mxaxai wrote:

N328KF wrote:

Because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, OneWeb is moving all future launches to Falcon 9. Seems like that SpaceX's ability to reuse broomsticks is paying off.

https://oneweb.net/resources/oneweb-res ... ent-spacex

More that OneWeb was scheduled to launch on Soyuz and there are currently few other (competitive) launchers in this weight category. Perhaps the Indian rockets but I'm not sure how actively they're pursuing commercial launches.

Followup to this, since we don't have a thread dedicated to Indian launchers:

OneWeb signs contract to launch satellites from India in 2022
OneWeb has signed a contract to use India’s largest launch vehicle to deploy at least some of its remaining LEO broadband satellites this year, according to a company executive. The first launch with New Space India is anticipated in 2022 from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC) SHAR, Sriharikota.

Chris McLaughlin, chief of government, regulatory affairs and engagement at OneWeb, told SpaceNews the company plans to use India’s Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV).

https://spacenews.com/oneweb-signs-cont ... a-in-2022/
https://oneweb.net/resources/oneweb-agr ... pace-india

GDB wrote:

Axion Crew 1 back, re-entry starts just after the hour;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK29EBx7AH8

Crew was pretty wobbly on exiting the spacecraft. Was the crew able to use ISS exercise equipment during their “bonus” days?

I believe I heard a call for private medical conference after splashdown….

zanl188 wrote:

Crew was pretty wobbly on exiting the spacecraft. Was the crew able to use ISS exercise equipment during their “bonus” days?

And how much physical training did they get prior to their launch? 15 days in space shouldn't lead to that much muscle atrophy but if you weren't super fit beforehand, combined with the difficulty of adjusting to weightlessness and back, even a 10% loss would cause issues for a few days.

I thought the bilge pump noise was interesting. That was quite loud, never heard it before this mission. Maybe part of it failed.

zanl188 wrote:

Crew was pretty wobbly on exiting the spacecraft. Was the crew able to use ISS exercise equipment during their “bonus” days?
I believe I heard a call for private medical conference after splashdown….

It's a thing that's existed for thousands of years. Everybody takes a bit to get their land legs back after days of zero G or rough weather at sea. Some just show it more than others.

How did I miss the Crew-4 launch...

April 29th will see a new record: Booster 1062 will fly after a 21-day refurbishment. It will be her sixth lunch.

On May 8th, two Starlink launches from the east coast!

flyingturtle wrote:

How did I miss the Crew-4 launch...
April 29th will see a new record: Booster 1062 will fly after a 21-day refurbishment. It will be her sixth lunch.
On May 8th, two Starlink launches from the east coast!

A 21 day lunch break sounds a little excessive.

If the Starlink gets off on the 29th, it will be six launches in one calendar month.

And so it went. 21 days is the new record to beat. Still some way to go to the 'hours' turnaround timeframe that Musk keeps alluding to, although I doubt F9 will ever have a need for this kind of cadence.

As far as the dizzying launching pace, it almost seems as if the limiting factor at the moment is the lack of landing barges on the east coast.
May looks a bit quieter though.

Is it me or was that booster titling a bit after landing?

Speaking of which, I wonder what happened to B1069 (nice) which got damaged during its sail back to port last December... I hope they didn't have to scrap it, it was only its first flight.

There are questions about counting FH boosters, Amos-6 and the abort booster, but by my count, this was the 134th consecutive successful Falcon 9 launch, breaking the R7 family record.

and another Starlink mission this afternoon using a brand new booster - Starlink 4-15.

Will we see a super heavy booster static fire this afternoon? Possibly…

zanl188 wrote:

Will we see a super heavy booster static fire this afternoon? Possibly…

Pardon me. No static fire this afternoon.

GDB wrote:

Transporter 5, with 59 rideshare sats, lifted off today from the Cape, on it’s 8th mission, the previous being last month’s rideshare, landed back at the Cape.
22nd Spacex launch this year.

The cadence this year has been really impressive.

The SpaceX CRS-25 cargo flight to ISS was delayed due to a detected small propellant leak. The leak has been traced to an inlet fitting on a Draco thruster valve. The hardware is being replaced and the launch rescheduled to July 11th.

https://www.space.com/spacex-dragon-car ... ay-july-11

Avatar2go wrote:

The SpaceX CRS-25 cargo flight to ISS was delayed due to a detected small propellant leak. The leak has been traced to an inlet fitting on a Draco thruster valve. The hardware is being replaced and the launch rescheduled to July 11th.

https://www.space.com/spacex-dragon-car ... ay-july-11

Good to see that SpaceX is catching these things even at their current pace.

Thrusters and valves seem to be a key trouble point for all space vehicles. Multiple instances at NASA, SpaceX and Boeing.

Before Space X can launch its Starship in support of NASA, the Department of Defense, and the greater goal of bringing humanity to the stars, the FAA has required that SpaceX must (among other requirements):

* Prepare a historical context report (i.e., historical narrative) of the historic events and activities of the Mexican War (1846–1848) and the Civil War (1861–1865) that took place in the geographic area associated with and including the Area of Potential Effects (APE).

* Provide $5,000 annually to enhance the existing TPWD Tackle Loaner Program. This funding may be used to purchase fishing equipment (rods, reels, and tackle boxes with hooks, sinkers, and bobbers) for use at existing, heavily visited sites and/or allow the program to expand to new locations.

* Participate in wildlife photography introduction and instruction opportunities on‐site.

* Make an annual contribution of $5,000 to the Friends of Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge Adopt‐an‐Ocelot Program within 3 months of the issuance of the BO and by March 1 of each year thereafter for the duration of the BO. Funds donated to the program are intended to pay for…Special events to raise awareness about the ocelot.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginal ... e-faa.html

kitplane01 wrote:

Before Space X can launch its Starship in support of NASA, the Department of Defense, and the greater goal of bringing humanity to the stars, the FAA has required that SpaceX must (among other requirements):

* Prepare a historical context report (i.e., historical narrative) of the historic events and activities of the Mexican War (1846–1848) and the Civil War (1861–1865) that took place in the geographic area associated with and including the Area of Potential Effects (APE).

* Provide $5,000 annually to enhance the existing TPWD Tackle Loaner Program. This funding may be used to purchase fishing equipment (rods, reels, and tackle boxes with hooks, sinkers, and bobbers) for use at existing, heavily visited sites and/or allow the program to expand to new locations.

* Participate in wildlife photography introduction and instruction opportunities on‐site.

* Make an annual contribution of $5,000 to the Friends of Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge Adopt‐an‐Ocelot Program within 3 months of the issuance of the BO and by March 1 of each year thereafter for the duration of the BO. Funds donated to the program are intended to pay for…Special events to raise awareness about the ocelot.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginal ... e-faa.html

A lot of that sounds like extortion.

bpatus297 wrote:

A lot of that sounds like extortion.

It is environmental mitigation. It is something all project face. This is even more stringent in Europe (see the Gigafactory in Germany).

The historical preservation part is kind out there, but Texan are proud of their history

I'm surprised native burial sites consideration is not in there.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

A lot of that sounds like extortion.

It is environmental mitigation. It is something all project face. This is even more stringent in Europe (see the Gigafactory in Germany).

The historical preservation part is kind out there, but Texan are proud of their history

I'm surprised native burial sites consideration is not in there.

bt

I have been involved in several large environmental assessments and understand how they work. Contributing to the "tackle loaner" program has zero to do with the environment. Certain things are done to placate specific groups and keep them from causing too much a problem, hence the extortion remark.

They're 'placating' groups which seek to bolster environmental and historical conservation and education.
There's something to be said for not letting corporations just come in and do anything they want with any site they purchase anywhere and the area around it, even if the compensation mechanisms are going to be clumsy and imperfect.

As for calling this 'extortion', I doubt a few thousand dollars a year, a history essay and financing a few bird-watching classes will bring SpaceX to their knees... The delay in coming up with this report probably cost them much more than its findings ever will, but even that is debatable since I'm not quite sure SpaceX would have been able to launch by now even without having to wait for the FAA to make up their mind.

bpatus297 wrote:

Contributing to the "tackle loaner" program has zero to do with the environment.

You are talking about Texas here. Outdoor recreation is consider "environmental outreach"

bt

bpatus297 wrote:

A lot of that sounds like extortion.

Well...kinda everything that has any kind of condition attached to it is extortion or can be viewed as such if you wish.

Need food? Gotta pay money for it and the price is whatever the seller demands.
Need to get to and from places like work, home and stores quickly? Then you have to pay the price of whatever transport you use, the taxes that go with it and follow the laws (or you will be extorted with tickets and fines).
Want a job? Gotta have the experience and education, and often more importantly the contacts and network to get it.
Need a building permit? Gotta follow the regulation and pass the inspections and do as requested.

