totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[Pthigrivi]

You also have to wonder if some of the not-so-well-timed decisions regarding starlink access in Ukraine has made the feds less inclined to offer blank checks of late. Things take less time when pressure comes down from above. If that pressure is absent though... Being a big defense contractor can be a double edged sword.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Nuke]

i follow a channel that tracks the war from the standpoint of a retired infantryman. i wont post a link because it leans into the politics. part of the reason that starlink was discontinued in ukraine is that it was feared that putin would start using asat weapons against the swarm. so spacex decided to take a more politically neutral stance. im not sure the us government was involved in the decision other than perhaps providing access to official diplomatic channels. 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Nuke

[tater]

And of course the US government, if they wanted that capability made available, could provide it themselves without some sort of homebuilt stuff. That hardware is off the shelf and can be carried by many US platforms. Course all that hardware is made by other companies (Raytheon, etc) who could merely give that away. They don't, so that makes them bad, right?

[SunlitZelkova]

21 hours ago, darthgently said:

Nice.

I forgot to put a “know”. As in “you know people are trying to stop sea level rise, right?”

I had only three hours of sleep.

Apologies!

16 hours ago, Terwin said:

NASA was not keen on falcon 9 testing at KSC, which is why they built boca chica in the first place.

 

I would be surprised if spaceX did not ask about testing at KSC just for the sake of less red tape,  but I doubt they were keen on risking their historic launch pads for that purpose.

If that’s the case that’s fine, but no one should expect regulators to go along with SpaceX’s “break things and move fast” philosophy. They will take the time they need to approve things.

16 hours ago, Terwin said:

No one is saying they need to rush the job, they are saying 'why has this not even started yet?!?'

They work from their own schedule, not SpaceX’s.

”Please start the regulatory process now even if you don’t feel like you will have all the data necessary to properly assess the conditions,” or “just start now because we need you to do it now or have it done by this date” is basically asking them to rush it.

Obviously you don’t want them taking years to approve things, but I don’t think waiting a couple months is outrageous and it is totally understandable on the part of the regulators. It’s not the end of the world and is not going to significantly impact anything.

I mean let’s be real, the only real reason to do it now instead of two months later is for the popcorn and X views. Especially as testing picks up the pace later on, SpaceX will certainly be able to meet all the goals.

But before that, we need to let the regulators do their jobs. If they said it was going to take another year to finish it I would be sympathetic to the outrage, but a few months is not that bad.

16 hours ago, tater said:

One, as far as "the environment" cares, what difference would it make? Upsetting wildlife in FL is OK, but doing so in TX is bad? Should make zero difference. The practical difference is that test efforts in FL are far, far harder. Why? Because SS/SH tests would shut down all the other work nearby every test. A static fire would likely close down SLS work, or BO pad work, or ULA. The number of commercial flights offshore in FL (Lauderdale, Miami being S of there and very busy with flights frm N) makes FAA stuff even more difficult.

Upsetting the environment excessively anywhere is bad. Just because it’s happening in Florida doesn’t make it ok in Texas.

But as I said above, if those conditions exist that make Florida unviable, that’s fine, but don’t expect regulators to bend over backwards for them.

11 hours ago, tater said:

Fair point. But they would have been provided the plans. What exactly are they doing for X months?  What data needs months to collect, then reduce?

They need to hold a Q&A session to explain it.

But lack of explanation does not indicate malicious intent.

7 hours ago, Brotoro said:

FWS needs more data (assuming they are making decisions based on science). So they should allow test flights and gather data until they find something that could pose a long term problem.

They need to gather data now because letting things go on and potentially harming the environment is not only bad, it’s illegal.

3 hours ago, tater said:

And of course the US government, if they wanted that capability made available, could provide it themselves without some sort of homebuilt stuff. That hardware is off the shelf and can be carried by many US platforms. Course all that hardware is made by other companies (Raytheon, etc) who could merely give that away. They don't, so that makes them bad, right?

I think the “please provide Starlink for free” thing is over. This is about whether Musk has the right to restrict the users of his product.

