Europe Turns To the Falcon 9 To Launch Its Navigation Satellites 93
The European Union has agreed to launch four Galileo navigation satellites on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket at a 30 percent premium over the standard launch price. Ars Technica reports: According to Politico, the security agreement permits staff working for the EU and European Space Agency to have access to the launch pad at all times and, should there be a mishap with the mission, the first opportunity to retrieve debris. With the agreement, final preparations can begin for two launches of two satellites each, on the Falcon 9 rocket from Florida. These Galileo missions will occur later this year. The satellites, which each weigh about 700 kg, will be launched into an orbit about 22,000 km above the planet.
The heightened security measures are due to the proprietary technology incorporated into the satellites, which cost hundreds of millions of euros to build; they perform a similar function to US-manufactured Global Positioning System satellites. The Florida launches will be the first time Galileo satellites, which are used for civilian and military purposes, have been exported outside of European territory. Due to the extra overhead related to the national security mission, the European Union agreed to pay 180 million euros for the two launches, or about $196 million. This represents about a 30 percent premium over the standard launch price of $67 million for a Falcon 9 launch. Over the past two years, the European Space Agency (ESA) had to rely on SpaceX for several launches, including significant projects like the Euclid space telescope and other ESA satellites, due to the cessation of collaborations with Roscosmos after the invasion of Ukraine and delays in the Ariane 6 rocket's development. With the Ariane 5 retired and no immediate replacement, Europe's access to space was compromised.
That said, the Ariane 6 is working towards a launch window in the coming months, promising a return to self-reliance for ESA with a packed schedule of missions ahead.
The heightened security measures are due to the proprietary technology incorporated into the satellites, which cost hundreds of millions of euros to build; they perform a similar function to US-manufactured Global Positioning System satellites. The Florida launches will be the first time Galileo satellites, which are used for civilian and military purposes, have been exported outside of European territory. Due to the extra overhead related to the national security mission, the European Union agreed to pay 180 million euros for the two launches, or about $196 million. This represents about a 30 percent premium over the standard launch price of $67 million for a Falcon 9 launch. Over the past two years, the European Space Agency (ESA) had to rely on SpaceX for several launches, including significant projects like the Euclid space telescope and other ESA satellites, due to the cessation of collaborations with Roscosmos after the invasion of Ukraine and delays in the Ariane 6 rocket's development. With the Ariane 5 retired and no immediate replacement, Europe's access to space was compromised.
That said, the Ariane 6 is working towards a launch window in the coming months, promising a return to self-reliance for ESA with a packed schedule of missions ahead.
Smart move. (Score:2, Troll)
You have to hand it to SpaceX: They know what they're doing. SpaceX is to launch-systems what Apple was to computers back in the 20-zeroes. Betting on them at this point in time is a smart move.
Re: (Score:1)
back in the 20-zeroes.
You mean the noughties?
Abandoned launch programs (Score:2)
Re:Abandoned launch programs (Score:5, Informative)
Space launch is not easy. Multiple countries had satellite launch systems under development and then abandoned it: The UK
Sigh.
I fucking hate the government of my country sometimes. I know this was a long time ago, but the attitude has persisted, and the government is still staffed with the same brand of morons with absolutely no technical aptitude at all, and if anything a disdain for British industry, and therefore absolutely no understanding of what's needed for success.
Black Arrow is a failure that's been repeated ad nauseam from the 1960s to the present day.
All the money is spent to develop something new, the government gets an attack of the shits, cancels it (in this case it was on the promise of free launches from America, a promise which was subsequently withdrawn in a move that somehow surprised only the British establishment and literally no one else in the history of all time), then becomes dependent on someone else at great cost.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK isn't big enough to make a major contribution to space exploration.
As a UK taxpayer, you should be happy they aren't wasting your money on a game they can't win.
It makes way more sense for the UK to outsource launch services to others.
Also, the UK is about the worst place in the world to launch into orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK isn't big enough to make a major contribution to space exploration.
As a UK taxpayer, you should be happy they aren't wasting your money on a game they can't win.
It makes way more sense for the UK to outsource launch services to others.
Also, the UK is about the worst place in the world to launch into orbit.
