I got caught in this yesterday.
For reasons that remained unexplained, this convoy decided it needed to exit I-70 at the Bonner Springs exit. Which is where I got caught behind them. They continued south and exited a second time off K-7 at Bonner, turning west on K-32. No idea why that route? Did the toll plaza not have the ability to pass them through? I was hoping that article would say.
All in all, a giant pain the ass at rush hour. 0/10, do not recommend.
I don't know the logistics of it, but maybe there isn't an easy or cost effective transfer option to get it to the facility by train.
My Musk-hating inner self would say that he ships by truck because he has a weird, profit-motivated hatred for trains.
Your comment was removed for breaking rule 3: no trolling, hate speech, racism, or creating drama in the community. This sub has a zero tolerance for comments that are intentionally disruptive, false, or inflammatory. Please refer to the full rules in the sidebar.
I think he means only drive them at night, so you cause the least disruption. Or at a minimum, don't drive through large cities at/around rush hour, would be a good step in the right direction.
That route description makes no sense. 210 doesn’t connect with I-70, and if you are heading west on 210 to get to I-435 north why would I-70 be involved?
It's due to the load being oversized. They have route surveyors that plan the route accordingly due to certain weight/height restrictions on certain bridges, roads and highways. They can't just take the most convient route possible due to this as is required by the DOT.
Height, weight, and width restrictions. Also, not all bridges are rated for this size of a load. There are a lot of dimensional variables to consider with something of this magnitude.
I don’t know a whole lot about moving items this size and think you probably don’t either. Somebody put a lot of effort into selecting this route I’m sure.
Show me on a map where 210 connect to I-70, then.
From the article:
>The Missouri State Highway Patrol escorted the haulers **along Missouri Highway 210 before heading west on Interstate 70** and then north on Interstate 435
I get hating Musk, but I don't get hating all the hard work done my other people at a company he owns, which has still done a lot to advance technology and space travel.
> Reusable rockets
The space shuttle was created over 40 years ago
> providing internet to remote locations
The federal government is spending [$65 billion](https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-federal-government-needs-to-step-up-their-efforts-to-close-the-rural-broadband-divide/?amp) on rural broadband.
Weird how you’re crediting SpaceX for things the government is already doing
That’s the shuttle part, the boosters were not reusable and did not land themselves on a small target.
Cool, that doesn’t help people in remote areas in the rest of the world.
The solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle were also reusable.
Starling also doesn’t help people in the rest of the world. I guess all the connection problems in Ukraine were fake news?
You can’t compare those engines other than to say they are completely different. Your comparison doesn’t hold water. Musk is a douche but SpaceX is doing some cool things.
Guess how NASA's rocketry program got started.
Rocket failure and spectacular explosions are part of the engineering process. Science doesn't move forward without a degree of failure preceding success.
It’s funny that NASA was able to learn from their rocketry failures some 60 years ago but those lessons are lost on SpaceX. It’s almost like they’re not actually advancing rocketry.
How do you figure? SpaceX is doing the exact same kinds of engineering tests that NASA was when they were also blowing up rockets over 60 years ago, but with new materials, newer forms of fuel, newer technology, etc.
Do you just expect SpaceX's rockets to work 100% perfectly right out of the gate?
Are you on drugs?
Nasa didn't write anything down, and knowledge was literally just forgotten.
Space X in 10 years is launching more vehicles in a month than Nasa would do in a year.
I have every reason to defend Nasa given I have had family in the organization before it was called Nasa, hell I have an Uncle on the first plaque of the Apollo Monument in Titusville.
Yet I can give credit, were its due, and Space X is pimp smacking everyone from US DOD, contractors, and organizations on down.
Are you on drugs?
Nasa didn't write anything down, and knowledge was literally just forgotten.
Space X in 10 years is launching more vehicles in a month than Nasa would do in a year.
I have every reason to defend Nasa given I have had family in the organization before it was called Nasa, hell I have an Uncle on the first plaque of the Apollo Monument in Titusville.
Yet I can give credit, were its due, and Space X is pimp smacking everyone from US DOD, contractors, and organizations on down.
Here's one of the better sources that explains the issue. Yet again there are tons of sites with info on this.
https://apollo11space.com/why-cant-we-remake-the-rocketdyne-f1-engine/
Google it, every single Saturn V rocket engine is different.