I think he should get a pass. As Pavel Podvig, an expert on Russian nuclear forces said, “never try to stop someone who thinks he is preventing a nuclear war”.

[Pthigrivi]

8 hours ago, Nuke said:

i follow a channel that tracks the war from the standpoint of a retired infantryman. i wont post a link because it leans into the politics. part of the reason that starlink was discontinued in ukraine is that it was feared that putin would start using asat weapons against the swarm. so spacex decided to take a more politically neutral stance. im not sure the us government was involved in the decision other than perhaps providing access to official diplomatic channels. 

True this is dangerously close to the ‘p’ word. Just curious about the administrative consequences. 

[tater]

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

But lack of explanation does not indicate malicious intent.

Didn't attribute motive. I tend to think they're not not very bright.

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think the “please provide Starlink for free” thing is over. This is about whether Musk has the right to restrict the users of his product.

If the US government wanted that capability given away (a foreign policy issue), they would have done so. Doing the same as what the US government is already doing is hardly a problem. They have the right to whatever terms of service they like.

[magnemoe]

12 hours ago, Nuke said:

i follow a channel that tracks the war from the standpoint of a retired infantryman. i wont post a link because it leans into the politics. part of the reason that starlink was discontinued in ukraine is that it was feared that putin would start using asat weapons against the swarm. so spacex decided to take a more politically neutral stance. im not sure the us government was involved in the decision other than perhaps providing access to official diplomatic channels. 

I see asat weapons as very unlikely, for one its a bit unpractical trying to destroy most of the active satellites in orbit, It would require a lot of launches. Jamming might be an option. This would not work far from the front but that is the use Russia want to stop. 
I see it more likely that Must want to be seen as neutral, he want starlink in India and other places. 
Now the US military is interested in starlink and if they design stuff like drones around starlink capabilities they will have an contract saying Musk can not refuse the military to use it because I disagree with an war they get into. 
 

[tater]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Now the US military is interested in starlink and if they design stuff like drones around starlink capabilities they will have an contract saying Musk can not refuse the military to use it because I disagree with an war they get into. 

They are making Space Force their own small constellation of specialized Starlinks called "Starshield." if Space Force wants to loan that capability, that's a foreign policy decision.

https://www.spacex.com/starshield/

 

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

I see asat weapons as very unlikely, for one its a bit unpractical trying to destroy most of the active satellites in orbit, It would require a lot of launches. Jamming might be an option. This would not work far from the front but that is the use Russia want to stop. 
I see it more likely that Must want to be seen as neutral, he want starlink in India and other places. 
Now the US military is interested in starlink and if they design stuff like drones around starlink capabilities they will have an contract saying Musk can not refuse the military to use it because I disagree with an war they get into. 
 

That is what Starshield is supposed to do.  I'm not sure if it utilizes Starlink satellites or will have (has?) its own sats.  If separate hardware, it likely wouldn't need to handle as much traffic but I think the number of sats would still need to be high if in similar low orbits and for latency I'd guess the military would want as low, or lower, than Starlink 

Edited September 29, 2023 by darthgently

[Terwin]

11 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think the “please provide Starlink for free” thing is over. This is about whether Musk has the right to restrict the users of his product.

I think he should get a pass. As Pavel Podvig, an expert on Russian nuclear forces said, “never try to stop someone who thinks he is preventing a nuclear war”.

To the best of my understanding(I looked at starlink, but my area it too dense to make it worth-while right now), each antenna only has a limited region where it is allowed to operate.

This is part of the terms of service, and if you want to move into a different coverage area, you need a new account/antenna.

At least some of this is to limit the number of users in a given area so everyone can have a decent level of service.

 

Then Ukraine called up and said 'We need you to increase our area of coverage to include this part of Russia' and Starlink said 'no'.

I would not be surprised if the primary reason was that they would have needed to send a new batch of antennas to change the coverage area(or bring them all in for servicing so they can have their firmware re-flashed or something similarly logistically difficult)

Although just saying 'no' to a foreign country when they ask you to take definite steps to support their war with a different country also seems entirely reasonable to me.