The UK may be, but we've islands far closer to the equator. Ascension Island is 7 deg S... Cape Canaveral is 28 deg N.
but by and large, you're correct but that hasn't let the delusion of British Exceptionalism royally fuck this country over.
A British space program would more likely be a joint venture with Australia, so the northern parts of Oz can be used as a launch site. Darwin, Australia's most northerly city (complete with airport, rail link and deep water port) is only 12 Deg S but it doesn't mak
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We are indeed a part of ESA, and we are again (thankfully, after much government omnishambling) a part of the EU Copernicus program, much to the benefit of British science and engineering.
On top of all of that, we have some national independent capability work, including launch capability. There's nothing wrong with having national projects, as long as they are suitable scaled. For larger things, we have a close relationship with the EU, which makes sense, and we also have a close working relationship with
Re: (Score:2)
Make a deal with someone. ESA, NASA, whatever.
Why not just buy launch services from SpaceX?
Re: (Score:2)
Make a deal with someone. ESA, NASA, whatever.
Why not just buy launch services from SpaceX?
Recent events have made Europe a bit weary of depending on an outside provider.
Europe is working on a new launch vehicle (Ariane 6) but it's not yet ready, so Falcon 9 is the stop gap.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes way more sense for the UK to outsource launch services to others.
Also, the UK is about the worst place in the world to launch into orbit.
It depends on what you are launching. A small satellite launching capability from aircraft is certainly reasonable to have.
As for traditional rocket launches, you are correct for geostationary and beyond, but wrong about polar orbits. If you want to look at the Earth, a UK based launch is not unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK isn't big enough to make a major contribution to space exploration.
The UK build a satellite launch system in the 60s, and it's also many orders of magnitude larger than SpaceX. It is big enough.
At least we didn't leave the ESA.
As a UK taxpayer, you should be happy they aren't wasting your money on a game they can't win.
Investment and growth go hand in hand. The UK does a shitty job of both. That's conservatives for you!
It makes way more sense for the UK to outsource launch services to others.
It does
Re: (Score:2)
Someone's butt hurts.
Re: (Score:1)
What you have to hand to SpaceX is that they managed to drain US taxpayer money and NASA expertise to build a private enterprise.
It was necessary at the time for a bunch of reasons. But to make it seem like this is a SpaceX achievement is misleading. Signficant funds and expertise was funnelled into SpaceX to make this possible. At best, it's a joint effort.
And for a variety of political reasons, it's not a great situation for Europe to be in. Ariadne 6 really does need to happen, and soon.
Ah, another leftist idiot thinking that private companies are obligated to provide services (like transport to ISS) for free just because it's THE GUBBERMINT that wants them, and having THE GUBBERMINT *gasp* actually pay for the services rendered is theft, subsidy and so on. Newsflash: no, THE GUBBERMINT is not entitled to freebies from private industry.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that a private enterprise building out a capability that has only been available to state actors (putting shit in orbit), and then dramatically lowering the cost of doing so reliably - and cheaper - than what literally any other provider can muster isn't an achievement?
SpaceX pulled NASA's ass out of the fire they created by ending the shuttle program and being dependent on Roscosmos because they were fucking up Ares / Constellation / SLS, and ULA was too busy being a monopolist service pro
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
SpaceX is to launch-systems what Apple was to computers back in the 20-zeroes.
Overpriced and underpowered? That doesn't make sense.
HAHAHA (Score:1)
They foolishly caved to emotion and doubled down on expendable launch systems because it was easy money for ESA contractors. This is the near-end result. It's amazing how much willful blindness to competition fat established players have. Remember Microsoft, Nokia, and Blackberry openly laughing at the iPhone? There's lots of other examples. Anyway, the ESA is screwed, especially when Starship comes online. According to their own roadmaps they will have no answer to Starship for at least 15 years -- and by
Re: (Score:3)
I think you are confusing ArianeGroup with ESA. ESA will be fine if they launch on cheaper craft. It's like with NASA, are they be worse off if they focus on science instead of rockets that companies can do cheaper? Let ESA focus on landers, probes, satellites, etc.
