SpaceX (general discussion)

I see a judge voided Elon's Tesla compensation package due to a shareholder lawsuit. Will this hurt his ability to fund Starship?
 
Oh Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
GFWnh0kbkAAbiUf


GFWnj35bkAElHSV


GFWnissbkAAUqPr
 
I was surprised to discover just how much the Falcon 9's payload fairings cost to make.

Edit: Concerning the IFT-3 flight the FAA is still holding things up.


Right now, SpaceX is only a few weeks away from Starship IFT-3 flight hardware being complete and ready to launch. At that point, SpaceX is hoping to attempt a third flight with a few upgrades and alterations based on data from the last integrated flight test. This being said, the company still needs a launch license from the FAA which could take time.
Click to expand...
New reports highlight SpaceX’s confidence in getting this approval soon while others mention that the FAA still requires more information from the company. This brings up concerns as to whether or not SpaceX will have to wait long after the hardware is ready to attempt the next launch. Here I will go more in-depth into progress on FAA approval, company launch date estimates, what to expect in the coming weeks, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/the-faa-ne...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I used to never see the first stage after the separation---but the PACE launch showed the upper stage really cooking its top...
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Switch if off for Dubai.

Do they have the ability to switch it off for receivers in occupied territory?
Click to expand...

Starlink is disabled in Russia. The units under discussion seem to be in occupied Ukraine. Starlink clearly CAN disable those; they did it last year, just in time to hobble a Ukrainian offensive. And since UAF are using Starlink to control drones attacking into occupied Crimea (for example) it is not desirable for Starlink to again disable terminals in occupied territory.
 
Did not realized SpaceX launches the Cygnus cargo vehicle to the ISS. So after 15 years they have the entire COTS program under control -kinda.
 
Archibald said:
Did not realized SpaceX launches the Cygnus cargo vehicle to the ISS. So after 15 years they have the entire COTS program under control -kinda.
Click to expand...
Not really. Because of Russia, there is no longer a source for engines or the first stage structure of the Antares. They are working with Firefly to design and building an alternative one. So 3 or so Cygnus will fly on Falcon 9. Just like ten years ago when three Cygnus flew on Atlas V.
 
I see. In a sense, adaptability of Cygnus to many different rockets could be seen as a tribute to COTS resilience. It is what NASA wanted in the first place when they started it all, in 2006.
- If the launch vehicle fails or is "incapacited", the cargo vehicle to the ISS must fly nonetheless. Change the rocket and launch that cargo.
 
TomS said:
Starlink is disabled in Russia. The units under discussion seem to be in occupied Ukraine. Starlink clearly CAN disable those; they did it last year, just in time to hobble a Ukrainian offensive.
Click to expand...
Is that REALLY what happened? Or did SpaceX just refuse to activate them? Big difference between taking something away and not granting something that was never possessed in the first place.
 
sferrin said:
Is that REALLY what happened? Or did SpaceX just refuse to activate them? Big difference between taking something away and not granting something that was never possessed in the first place.
Click to expand...

Systems that had been working stopped when they moved past SpaceX's arbitrarily defined "front line."
 
TomS said:
Systems that had been working stopped when they moved past SpaceX's arbitrarily defined "front line."
Click to expand...
So it's not like it was working and then stopped. They moved out of the defined area. I don't see a problem with that. Characterizing it as SpaceX deliberately shutting it down to spoke their offensive is inaccurate. SpaceX did them a huge favor by getting it to them as fast as they did in the first place. Can't blame SpaceX for wanting to limit their exposure. Let the US gov contract SpaceX then they bear the responsibility.
 
The issue was that this "front line" was specifically the line between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine, and SpaceX said that they had made Starlink available in Ukraine. This is a massive political/diplomatic faux pas; as far as the USA is concerned Crimea is a part of Ukraine.

The other issue is that Musk/SpaceX were very iffy about letting their terminals that were sold as civilian goods to be used for directly controlling weapons. The drone boats that have sank a bunch of Russian ships (got one again yesterday, a Ropucha-class) are controlled with Starlink receivers, anything else could be jammed. I think Musk actually has a point there, as civilians/private companies should not get involved in wars that way. The DoD agreed, and now instead purchases completely non-region-locked terminals directly from SpaceX, and gives those to Ukraine, so that the capability comes from the USA and not a private company.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom