithium. While Lithium batteries may be appropriate in some cases (portable devices, ground transportation), for air flight it's more appropriate to use something else.

(*) Or perhaps a biological method such as GM modified algae or a bio-yielding plant. The Wikipedia page of crop yields indicates that Algae can yield 80,000 kg/ha/yr, with "ha" being the area of a square 100 meters on a side.

A quick calculation shows that a 747 holds around 183,000 kg of fuel, so 3ha of open-pond algae could supply enough fuel for one tank each year.

Anyone who has driven across the "great basin" and other nearby sections of the US (western part of Utah, Nevada, parts of Arizona) knows that we have lots and lots of unused area that gets a lot of sunlight, and water is generally available from wells.

It seems reasonable that we could put up large solar and wind installations in these places, generate biodiesel and other organics, then ship them by tanker truck to where they are needed.

About 11 million gallons of fuel used in the US for aviation annually, that's 31 million kg, which requires 387 of those 10m x 10m algae pools(*).

At roughly $5 per gallon, the output of such an installation would be worth $55 million per year.

This seems like a futuristic prediction, but it makes sense.

Once the price of fuel goes up, this sort of installation may not be far in our future.

(*) This seems low. Have I dropped a digit somewhere?

Aircraft are only now beginning to use turbines to generate electricity which is then used in electric motors but is is a very widely used technology in many ships -- especially large warships.

A first application for adding an electric engine to the tail end of an airliner to re-energize the fuselage boundary layer airflow. As the plane flies through the air it slows down some of the air which ends up as drag. By putting a ring around the end of the fuselage directing the boundary layer airflow to an electric engine powered from the main turbines, drag goes down to the point that smaller diameter engines are needed (also diminishing drag). The major design change needed is that with the ring and engine, the horizontal stabilizers must be moved to a T tail.

Both NASA & Airbus are studying this for future designs: see here.

Do you ever fly?

APUs have been in aircraft in various forms since World War 1. Modern APUs are turbines that burn jet fuel.

Next time you are close to a big plane, look for a small-ish vent on the wing or the tip of the fuselage. Large planes (and lighter than air aircraft) have had these for a century already.

Your article does have some interesting ideas about using drag envelopes to gain an efficiency advantage, but the idea there haven't been separately powered generators on aircraft before is false.

Aircraft are only now beginning to use turbines to generate electricity which is then used in electric motors but is is a very widely used technology in many ships -- especially large warships.

A first application for adding an electric engine to the tail end of an airliner to re-energize the fuselage boundary layer airflow. As the plane flies through the air it slows down some of the air which ends up as drag. By putting a ring around the end of the fuselage directing the boundary layer airflow to an electric engine powered from the main turbines, drag goes down to the point that smaller diameter engines are needed (also diminishing drag). The major design change needed is that with the ring and engine, the horizontal stabilizers must be moved to a T tail.

Both NASA & Airbus are studying this for future designs: see here.

They must have a 360 running.

"A 360" in the sense of "an IBM System/360", or "a 360" in the sense of "a machine compatible - except perhaps at the supervisor-mode level - with an IBM System/360"? If the latter, then that's not interesting; my laptop was purchased in 2015, but, as far as I know, its CPU is compatible, even at the ring 0 level, with the CPU from the original IBM Personal Computer (whether I could boot the original version of MS-DOS on it is another matter), and the most recent CPU design capable of running System/360 problem-state code was also announced in 2015.

Despite the FAA claiming security concerns,, it took me 10 minutes to find Lora

Presumably you meant "Loral".

was once bidding on a contract to replace IBM 9020Es,

Yes, in 1995. IBM replaced the 9020A and 9020D machines in the late 1980s, and then replaced the 9020E's in the 1990s.

so they are probably running 360-compatible gear.

What they're running now might well be "360-compatible", but that might be in the same way that the Haswell Core i7 in my laptop is "8088-compatible".

No one knows, this booster will probably be dissected to see just where the wear/tear occurs. After that, SpaceX will probably have to mod/update future boosters to ensure it can fly multiple times. It may be that the cost to mod/upgrade/refurbish will be more expensive than just rebuilding, but we'll have to see.

Actually I think SpaceX got a pretty good idea, they've tested burn/reignite cycles staticly and found the engines can be reused 40 times, since that's likely to be the most expensive component that'll probably be their target. And if the reliability stays high there's a good chance that 1 in 40 launches will require a full burn, no reuse booster so there's no waste. They've said the first stage is roughly 70% of the cost and just refueling the rocket costs about 0.3% of a full launch, so the cost savings potential is huge.