[tater]

 

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Terwin said:

To the best of my understanding(I looked at starlink, but my area it too dense to make it worth-while right now), each antenna only has a limited region where it is allowed to operate.

This is part of the terms of service, and if you want to move into a different coverage area, you need a new account/antenna.

At least some of this is to limit the number of users in a given area so everyone can have a decent level of service.

 

Then Ukraine called up and said 'We need you to increase our area of coverage to include this part of Russia' and Starlink said 'no'.

I would not be surprised if the primary reason was that they would have needed to send a new batch of antennas to change the coverage area(or bring them all in for servicing so they can have their firmware re-flashed or something similarly logistically difficult)

Although just saying 'no' to a foreign country when they ask you to take definite steps to support their war with a different country also seems entirely reasonable to me.

I guess they want to charge more for moving targets especially ships and planes as its an very high profit market 
This hit boats and camping trucks as they are also moving. 
And everything here is software or regulations. 

And you have the loopholes. Even today the Norwegian national broadcast cooperation charges you for TV receivers here. And an company has to pay a licence for any TV while an family only had to pay for one. 
back then an 50" TV was much cheaper than an 50" monitor boss bought 4 to himself and used the company credit card. Auditor reacted so he had to show they was all in the office. 
Tax and accounting rules was followed, auditors don't care about the broadcaster rules. 
Same was true during dial up internet, Companies had to pay +10x more so using an private account worked well. 

[tater]

Supposed to be a launch in 8 min, too

Nevermind, moved to the end of the window. 10pm eastern.

[Spaceception]

Can't launch the SHLV they want, so they're launching the SHLV they have. 

It's been a pretty big year for SpaceX all things considered, 3 launches of FH with 1 more on the way, maybe 2 this year, outstripping their annual launch record with almost half a year to go, completing their crew contract, and making the first test flight of their next generation vehicle. And like they posted recently, its only been 15 years since their 1st rocket succeeded in flight.

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[Pthigrivi]

9 hours ago, tater said:

They are making Space Force their own small constellation of specialized Starlinks called "Starshield." if Space Force wants to loan that capability, that's a foreign policy decision.

https://www.spacex.com/starshield/

 

Have you seen the Aviator? I can't post it because of swearing but there's an incredible scene between DiCaprio and Alda that feels like this. 

[tater]

They already have all the non-SpaceX GPS sats (was military at first). Many built over decades before SpaceX ever built anything at all.

[tater]

 

[StrandedonEarth]

Woot! It's time to get psyched for Psyche! Of course, the real time to get psyched is when it arrives in ~six years

Seriously,  I didn't realize that it was finally almost time to launch Psyche.

All hail the mighty Falcon Heavy!

[CatastrophicFailure]

24 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Woot! It's time to get psyched for Psyche! Of course, the real time to get psyched is when it arrives in ~six years

Seriously,  I didn't realize that it was finally almost time to launch Psyche.

All hail the mighty Falcon Heavy!

This is the dual-drone ship landing too, right?

[magnemoe]

Just now, CatastrophicFailure said:

This is the dual-drone ship landing too, right?

Looks like two set of landing legs so yes. 

[Geonovast]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Looks like two set of landing legs so yes. 

Previous FH missions have been dual RTLS so the legs don't mean drone ship landings.

[magnemoe]

6 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

Previous FH missions have been dual RTLS so the legs don't mean drone ship landings.

The earlier ones was dual RTLS, usually also trying to recover second stage. later has been drone ship landings and ditching core. As I understand this mission will have dV issues I can say it will be drone ship landings. 
Unfornately for the ones watching it as the dual landings was super cool. 

[Geonovast]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

The earlier ones was dual RTLS, usually also trying to recover second stage. later has been drone ship landings and ditching core. As I understand this mission will have dV issues I can say it will be drone ship landings. 
Unfornately for the ones watching it as the dual landings was super cool. 

All Falcon Heavy launches have had RTLS for the side boosters except for ViaSat-3, which was fully expended.

They have yet to do a dual drone ship landing.