Nobody can compete with SpaceX. Not NASA, not Boeing, certainly not little Ariane. Ariane can sell their Ariane 6 launchers as fast as they can make them, they don't seem to have any issues but if they focused on reusable crafts 10 years ago, you
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To answer your question, no I did not auggest Ariane was doomed to fail. It's nowhere in the post. Any other strawmen you want me to reply to?
Re: (Score:1)
Ariane’s history goes to 1973. Are you seriously suggesting that little Ariane” was doomed to fail again upstart like SpaceX?
Of course, what mere mortal can compete with the limitless intellect God Emperor Elon I. of Mars?
Apparently none, your idiotic sarcasm notwithstanding. Judging by sensible launch options, and their respective price tags, for someone interested just in orbital access, and not in making political statements, there is no alternative to God Emperor etc etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Ariane can in fact compete with SpaceX, if only on launch position alone. Theirs is much close to equator than Florida. The closer you are to the equator, the less energy you need to hit most relevant orbits.
But everyone is behind SpaceX in terms of launch technologies right now. So if anything, Ariane is the only one in a position to actually compete with SpaceX out of that list, because they have a launch site advantage no one else does. Including SpaceX.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason why SpaceX is launching from Florida and Texas, and why pretty much all large space launch sites in US are near its southern border. Most of what every rocket lifts by weight is fuel. The less fuel you need, the greater payload you can carry. Going to equator allows for significantly increased payloads for the same rocket, or a notably smaller rocket for the same weight.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's that important to be close the equator, would it be worth the red tape to make a deal with say, Mexico?
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps. French saw it important enough that they have a completely separate Foreign Legion unit fully dedicated to keeping their launch facilities and logistics related to it safe.
The other important thing there is indeed logistics. My understanding is that Southern Mexico has problems with that. You'd need to build up entire logistics chain as French did. They did it because French Guyana is sovereign French territory. Just look at all the problems Russians have been having with USSR's main Baikonur cosmo
Re: (Score:2)
I should think being ON the equator would be advantageous because of the rotational speed imparted to an easterly launch, but the problem with the countries with an east coast over ocean and on the equator is that they're either unstable or direct competitors (Brazil). Indonesia might not be bad if one could forge the right deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would we do that, when Puerto Rico is right there, also a US territory, and less distance from Cape Canaveral? In fact, it would be a huge boost to the economy there, which would be very popular politically in comparison to trying to bang out some international agreement that wouldn't end up fucking us over 10 years from now.
If the latitude difference was that much of an advantage, then that's where we would be launching from (other than those pesky hurricanes that tend to flatten the place every few y
Re: (Score:2)
Two primary issues with PR:
- Logistics
- PR has had multiple votes to determine if they should continue the current agreement with the U.S. and so far, they have always for the status quo -- so far at least..., but they could decide to go their own way if they desire.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would we do that, when Puerto Rico is right there, also a US territory, and less distance from Cape Canaveral?
The Jones Act. It'd be intractable to ship the stuff there.
Re: (Score:2)
And that couldn't be repealed if a greater purpose came along? Seems like that's a two-birds, one-stone kind of problem for Congress, since the authorizing legislation to build in Puerto Rico could also carve out an exception to the Jones Act, or outright repeal it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fair, also who knows, maybe their Falcon 9 clone will actually be good. Would be cool if the EU made a starship competitor too.
Re: (Score:1)
Ariane can in fact compete with SpaceX, if only on launch position alone. Theirs is much close to equator than Florida. The closer you are to the equator, the less energy you need to hit most relevant orbits.
But everyone is behind SpaceX in terms of launch technologies right now. So if anything, Ariane is the only one in a position to actually compete with SpaceX out of that list, because they have a launch site advantage no one else does. Including SpaceX.
Delta-v to reach LEO is about 10 km/s, the difference in boost you get from Earth's spin from being on equator vs Boca Chica is about 20 m/s. Barely noticeable.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how everyone who actually has to do the orbital lifting has noticed and thinks its relevant, isn't it? Just look at location of all the launch sites, globally. Everyone tries to push them as close to equator as they can, constrained mainly by their geography and logistics.