And basically, if they want to, SpaceX can shine on some of the requirements being imposed and go to court to have them deemed excessive or unwarranted if they need to. (Of course that often does not improve things for the next time one goes for a permit or whatever it is you want/need.)

Tugg

Francoflier wrote:

They're 'placating' groups which seek to bolster environmental and historical conservation and education.
There's something to be said for not letting corporations just come in and do anything they want with any site they purchase anywhere and the area around it, even if the compensation mechanisms are going to be clumsy and imperfect.

As for calling this 'extortion', I doubt a few thousand dollars a year, a history essay and financing a few bird-watching classes will bring SpaceX to their knees... The delay in coming up with this report probably cost them much more than its findings ever will, but even that is debatable since I'm not quite sure SpaceX would have been able to launch by now even without having to wait for the FAA to make up their mind.

Whether or not the payment amount brings a corporation to its knees is irrelevant to it being extortion. They are requiring a company to support activities that are not relevant to the protection of the environment from their activities. Tell them what they have to do to mitigate any pollution or to minimize the disruption of the natural flora and fauna in the area, that's it. What does SpaceX's activities have to do with the Mexiancan American war. besides the fact that it is in south Texas? Just more bureaucratic BS from the Gov.

bikerthai wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Contributing to the "tackle loaner" program has zero to do with the environment.

You are talking about Texas here. Outdoor recreation is consider "environmental outreach"

bt

Oh how right you are!

It's not extortion, it's a compromise with concerns raised by people who use the many impacted sites. In the absence of mitigations like these, the alternative is to not disturb those sites at all.

The mandate of the FAA is to balance the requirements of all the potential users of the impacted site, such that all can find it acceptable as a shared model. SpaceX cannot build facilities that impact a huge area, including nature preserves and historical sites, without some concessions. These are all relatively minor and in the ground clutter of the noise level of their operations. I'm sure they are quite happy to comply.

Francoflier wrote:

They're 'placating' groups which seek to bolster environmental and historical conservation and education.
There's something to be said for not letting corporations just come in and do anything they want with any site they purchase anywhere and the area around it, even if the compensation mechanisms are going to be clumsy and imperfect.

As for calling this 'extortion', I doubt a few thousand dollars a year, a history essay and financing a few bird-watching classes will bring SpaceX to their knees... The delay in coming up with this report probably cost them much more than its findings ever will, but even that is debatable since I'm not quite sure SpaceX would have been able to launch by now even without having to wait for the FAA to make up their mind.

The normal and correct way to make corporations "pay their fair share" is taxes. The defense department getting involved in amature-bait-tackle-and-fishing stuff is beyond "clumsy and imperfect". It's ineffecient. It's not how the system should be, and we can do better.

bpatus297 wrote:

Whether or not the payment amount brings a corporation to its knees is irrelevant to it being extortion. They are requiring a company to support activities that are not relevant to the protection of the environment from their activities. Tell them what they have to do to mitigate any pollution or to minimize the disruption of the natural flora and fauna in the area, that's it. What does SpaceX's activities have to do with the Mexiancan American war. besides the fact that it is in south Texas? Just more bureaucratic BS from the Gov.

There is no way for SpaceX to continue its activity in Boca Chica without damaging the environment. There is no way for them to operate without polluting or disrupting the wildlife.

As such, they very well could (and legitimately should) have been made to massively fund wildlife preservation effort or been made responsible for depolluting the site and returning it to its original wild condition after they were done with it. The conditions they were given to operate are barely even a token of what they really should have had to abide to. They are essentially getting away with plonking a large scale industrial operation into one of the last pristine ecosystems of the region for basically nothing (bureaucratic BS as you call it), in what is a classic example of 'better to ask for forgiveness than permission'.

I agree that some of these conditions sound a bit bizarre, but I see nothing wrong with a large business being asked to assuage local conservation groups (environmental and cultural) if they are to elbow their way into the community. Compared to the damage to the surrounding area and communities SpaceX will inflict, these constraints are not extortion, they're barely symbolic.

Francoflier wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Whether or not the payment amount brings a corporation to its knees is irrelevant to it being extortion. They are requiring a company to support activities that are not relevant to the protection of the environment from their activities. Tell them what they have to do to mitigate any pollution or to minimize the disruption of the natural flora and fauna in the area, that's it. What does SpaceX's activities have to do with the Mexiancan American war. besides the fact that it is in south Texas? Just more bureaucratic BS from the Gov.