...so I don't really understand this.

No, wait, I do.

This is ULA saying, essentially, "You give us the Russian-sourced RD-180s because they're cheaper and less of a hassle for us, or we're taking our ball and going home."

http://aviationweek.com/awin/u...

You're assuming commercial plants will be Tokamaks, but there's little evidence that approach will work. Even if you could get a tok to break even, the heavy neutron flux will rapidly degrade any metals in the equipment, so you'll have to trash and replace the works in less than a year. Several other, more compact designs such as Northrup-Grumman's machine, the Polywell, Tri-Alpha's effort, and so on, show more promise.

The Boeing 787 received the ETOPS 330 ratings in May 2014:
http://airwaysnews.com/blog/20...

The Boeing 777 received ETOPS 330 ratings in 2011 (limited to certain Engines):
http://aviationweek.com/awin/f...

Both of the above are FAA ETOPS 330 ratings. I am not sure if there is a hold up in the South Pacific nations not certifying the aircraft for their national carriers.

I know from personal experience that the Chicago to Shanghai / Beijing Flights are being done by 777, but these go over the North Pole so are not subject to the political politics of the South Pacific.

We don't actually know that for certain:

http://aviationweek.com/techno...

You would also know that the F-35 has more than twice the range of the F-16

That doesn't seem to be the case. Lockheed Martin and the US Air Force say the F-16 has a range of 1,740 nautical miles whereas the F-35A has a range of 1,200 nautical miles. Even if the F-35A's range improves in the future, it seems unlikely it will ever have twice the range of the F-16. Maybe if the F-35 gets a new engine in the mid-2020s its range will improve.

Small prop driven aircraft, ALREADY.

The market was almost nonexistent about five years ago but it's growing quite fast. Don't underestimate what the major and ongoing advances in motors, controllers, and batteries will bring in the future. There's many radically new technologies in the works to partially or completely electrify aircraft transportation, far beyond just electrically driven propellers.

Got another example of "far off into the future"?

Fusion power
Flying car
Another flying car

Here you are.

Very large radiators.

And the radiators must be protected behind a heavy shield, because the radiation degrades them too quickly. Most designs have the reactor, then a heavy shield, a long truss and then the rest of the ship. Running down the length of the truss, carefully shaped to remain in the shadow of the shield, you have huge radiators to dump the heat from the reactor. The truss, the radiators and the shield are all additional mass required for a nuclear propulsion on top of the reactor mass. Solar arrays require radiators too, but only a fraction of the size, see the ISS.

Aviation week also has an article with some additional details: http://aviationweek.com/techno...

Here's an article in Aviation Week with much more detail too.

What the article fails to mention is that the new reactor has to be 800 feet tall or buried 400 feet in the ground. Or 400 feet tall and 200 feet buried. It's pretty complicated figuring out the math here.

A related article from the comments below says that the final size will be small enough to fit on the back of a truck (roughly cargo container sized), or 10 times smaller than ITER being built in France.

I found it interesting that 55 pounds of deuterium is needed as fuel, but only a few grams of tritium ('bred' from lithium) is needed, since part of the nuclear reaction makes tritium to feed back into the reaction.

I was then reminded of many Star Trek episodes where power couldn't be generated because of damage to the "dilithium crystals". Maybe those should have been called "trilithium crystals" instead?

Other article, cited below

There's a much better article at Aviation week

Here's a much better article, that not only can differentiate between fission and fusion, but also has purty pictures too.

http://aviationweek.com/techno...

I think this AvWeek story http://aviationweek.com/techno... is a better description, but then Aviation Week has more technical writers..

It's in Aviation Week. It's compact, but they don't say what they're planning to do about the neutron flux.

It didn't work right, did not fully deploy and it was considered a success?

What the summary does not make clear (but which you could have discovered yourself had you followed the second link) is that the part that failed to deploy was a "bonus" test - not the main goal. The main goal was to test the basic handling and flight characteristics of the test vehicle. Two additional tests are planned (and were planned long before today) to test the SIAD and the parachute.
 

Now I see why SpaceX could replace NASA and this is coming from a Sci geek.

Being a science geek doesn't make you an expert on well... anything, it just makes you a science geek. In this case, you haven't [censored] clue what you're talking about - and as proof I invite you to consider the results of SpaceX's first three launches, as well as the preperations for the first Dragon COTS demo, and the second flight's problems as well as the ongoing problems with their current launch campaign. You're just repeating cargo cult crap you've read elsewhere from similarly ignorant soi-disant "geeks". SpaceX has a lot going for them, but unlike you, they and NASA live in the real world. And in the real world, shit breaks. Especially (essentially) one-of-a-kind prototype hardware on it's first flight - like the LDSD.