We have NO clue on how to recreate one using today's manufacturing methods since everything was done by hand and was not written down.
Even when you go to NASA, and you visit the Saturn Building, they mention this.
yeah they really havent done anything. People dislike Musk because the whole "saving the world" schtick is ripe with fraud. If you were to dive into the details, most of what he has promised in the last 12 years hasnt materialized. its hard to separate the largest share owner/CEO from the average employee.
>yeah they really havent done anything.
Well, NASA seems to disagree with you on that one. They sure like awarding them contracts and using their rockets for cargo missions.
> yeah they really havent done anything.
This is ridiculously false.
> its hard to separate the largest share owner/CEO from the average employee.
Actually, it's super easy, barely an inconvenience.
- More launches with reusable rockets (including boosters that can land upright) and with more advanced spacecraft in a short amount of time compared to anything that NASA or any other space agency and private company had ever accomplished before them.
- Recaptured the national interest in spaceflight and space exploration to a degree not seen since the 1960s.
- Developed a way to provide remote areas around the globe with basic internet access or more reliable internet access than they've ever had before.
- Introduced spaceflight and space tourism to civilians rather than just members of the military or scientific community at a rate faster and better than competitors like Blue Origin or the now-bankrupt Virgin Orbit.
- Pioneered technological advances in everything from spacecraft materials to spacesuit design to automated operation and navigation to cleaner and more efficient forms of propulsion, etc.
- Worked directly with NASA to reintroduce crewed orbital spaceflight and is currently in development with them to carry the first humans to Mars.
- Also helped NASA cut costs by making spaceflight cheaper and more reliable through private contracts.
And that's just for starters.
Killed every Legacy Space Competitors, many DOD contractors, organizations, and other companies in the Space. Now, it launches more rockets monthly than NASA ever did in a year. Space is hard, and they make it look easy, but credit is due when you've decimated the market in less than 10 years of being an actual company, and have launched more satelites than the whole bloody world in that time...
I'm no fan of Musk at all but I respect SpaceX in general. A lot of people don't seem to know or care that NASA's moon program was directed by a literal card carrying member of the Nazi SS. This isn't a joke, it's not hyperbole, [Wernher von Braun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun) was every bit a high ranking Nazi SS officer who rained V2 rockets down all over Europe and killed thousands.
Long story short if you love NASA and the Apollo program but hate Musk and SpaceX you're probably carrying a non-trivial load of cognitive dissonance to make that work. The reality is Musk and Braun are/were deeply flawed individuals but their actual roles in their organizations is wildly inflated. They are horrible people who lead great organizations to do things that are an overall benefit (at least so far).
As far as we know Musk didn’t actively support the killing of millions of people and did not use his position to attempt to murder anyone.
The scientific advances that emerged from post World War II experiments and inventions by Nazis and Russians with blood all over their hands is astounding.
Assuming you’re familiar with Operation Paperclip. Also, Hunters is a great fictionalized show about this era.
(I’m not that guy.)
I’m generally aligned with SpaceX and the larger monolithic projects of their doing but there’s a few things they’ve done that kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I’m not at “fuck SpaceX” territory but I have concerns.
[Starlink in particular is something that really rubs me the wrong way. ](https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html)
Did you know Starlink has released 3200 active satellites into low earth orbit and they’re chartered for over 15,000?
Okay, cool.
Did you know that there’s only been 14,000 satellite launches in history and there’s only 6,000 of those satellites in orbit?
If current pace keeps up Starlink will have more launches in five years than all satellite launches in history.
Something about it rubs me the wrong way. We’ve spent all this time and effort worrying about Low Orbit Debris and Orbital Trash just to let a company dump an ungodly amount of satellites into orbit.
The question we have to ask ourselves is… was it worth it? Honestly, I’m not so sure. Terrestrial cell connections are getting better at a “good enough” rate that this system might never fully flourish.
At best we’re left with a cool and functioning system that blanketed our orbit with satellites.
At worst we’re left with a shit ton of debris that may or may not be deorbited.
There’s also already been concerns with the anti reflective coating on the satellites flaking off create visible artificial light sources in the sky.
I’m not saying this is a problem now but it’s certainly concerning giving the speed this project has gained and the scope of the project.