There is no way for SpaceX to continue its activity in Boca Chica without damaging the environment. There is no way for them to operate without polluting or disrupting the wildlife.

As such, they very well could (and legitimately should) have been made to massively fund wildlife preservation effort or been made responsible for depolluting the site and returning it to its original wild condition after they were done with it. The conditions they were given to operate are barely even a token of what they really should have had to abide to. They are essentially getting away with plonking a large scale industrial operation into one of the last pristine ecosystems of the region for basically nothing (bureaucratic BS as you call it), in what is a classic example of 'better to ask for forgiveness than permission'.

I agree that some of these conditions sound a bit bizarre, but I see nothing wrong with a large business being asked to assuage local conservation groups (environmental and cultural) if they are to elbow their way into the community. Compared to the damage to the surrounding area and communities SpaceX will inflict, these constraints are not extortion, they're barely symbolic.

I know they will have an impact on the environment, that's why I said mitigate. I still hold that the EA should just be about the environment and nothing else. I don't see how supplying tackle has anything to do with the environmental impact of SpaceX. Government overreach at its finest, in my opinion.

It has to do with balancing the concerns of the recreational community, which is impacted by the SpaceX Boca Chica development. It's a good faith token action that SpaceX is aware of their impact and will work to encourage all those activities, so they continue and expand while SpaceX conducts operations.

Again it reflects the reality that SpaceX shares the resources they will utilize, with other groups and interests, that long preceded them in the area.

This criticism seems like a furthering of the FAA bogeyman narrative, with SpaceX being oppressed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Avatar2go wrote:

It has to do with balancing the concerns of the recreational community, which is impacted by the SpaceX Boca Chica development. It's a good faith token action that SpaceX is aware of their impact and will work to encourage all those activities, so they continue and expand while SpaceX conducts operations.

Again it reflects the reality that SpaceX shares the resources they will utilize, with other groups and interests, that long preceded them in the area.

This criticism seems like a furthering of the FAA bogeyman narrative, with SpaceX being oppressed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The FAA isn't the boogie man, and SpaceX isn't being oppressed, but in my opinion the EA process is broken. This just reaffirms my experience with several EAs across a couple projects I have been involved with.

kitplane01 wrote:

The normal and correct way to make corporations "pay their fair share" is taxes. The defense department getting involved in amature-bait-tackle-and-fishing stuff is beyond "clumsy and imperfect". It's ineffecient. It's not how the system should be, and we can do better.

First of all, the US is largely inefficient at taxing corporations and seemingly wedded to a political system that seeks to ensure it remains this way.
Secondly, income tax only taxes, well, taxable income... It is not meant to directly compensate for environmental damage by a business, which will happen as long as that business operates and whether that business makes taxable income or not.

In the case of SpaceX, I'm not sure what net monetary contribution to the state or nations' coffers they would offer.
They are mostly dependent on government funding and contracts for survival. The proportion of launches paid for by private entities is minimal. Most of their missions are either for NASA and the USSF or for Starlink, which they pay for themselves. Starship is so far not commercially operated and therefore produces no taxable income at all. Even if and when it starts operating, it will likely also mostly be used for Starlink and NASA missions.
Depending on the accounting they are using, it is quite likely that SpaceX is not contributing much (if anything) to the local or federal government, and certainly not enough to fund for the environmental conservation required because of their presence.

The system may well be improved, but asking environmentally damaging businesses to compensate their communities outside of the normal taxation schemes is not unusual at all and happens all around the World.
Once again, what has been asked of them is a fraction of bupkis in the greater scheme of things. I can't fathom how anyone would find this unfair unless the underlying conviction is that businesses should be allowed to do as they please with the environment with no interference from the community they operate in and profit from.

bpatus297 wrote:

I know they will have an impact on the environment, that's why I said mitigate. I still hold that the EA should just be about the environment and nothing else. I don't see how supplying tackle has anything to do with the environmental impact of SpaceX. Government overreach at its finest, in my opinion.

The cost of directly mitigating their impact on the environment would be much greater than what they have been asked to do. How is the government over-reaching if they are essentially letting them get away with environmental degradation and community disruptions for next to nothing? The FAA's ruling has to be the most pro-business compromise I have ever seen given the circumstances. I can't understand how anyone would see this as anything other than a win for SpaceX...