It's also why Ariane was so cost efficient for a long time in spite of arguably being behind on actual technology.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny how everyone who actually has to do the orbital lifting has noticed and thinks its relevant, isn't it? Just look at location of all the launch sites, globally. Everyone tries to push them as close to equator as they can, constrained mainly by their geography and logistics.
It's also why Ariane was so cost efficient for a long time in spite of arguably being behind on actual technology.
Yeah, they're all liek tooootally clustered on the equator [wikipedia.org].
Slash fucking s in case it needs to be said explicitly.
Re: (Score:2)
Mirror that with host nation borders, and you'll notice the thing your mocking is actually real.
Because national borders are a thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the modern left-globalist view is genuinely debilitating to one's ability to reason.
Again, national borders are a thing. They matter.
Re: (Score:1)
This is why the modern left-globalist view is genuinely debilitating to one's ability to reason.
Again, national borders are a thing. They matter.
Tell that to Cuba when they request Gitmo back (again). US wanted to have a spaceport on equator badly enough, they'd have it. They could also be launching from Hawaii, Puerto Rico or Samoa, all of which are far closer to equator than Canaveral. Or even Boca Chica, I mean NASA picked their location first, and yet, somehow they left it for Elon. But guess what, it doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.
Re: (Score:2)
So you post a confirmation of my point by correctly noting that there's a military aspect to the strategic locations.
And then you proceed to demonstrate your continued inability to reason by stating that this is evidence to contrary, and list multiple forward positioned highly vulnerable locations.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You:
>Tell that to Cuba when they request Gitmo back (again).
Me: yes, strategic resources do not go to easily compromised locations.
You.
>Don't try to deflect into military
I'm sorry, what? Deflect? You are the one who went there. Or do you think that US is occupying Gitmo with strong worded statements alone?
Re: (Score:2)
Then explain why Puerto Rico isn't Space Island?
Latitude of Puerto Rico: 18.22N
Latitude of Boca Chica: 18.45N
Latitude of Cape Canaveral: 28.39N
If it made all the difference you claim, why wouldn't we get 10 deg closer inside our "national borders" that are a thing? You think Puerto Rico wouldn't want the economic activity? Sure, hurricanes are a problem, but they're still a problem in central Florida too, and that hasn't stopped them from building very large and very delicate facilities right there on the
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially issue is that this is a national strategic interest (there's a reason why SpaceX fought hard to get to lift US natsec loads). So it cannot be in an easily compromised location. This is why French Guyana location has a dedicated Foreign Legion unit that does nothing but secure the sight and its logistics. It's why Russians don't put theirs in Vladivostok, and instead in the middle of Siberia, in spite of this having significantly reduced their capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think that the US Navy is incapable of protecting Puerto Rico?
Or the US Air Force?
Or the United States Marine Corps that already hold down Guantanamo Bay, which is actually a hostile presence on a hostile country's island next door, and has been for like 60 years?
If the advantage is what you seem to think it is, none of that would have gotten in the way when we were in a race to beat the USSR to orbit / spacewalk / rendezvous / the moon as a propaganda win that you were already spending > $60B in
Re: (Score:2)
How's that Baghdad Green Zone going?
What about Kabul?
I hear Al-Tanf is positively cooking this time of year.
Making bad strategic decisions has been a thing of people who believe like you that being militarily strong means making really stupid strategic decisions doesn't get punished. But decisions on things like nuclear strategy and space strategy are made by people who look less like you and more like the old bearded Silent Generation types that actually understand how the world works, and were fucking hor
Re: (Score:2)
So you contend that there is equal difficulty in protecting a facility 1000 miles from the Florida coast, which happens to be on US soil, and one that is 7,300 miles away? Did you forget that Guantanamo Bay is only about 600 miles away and has a couple thousand US Marines as well as a naval detachment ready to go at all times, including air support?
So you contend that there is equal difficulty in protecting a facility on an island which is wholly-recognized as a US territory, rather than one in a land-lock
Re: (Score:2)
Equatorial launch is helpful for equatorial orbits such as GEO because a "simple" launch will end up with an inclination approximately equal to the latitude of the launch site. Satellites that are not at GEO normally want inclined orbits, though, so they don't mind launch sites away from the equator. It's just that GEO was, historically, relatively common for relatively big satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Simplicity brings with it less need for fuel to reach similar common orbits. Which leads to larger payloads or smaller rockets.