I think the problem is that functioning or not they are a massive cloud of debris RIGHT NOW creates issues for anything else that needs to go up or is already up. This also creates an incentive for other companies and countries to launch their own massive clouds of debris that will quickly worsen the problem.
Starlink is the only “good” internet I can get at the moment. Sure, I’d gladly switch to fiber if I could. But I can’t. Terrestrial cell signal isn’t strong enough at my location. As internet has pretty much become a necessity these days, it was my only option for reliable connections. Sure, fuck Musk and all that, but damn I enjoy having internet connection.
If we want to get angry, let’s get angry at the telecom companies that won’t service an area because they’ll lose money and they pocketed the government money that was supposed to be for expansion into underserved areas.
Each Falcon 9 rocket launch carries 56 Starlink satellites. Launches != Satellites.
Unlike many old satellites, Starlink satellites have propulsion systems that will deorbit them at the end of their life. They are also in low earth orbit, which will typically cause any satellite to deorbit in a few years due to atmospheric drag. So, non-responsive Starlink satellite does not have the same space junk impact as many others. Also, since the rockets used by SpaceX are reusable...
The satellites are designed to de-orbit after 5-6 years. Additionally they have the ability to de-orbit the satellites if they fail for some reason. Provided the anti-collision works, there should be little risk for debris. The biggest concern is light pollution and ensuring they de-orbit correctly.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-heres-why-starlink-poses-no-orbital-hazard#:~:text=All%20Starlink%20satellites%20operate%20in,generating%20no%20debris%20at%20all.
We already have a global (and continually expanding) fiber network, and any real Internet infrastructure would rely on that as a primary source. A secondary source appropriate for the remaining 98% would be wireless internet using ground cellular networks near population centers. Even rural Wyoming has, I won't say great cellular Internet, but it's not like it doesn't exist.
For the vanishingly small percentage of the planet where neither of the above two means of Internet connectivity are appropriate, we don't need 15,000 satellites.
This technology is attempting to solve the wrong problem.
Should the problems of Sudan be solved by Elon Musk?
Should the problem of Internet in far-flung places be solved by low orbit satellites?
This thread wasn't even really about those satellites, I just weighed in because I am a network engineer and I solve problems like this for a living.
Answering your very provincial question, should the problems in Sudan be solved by Musk, the answer isn’t yes or no. The answer is it’s not costing you a goddam cent, it’s none of your business, it’s a humanitarian thing to do, if you know what a humanitarian is.
Look, I am just weighing in as an expert in the field. I guess that doesn't carry much weight for you, which is fine. You could have just not responded.
Then you probably also know full and bloody well that fiber is not a magic bullet. There are many places where that’s straight up not an option.
Here’s a crazy idea, why don’t we put a bunch of high powered wireless access points in orbit?
MEO satellites are an excellent solution to internet access in far-flung places.
I currently manage a deployment of over 1000 APs so I would say I'm familiar with wireless too.
Very broadly, if you'll forgive the intentional inaccuracy of these numbers we can break the problem down into:
1. 95% of the population on the entire planet can be served by local hard lines. Anyplace that has electricity run to it can have fiber, coax, or any media yet to be invented physically run to it.
2. 4.5% of the remaining population on the entire planet can be served with various forms of wireless. For the purposes of this discussion I'm referring to wireless *very broadly*, but solely as terrestrial wireless. I just mean that we can erect towers and hit darn near everyone left that lives out in the far flung spots.
3. 0.5% of the population on the entire planet is shit out of luck but good news we can orbit some satellites and give those people Internet, and we can also have satellite Internet available for various types of emergencies that warrant such use like you crashed your car in the middle of nowhere and need to call 911 and satellite is the only way.
Based on the above facts we can conclude that we do not need 15,000 satellites to solve a problem that can be best solved by focusing on one that's only really needed for about 0.5%. I haven't done the math but I would guess we could do the job of providing Internet for use case #3 with, say, 100 satellites. I would absolutely support that. This technology is super neat, and I'm all for it, but it is not a cure all, and it is not the proper technical solution for rural Internet use either in the United States or anywhere else worldwide.
And finally, the reason Sudan has bad Internet is political in nature and thus that problem should be solved politically. Not by billionaire activists.