Let's say you could take over a Boeing 777

http://www.aviationweek.com/Ar...

Or . . . since 911 all aircraft can be sent a special code that renders them inoperable by the crew so the plane can't be used as a weapon . . .

And let's ask ourselves why would anyone choose to direct an aircraft far far out over a deep ocean away from and population areas . . .

Or maybe I read one to many Tom Clancy novels.

Boeing has a very large backlog (345 billion) of orders in the commercial sector.

I really doubt they will be up the creek any time soon.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_10_24_2013_p01-02-629774.xml

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:6dc7cb4a-39d7-4413-ac07-f145261f0e73

Some detail about the issue here.

I think they will get it sorted out. Orbital has a lot of launches under their belt.

See this take on the problem from Aviation Week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_22_2013_p25-597816.xml

Pilots are like anyone else, if they lean on a crutch long enough they forget how to walk. Then if the crutch turns out to have a fault, boom!

Even SpaceX does not use rad-hard components because of the expensive.

And make sure you have more than one running at the same time. SpaceX uses non rad-hardened computers on Dragon, and in their last mission one computer had to reboot due to a radiation hit, but the system works fine since they have redundancy, this is explained in detail here. So no, hardware in spacecraft does not have to be hardened against radiation, and off the shelf junk will work. Of course this doesn't mean you can use iPhone on Mars rover since in Dragon's case it's a short mission and they're under the protection of Earth's magnetic field, it just means you need to design your system in a case by case basis and avoid over-generalization.

Congress can actually conduct a public hearing on the matter in which the results minus names of targets could become public information through means other then the FBI.

Unless Holder and Obama et al decide to abuse Executive Privilege as in the Fast & Furious fiasco, to prevent Congress and the Judicial from obtaining any evidence and/or documentation.

Or, just simply stonewall. Seems to work for the TSA-related stuff they've been stonewalling on.

They seem to be channeling Andrew Jackson.

"John Marshall (Congress/Courts) has made his (it's/their) decision, now let him enforce it!"

When the government ceases to even pretend to be bound by the Rule of Law or any limitations on it's powers, that kinda narrows down the range of possible responses the People can take to correct it. It's not coincidental that the 2nd Amendment is under heavy attack. Soap, ballot, and jury boxes have proven ineffective.

Completely unrelated, but did you see the new IDF remotely-controlled sniper-weapon mount system? Something like that could be controlled from a smartphone app.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:835b7d06-e3e0-428d-930b-9ea88e088c29

Doesn't seem like it would be too hard for hardware hackers to duplicate that functionality with mostly OTS robotics-hobbyist parts and components.

Just sayin'

Strat

Karlsruhe-based E-volo says the Ministry has commissioned a two- to three-year trial program to create a new category of ultralight aviation to cover the two-seat VC200 rotorcraft now in development. In Europe, ultralights are aircraft weighing less than 450kg and carrying up to two people.

In place of a conventional helicopter rotor, E-volo's Volocopter has a fixed branch-like structure on which is mounted an array of battery-powered, electrically driven, individually controlled, multiply redundant mini-rotors.

Under the trial program, the German Ultralight Aircraft Association, Sport Aircraft Association and Federal Aviation Office will work with E-volo to create a manufacturing specification, legal regulations and training requirements for the new "Volocopter" ultralight rotorcraft category.

What this means is that the payload capacity of Dronet is potentially large enough to provide personal transportation given a standardized passenger "shipping container".

Details about the Dragon "version 1.1" can be found here:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3A8039e573-151a-434a-808d-bb5a8a3ad59b

And that's a huge problem with cyber: attribution. Even if an attack appears to be coming from a particular source, that doesn't mean it originated from and/or was ordered by that source. In fact, intentional misattribution or denial of attribution is yet another element of cyber operations. From a US perspective, we still don't have a comprehensive set of rules of engagement for cyber, or even really have consistent, well-understood definitions for what constitutes "cyber war" (though there's certainly a lot of hype...)

Some relevant recent articles:

---

Cyber Command struggles to define its place on a shifting battlefield - Nextgov

The U.S. Cyber Command, which directs network offensive operations for the Pentagon and protects its networks, is becoming more open about the military’s capabilities in cyberspace. Recently, the Defense Department was forced to show part of its hand when leaks surfaced about U.S.-manufactured cyber weapons and cyber espionage missions. Still, since 2011, the department has told the world it stands prepared to protect U.S. national security interests through cyberspace maneuvers.