We don't really need to go far for concrete examples. Soviet vs Russian space program can be clearly delineated into two generations. When it had access to cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, which is a bit closer to equator than any point of Russian Federation, and when it de facto lost it, having to launch from their secondary one instead.
Common payloads launched with same launch veh
Re: (Score:2)
Then why did NASA build in Florida, rather than Puerto Rico if the latitude difference is really that important?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So latitude was not nearly as important as the poster I replied to stated, being as political considerations were higher on the list than the technical advantage that being closer to the equator would suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
I address this point here:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You do?
All I see is a post about national borders.
You do know that Puerto Rico is a US territory, and has been for like 120 years, right?
Re: (Score:2)
If you pay some care to the line of discussion, you'll note that this consideration is addressed, alongside an example of a nation that does house its space program away from its mainland.
As I noted in reply to another of your posts, position of strength often results in acts of stupidity. When this happens on a strategic level, position of strength quickly evaporates.
Re: (Score:2)
If the launch site advantage was such a big deal, there are US territories close to the equator too. In fact SpaceX itself first launch site was in Omelak island in the Pacific ocean which is close to the equator. There's even US territory sites right on the equator such as Jarvis island and others.
Re: (Score:2)
I address this point here:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Buy? I guess it would surprise you to know that where NASA and ESA collaborate on a mission it's often NASA supplying a launcher as part of their collaboration rather than a direct commercial arrangement. It's quite amusing to see science mission launches branded as 'NASA missions' on US TV coverage, when NASA supplied the launcher and all of the actual science payload has actually been developed by other agencies around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
and all of the actual science payload has actually been developed by other agencies around the world.
And what would all that science payload be doing if it was still sitting on the ground? The square root of jack shit.
You do know that a launch can be more than one "mission", yeah? Like, the "launch mission" to put a payload - whatever it may be - into a specified orbit, and then the "science mission" to operate the instruments in that orbit for as long as the instruments survive?
It is a NASA mission, because NASA commissioned the launcher which is conducting the mission to deploy a payload, and it's laun
Re: (Score:3)
Ariane's main purpose is to ensure that the EU always has its own launch capability, for security reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Ariane's main purpose is to ensure that the EU always has its own launch capability, for security reasons.
LOL, Ariane's main purpose is to ensure French domination of European space launch.
Re: (Score:2)
So they've failed then, if they have to rely on SpaceX, even temporarily?
Re: (Score:3)
Who said they had to? They still use Ariane, they sell every slot they have.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you are confusing ArianeGroup with ESA. ESA will be fine if they launch on cheaper craft. It's like with NASA, are they be worse off if they focus on science instead of rockets that companies can do cheaper? Let ESA focus on landers, probes, satellites, etc.
Nobody can compete with SpaceX. Not NASA, not Boeing, certainly not little Ariane. Ariane can sell their Ariane 6 launchers as fast as they can make them, they don't seem to have any issues but if they focused on reusable crafts 10 years ago, you really think they'd be competitive now? I doubt it. Ariane is owned by Airbus and Safran which are doing fine.
For one thing, Falcon 9 is only partially reusable, even if the Space X fan-club members like to skip over the 'partially' bit. Secondly, Ariane won't be dissolved or privatised for the same reason that military and police usually aren't privatised, even in the USA. These are capabilities governments hugely value and a self sufficiency in satellite launches is too so the EU governments will be more than happy to continue subsidising Ariane. Furthermore, Ariane and a bunch of others are working on partially
Re:HAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)
By the time Ariane or anyone else rolls out a Falcon 9 competitor, Starship —which is fully reusable— will be in operation.
Re: (Score:2)
1. SpaceX is under the leadership of Gwynne Shotwell, not Elon.
2. Facts speak for themselves, it's been almost 10 years since Falcon 9 showed booster reusability and nobody has a Falcon 9 competitor. They announced Falcon 9 will be partially reusable 15 years ago and people like you said it would be impossible. How come nobody else has a partially reusable platform? Even the Chinese won't have one for a few years. The other space companies timeline for rolling out a Falcon 9 competitor into commercial servi
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has never heard of "rideshare payloads" apparently.