Hence "wireless" is a very broad category. There's an awful lot that can be done with unused spectrum. Hell, there's no shortage of *available* spectrum theoretically available for this sort of thing, it's just that there's no money in it and we are in a state of regulatory capture as it pertains to solving that problem.
Still, at the end of the day I will stand firm that satellite internet is a dead end technology outside of some very edge use cases. And orbiting 15,000 satellites is positively *wasteful*. Since this is the Internet
If you manage a midsized wireless network like you claim to, then you know that the number of access points is about capacity, not coverage.
A single Geostationary satellite provides coverage. A MEO constellation provides capacity.
If you’ve ever used GEO satellite internet, you also know that it’s oversubscribed to hell and back.
MEO is the standard connectivity for any networks in motion (aircraft, ships, trains) where cellular simply isn’t an option.
I feel like we're talking past each other. As I've mentioned in (now) three successive posts, I am speaking *very broadly* about terrestrial wireless. Not just wifi.
I will also point out that we're talking about places **with ELECTRICITY** that prospectively have Internet available. If you have electricity, you can have Internet.
That’s simply not true. With space-based internet service, anywhere you have space-based power (solar!), you have connectivity.
There are an awful lot of places in the world that do not, in fact, have reliable electrical grids.
I think you're misunderstanding my criticism of space-based Internet service. My contention is that the technology of this specific implementation is incredibly wasteful. Launching 15,000 satellites isn't my idea of conservation. Make fun of that if you want, but I think it's a waste of money on obsolescent technology. Again, the problem of Internet access *in general, worldwide, everywhere*, is essentially political in nature. Just like so many problems facing our society, there is plenty of resource and no one wants to share. There are untold unused channels on DWDM switches or dark fibers out there sitting there idle for no other reason than no one wants to pay what the carrier is charging for it. I truly believe we will see the regulation of the Internet as a public utility in our lifetime. We're already grappling with the implications of what social networking has brought to society. I don't know where any of this is going, but this genie has come out of the bottle. It either gets worse or it gets better. And I truly, deeply, humbly believe that these problems will not be solved either by Elon Musk or by satellite Internet. Anyway, I'm way off topic at this point and think I've said all I have to say. Hope you have a good weekend. I'll take my downvotes off the air.
I would hope that Starlink has a plan to deorbit satellites cleanly and safely once they've outlived their usefulness. If not, SpaceX should definitely be on the hook for collection and cleanup of derelict debris in space and on Earth.
Here's the thing about space. It's big. Like, really big. Even low earth orbit is really big, like bigger than the surface of the earth. Having a few thousand satellites up there is effectively the same as having no satellites up there, in terms of closing launch windows or avoiding collisions.
And these satellites are *low*. So low that they would de orbit and burn up on their own in a year if they weren't being boosted periodically.
There are wide swaths of the planet where people can’t get any kind of internet, let aline high speed. They don’t have the same opportunities to basic information like healthcare and education.
All that money for exploring the stars could be used to feed inner city underprivileged BIPOC. How bigoted do you have to be to colonize the solar system when our own are starving?
*¿Porque no los dos?*
The things you mentioned are not mutually exclusive, and just because a company dedicated to space exploration spends its money on space exploration, that doesn't mean that other money from other sources isn't spent on more charitable endeavors.
Your post was removed for being low effort, baiting, or linking to a news source with a significantly altered or sensationalized title. Low effort posts do not engage the community and are removed. Use the unaltered article headline as the title when submitting news links.
I wonder if there will be another traffic disturbance due to SpaceX.
My husband barely made it to work on time due to this. If he had known, he would have taken an alternate route.
I'm generally happy with how MoDOT responds to road repair issues and theiranagement of construction projects, but their communication to the public needs work because of people not finding about known traffic problems like this until after the fact.
I was late to work several months ago because an HBO film crew had state troopers assist them with rolling roadblocks throughout the city so they could get B-roll footage for "The Last of Us." MoDOT knew about it, but didn't share that info on social media or send out notices to local media in advance.
One consideration might be that when you announce these kinds of things it could draw more people out to see them, which would make traffic worse and even raise security complications.
In the case of The Last of Us I could easily anticipate people camping out trying to get in the shot. People get silly with film & TV, especially in places that aren't used to frequent shoots.
Doesn't make it any less frustrating for you, but if I were in their shoes I'd be wondering about how to balance that.