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2012/08/hacker-wars/57438/

---

Confusion Reigns In Cyber Planning - AVIATION WEEK

Pentagon warfighters have for years been asking for a cybercombat policy, rules of engagement, funding and a less-fragmented chain of authority. But those needs remain unfulfilled as bureaucrats, lawmakers and top Defense Department civilian officials thrash about in a pit of indecision while an international complex of digital threats continues to emerge.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FDT_05_01_2012_p38-444018.xml&guid=74908

---

'Turf War' Slows New U.S. Cyber Rules - Defense News

Despite the ongoing concern about the escalating pace of cyber attacks, a new set of standing rules of engagement for cyber operations — policy guidelines that would specify how the Pentagon would respond to different types of cyber attacks — is being delayed by a debate over the role of the U.S. military in defending non-military networks, sources said.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120507/C4ISR01/305070015/-8216-Turf-War-8217-Slows-New-U-S-Cyber-Rules

---

Pentagon revamps rules of engagement for cyberwar - The Hill

The Pentagon is rewriting the book on how it defends against and possibly responds to cyberattacks against the United States, the top uniformed officer in charge of the effort told Congress on Tuesday.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/218435-pentagon-revamps-rules-of-engagement-for-cyberwar

...but for those who say the threat "isn't there", I guess this is just a figment of the imagination then? And they certainly didn't have any "help"...

Oh, I know, China isn't a "threat". The fact that it's on track to exceed US military spending by 2025 must be for "peaceful regional defense". This isn't really happening.

What about the F-35? Oh, yeah — that, too.

First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

Asia's balance of power: China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."

China’s military rise: The dragon’s new teeth
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

And now on to what's happening every day in US academic and business environments:

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Attacked Internet Security Company RSA, Cyber Commander Tells SASC
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/27/china-attacked-internet-security-company-rsa-cyber-commander-te/

Chinese Counterfeit Parts Keep Flowing
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news%2Fasd%2F2012%2F03%2F27%2F04.xml&headline=Chinese+Counterfeit+Parts+Keep+Flowing

China Corporate

Well the US is not one of those places. People are pretty much free to quit one job and take another.

Not necessarily. As a random example, if you're an FAA safety inspector you have to wait two years before you can be hired by an airline for a job that involves interacting with the FAA.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=mro&id=news/avd/2011/08/30/04.xml

Oh, the same Bigelow that just laid off half its workforce? Dream on, you delusional fruitcake.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/06/09/awx_06_09_2011_p0-334122.xmlheadline=LightSquared%20Tests%20Confirm%20GPS%20Jamming&channel=busav
"Simulations conducted by aviation standards developer RTCA for the FAA concluded 'GPS is likely to be unavailable over the who
le US East Coast' based on LightSquared's deployment plans, Robert Frazier, of the FAAs spectrum planning and international office, told the meeting."

This is a fairly reasonable question to raise.

To put the above numbers in context,
Each GPS satellite transmits less power than one of the ground-stations.
And it has to cover a whole hemisphere of the earth.
There don't really exist filters good enough to overcome that disparity.

The same Bigelow that just laid off half its workers? Bahahahaha!!!!! Give me a break. The intersection of rich people and rich people with enough free time and in shape for this kind of stunt is tiny.

Actually, looks like Air France 447 is mainly due to pilot error. Something about Europeans and ice screws them up completely. See Air France 447 and British Airways 38.

It appears to be much more complicated than that.

tl;dr - Lots of bad things happening in a complicated plane that insists on keeping some level of control in a flight envelope that has minimal room for error and in situations that many pilots don't get adequate training for.

Yep, pilot error for sure.

comcast / weather channel has the funds to have there own weather satellites.

False.

Pentagon Pegs New Cost Estimate For NPOESS At $11.5 Billion
"The Pentagon's latest cost estimate for the scaled-back National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program is $11.5 billion through 2020"

Lockheed Martin Lands $1 Billion Weather Satellite Contract
"The GOES-R system — whose total estimate life-cycle cost is $7.7 billion — will replace the GOES-N satellite series"

These are the two major NOAA weather satellite programs under current development. For comparison, check out Comcast's current market cap: $65B. No way in hell they'd undertake a risky $7-10B investment for a single cable channel requiring expertise in satellite design, construction, launch & operations that they don't have.