Francoflier wrote:

The FAA's ruling has to be the most pro-business compromise I have ever seen given the circumstances.

The FAA usually do not get into the weeds of environmental regulations. We have the EPA for that. Even so, the EPA only sets a federal level minimum requirement. Individual states have their own. California has greater environmental regulations where as Texas, not so much.

Much of the mitigation negotiation are done at the state level.

Francoflier wrote:

First of all, the US is largely inefficient at taxing corporations and seemingly wedded to a political system that seeks to ensure it remains this way.

Taxation also varies with differing levels among Federal, States, and municipal. It's complicated and span the spectrum.

bt

To clarify, the FAA is mandated to conduct environmental assessments prior to issuing launch site permits or launch licenses. This was done for the Boca Chica site originally based on the Falcon rocket development. SpaceX then sought to expand that to Starship, which is a significantly larger effort, with much larger impact.

The FAA consults with the EPA, Fish & Wildlife, National Park Service, state programs, etc, but it is absolutely their call on permitting and licensing the site. The permit documentation indicates that the FAA accepted input from hundreds of organizations, many of them environmental, recreational, historical. They'd be remiss if they didn't consider the entire constituency.

Avatar2go wrote:

To clarify, the FAA is mandated to conduct environmental assessments prior to issuing launch site permits or launch licenses. This was done for the Boca Chica site originally based on the Falcon rocket development. SpaceX then sought to expand that to Starship, which is a significantly larger effort, with much larger impact.

The FAA consults with the EPA, Fish & Wildlife, National Park Service, state programs, etc, but it is absolutely their call on permitting and licensing the site. The permit documentation indicates that the FAA accepted input from hundreds of organizations, many of them environmental, recreational, historical. They'd be remiss if they didn't consider the entire constituency.

I'd also note that these different parties and organisations did not unilaterally impose their demands, nor were they dreamt up by random bureaucrats. There were discussions and negotiations between them, the FAA and SpaceX in which these organisations explained how they would be affected by the site's operation and which resulted in agreements and compromises.

It also seems that SpaceX has scaled down its plans for the Boca Chica facility quite a bit and will likely move most of the Starship operation to Florida in the future. This negates the need of the envisioned gas refining plant, desalination plant and power plant that may have been needed to sustain the initially planned launch cadence.

Here's Scott Manley's take on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEsylegMAfc

Francoflier wrote:

I can't fathom how anyone would find this unfair unless the underlying conviction is that businesses should be allowed to do as they please with the environment with no interference from the community they operate in and profit from.

I didn't say it was unfair. I said it was ineffecient. You can tell because I didn't write "it's unfair". Instead I wrote "it's ineffecient". Right in the part you qouted.

Having the military decide the right amount that a space company ought to contribute to the local loan-out-fishing-poles-fund is just not correct. The previous sentence is super-obvious.

Also, at no point did I write that SpaceX should not pay for enviornmental damages. I'm arguing the correct part of the government to analyze the very complex calculations involved might be something like the EPA and not the DOD. And how the money should be spend might be decided by local governments or the EPA, but not the DOD.

In fact, none of the people you quoted wrote "hey SpaceX should trash the enviornment and pay no costs".

Wikipedia: A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

kitplane01 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

I can't fathom how anyone would find this unfair unless the underlying conviction is that businesses should be allowed to do as they please with the environment with no interference from the community they operate in and profit from.

I didn't say it was unfair. I said it was ineffecient. You can tell because I didn't write "it's unfair". Instead I wrote "it's ineffecient". Right in the part you qouted.

Having the military decide the right amount that a space company ought to contribute to the local loan-out-fishing-poles-fund is just not correct. The previous sentence is super-obvious.

Also, at no point did I write that SpaceX should not pay for enviornmental damages. I'm arguing the correct part of the government to analyze the very complex calculations involved might be something like the EPA and not the DOD. And how the money should be spend might be decided by local governments or the EPA, but not the DOD.

In fact, none of the people you quoted wrote "hey SpaceX should trash the enviornment and pay no costs".

Wikipedia: A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

Just to clarify, the FAA is a civilian entity, under the Department of Transportation. And as pointed out, they do consult with EPA and other environmental agencies. They aren't making decisions unilaterally or in exclusion or isolation from those influences and viewpoints. Indeed the length of the review process was to accommodate all the various perspectives.