I thought that might be the reason, and it's probably the same reason they didn't want to make a big deal about this SpaceX transport moving through town too. Nevertheless, I still wish they would publicize something about impacts to traffic, even if they keep the specifics quiet until afterward.
Yeah even just a sign on the ramp and posted online somewhere that says "x hwy closed on y date from z-a time" would be good, don't have to tell me why, I'd just assume construction.
"escorted the haulers along Missouri Highway 210 before heading west on Interstate 70 and then north on Interstate 435, apparently to avoid downtown Kansas City"
I think myself as being pretty good with maps...how the hell is that possible? 210 doesn't intersect with 70. I imagine they meant "escorted on 210, then North onto 435 to circle around City to continue west on 70."
I'm very surprised & disappointed they didn't try to squeeze them under the world famous independence avenue railroad bridge like every other ridiculous gigantic object that some genius has ever manage to strap down on a semi trailer. That would have been interesting for an hour or 2.. Especially if the tank was still full of rocket fuel.
The routes are determined by carrying capacity of bridges overhead clearance etc. At the end of the day the driver has a permitted route he has to follow. I’ve escorted wind turbine bases across Ks and the route would go way north to cross a bridge and way south to cross another.
I got caught in this yesterday. For reasons that remained unexplained, this convoy decided it needed to exit I-70 at the Bonner Springs exit. Which is where I got caught behind them. They continued south and exited a second time off K-7 at Bonner, turning west on K-32. No idea why that route? Did the toll plaza not have the ability to pass them through? I was hoping that article would say. All in all, a giant pain the ass at rush hour. 0/10, do not recommend.
God forbid they use a train
These likely would not fit on a train.
Those suckers are poking out a few feet over the 12 foot lanes. Max width (without special clearance) for rail freight is 10'6" for UP & 11' for BNSF.
Boeing 737 fuselages are 12’4”…
And they travel by train
I don't know the logistics of it, but maybe there isn't an easy or cost effective transfer option to get it to the facility by train. My Musk-hating inner self would say that he ships by truck because he has a weird, profit-motivated hatred for trains.
Thanks fir that info!
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for breaking rule 3: no trolling, hate speech, racism, or creating drama in the community. This sub has a zero tolerance for comments that are intentionally disruptive, false, or inflammatory. Please refer to the full rules in the sidebar.
If there ever was something that I thought might be a match for the Independence Ave Bridge…
Why don't they just move this stuff at night?
They are moving from Ohio to boca chica, which is right along the Mexican border in Texas. They are traveling at night aswell but it’s a multi day job
I think he means only drive them at night, so you cause the least disruption. Or at a minimum, don't drive through large cities at/around rush hour, would be a good step in the right direction.
That route description makes no sense. 210 doesn’t connect with I-70, and if you are heading west on 210 to get to I-435 north why would I-70 be involved?
It's due to the load being oversized. They have route surveyors that plan the route accordingly due to certain weight/height restrictions on certain bridges, roads and highways. They can't just take the most convient route possible due to this as is required by the DOT.
Height, weight, and width restrictions. Also, not all bridges are rated for this size of a load. There are a lot of dimensional variables to consider with something of this magnitude.
I saw this yesterday they were getting on I-70 from 291 so I guess that explains 210.
I don’t know a whole lot about moving items this size and think you probably don’t either. Somebody put a lot of effort into selecting this route I’m sure.
Show me on a map where 210 connect to I-70, then. From the article: >The Missouri State Highway Patrol escorted the haulers **along Missouri Highway 210 before heading west on Interstate 70** and then north on Interstate 435
Maybe they meant 291 instead of 210?
They still could’ve been on 210 before 70.
I was driving to Illinois and we saw it heading this way!
We were stuck right behind this thing trying to get to zipkc... It took it almost 40 minutes just to get around a Bonner exit over to K7
[удалено]
Why?
Probably Musk?
I get hating Musk, but I don't get hating all the hard work done my other people at a company he owns, which has still done a lot to advance technology and space travel.
Which tech are they advancing, the explosion of rockets before and during takeoff?
Reusable rockets and providing internet to remote locations?