If you have the ability to send 100t to orbit, why wouldn't you pack it as close to 100t of stuff every single time you send it up, if you have additional contracts waiting and you're already launching into a compatible orbit?
They literally do this already, and have been for years. Starship won't be used for just really big shit like Delta-IV was, because the costs are going to be far less to hitch a ride than pay for your own ride up the gravity w
Re: (Score:2)
Most cargo ships are huge. The bigger they are, the higher the capital cost. Also, they have to fit through the Panama Canal.
Also, the cost of sending a container in a large ship vs. a smaller one (which are pretty big, btw) is not that different. Rideshare will cost less than single low-mass non-reusable launch -- like $20 to $15 million vs. $500,000 for 500kg into LEO.
Re: (Score:1)
By the time Ariane or anyone else rolls out a Falcon 9 competitor, Starship —which is fully reusable— will be in operation.
By the time Ariane rolls out a Falcon 9 competitor hell will have frozen over, and heat death of the Universe will have happened three times over. Ariane is pretty much a government agency pretending to be a private company, doing a "Europe can haz space too" project - how the hell do you expect them to produce anything able to compete with Falcon 9 on cost?
Re: (Score:2)
By the time Ariane or anyone else rolls out a Falcon 9 competitor, Starship —which is fully reusable— will be in operation.
By the time Ariane rolls out a Falcon 9 competitor hell will have frozen over, and heat death of the Universe will have happened three times over. Ariane is pretty much a government agency pretending to be a private company, doing a "Europe can haz space too" project - how the hell do you expect them to produce anything able to compete with Falcon 9 on cost?
As I already stated, money is on some state owned or private but state controlled corporation in China (with generous subsidies form the Chinese taxpayer) eating Space X's lunch just like BYD and a bunch of other Chinese EV manufacturers (with generous subsidies form the Chinese taxpayer) are about to eat Tesla's lunch. I know you think Elon is some kind of super genius real world Tony Stark but there is no way Space X is going to compete with Nation States in the long term, especially China.
Re: (Score:3)
"Falcon 9 is only partially reusable,"
You make it sound like they are barely reusing half of the rocket..... The first stage has 9 engines and has a dry mass of 22.2 tones, the second stage has 1 engine and a dry mass of about 4 tones and the fairings are about 3.7 tones. So by mass they reuse ~84% of the vehicle and by engine count (likely most of the cost) its ~89%. Though other companies are working on "partially" reusable launchers Rocket Lab and a couple Chinese companies appears to be the only one p
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. That's what they said about Airbus and Boeing.
Re: (Score:2)
But French Guyana is a French territory and as such is part of the European Union.
Almost 50% premium (Score:2)
Um, $67m -> $98m is an almost 50% premium - 98/67=1.462 A 30% premium (increase) would be “only” $87m per launch
Re:Almost 50% premium (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about 30% of the higher price, which is a 30% increase in Ars Technica journalism, where 200% of something is "200% more" and a performance increase is a performance "uplift" because the latter sound stupider, I mean fancier.
30% markup for theater - or foul play? (Score:1, Insightful)
Or rather they want they really want is that "access to the launch pad at all times for staff working for
Re: (Score:2)
Government contract (and the fact government cargo are self-insured) means higher price tag. Both NASA and NRO launch are about 30% more expensive than civilian launch due to additional requirements that civilian customer don't care about. ESA is not getting price gauged. They're paying exactly for what they want, and this is still cheaper than Ariane 6, never mind Ariane 5.
Re: (Score:2)
Kudos for SpaceX (Score:2)
SpaceX is an astounding company. Full credit to Elon Musk for getting it going and nurturing it through its painful phases.
Further credit for him not to have anything to do with currently running it.
I don't know what his contribution could be at this point, but these days he has gone full QAnon, spouting idiotic right-wing talking points regularly now. You wouldn't expect a drooling moron to believe what he has apparently fully embraced. It is really painful to see. I am convinced that his personal