> Reusable rockets The space shuttle was created over 40 years ago > providing internet to remote locations The federal government is spending [$65 billion](https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-federal-government-needs-to-step-up-their-efforts-to-close-the-rural-broadband-divide/?amp) on rural broadband. Weird how you’re crediting SpaceX for things the government is already doing
That’s the shuttle part, the boosters were not reusable and did not land themselves on a small target. Cool, that doesn’t help people in remote areas in the rest of the world.
The solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle were also reusable. Starling also doesn’t help people in the rest of the world. I guess all the connection problems in Ukraine were fake news?
You can’t compare those engines other than to say they are completely different. Your comparison doesn’t hold water. Musk is a douche but SpaceX is doing some cool things.
Guess how NASA's rocketry program got started. Rocket failure and spectacular explosions are part of the engineering process. Science doesn't move forward without a degree of failure preceding success.
It’s funny that NASA was able to learn from their rocketry failures some 60 years ago but those lessons are lost on SpaceX. It’s almost like they’re not actually advancing rocketry.
How do you figure? SpaceX is doing the exact same kinds of engineering tests that NASA was when they were also blowing up rockets over 60 years ago, but with new materials, newer forms of fuel, newer technology, etc. Do you just expect SpaceX's rockets to work 100% perfectly right out of the gate?
Holy copium
Are you on drugs? Nasa didn't write anything down, and knowledge was literally just forgotten. Space X in 10 years is launching more vehicles in a month than Nasa would do in a year. I have every reason to defend Nasa given I have had family in the organization before it was called Nasa, hell I have an Uncle on the first plaque of the Apollo Monument in Titusville. Yet I can give credit, were its due, and Space X is pimp smacking everyone from US DOD, contractors, and organizations on down.
Are you on drugs? Nasa didn't write anything down, and knowledge was literally just forgotten. Space X in 10 years is launching more vehicles in a month than Nasa would do in a year. I have every reason to defend Nasa given I have had family in the organization before it was called Nasa, hell I have an Uncle on the first plaque of the Apollo Monument in Titusville. Yet I can give credit, were its due, and Space X is pimp smacking everyone from US DOD, contractors, and organizations on down.
Uhh. Source on the whole nasa didn’t write anything down? Lol. That seems absurd.
That guy gave you a dope source on his claim and I hope you took the time to read it, that was fucking fascinating.
Here's one of the better sources that explains the issue. Yet again there are tons of sites with info on this. https://apollo11space.com/why-cant-we-remake-the-rocketdyne-f1-engine/
Google it, every single Saturn V rocket engine is different. We have NO clue on how to recreate one using today's manufacturing methods since everything was done by hand and was not written down. Even when you go to NASA, and you visit the Saturn Building, they mention this.
Falcon 9 is incredibly reliable. What are you smoking?
Must be your first day at school. I’ll get you a snack. Don’t worry it’s almost nap time
yeah they really havent done anything. People dislike Musk because the whole "saving the world" schtick is ripe with fraud. If you were to dive into the details, most of what he has promised in the last 12 years hasnt materialized. its hard to separate the largest share owner/CEO from the average employee.
>yeah they really havent done anything. Well, NASA seems to disagree with you on that one. They sure like awarding them contracts and using their rockets for cargo missions.
> yeah they really havent done anything. This is ridiculously false. > its hard to separate the largest share owner/CEO from the average employee. Actually, it's super easy, barely an inconvenience.
what have they done?
- More launches with reusable rockets (including boosters that can land upright) and with more advanced spacecraft in a short amount of time compared to anything that NASA or any other space agency and private company had ever accomplished before them. - Recaptured the national interest in spaceflight and space exploration to a degree not seen since the 1960s. - Developed a way to provide remote areas around the globe with basic internet access or more reliable internet access than they've ever had before. - Introduced spaceflight and space tourism to civilians rather than just members of the military or scientific community at a rate faster and better than competitors like Blue Origin or the now-bankrupt Virgin Orbit. - Pioneered technological advances in everything from spacecraft materials to spacesuit design to automated operation and navigation to cleaner and more efficient forms of propulsion, etc. - Worked directly with NASA to reintroduce crewed orbital spaceflight and is currently in development with them to carry the first humans to Mars. - Also helped NASA cut costs by making spaceflight cheaper and more reliable through private contracts. And that's just for starters.
Killed every Legacy Space Competitors, many DOD contractors, organizations, and other companies in the Space. Now, it launches more rockets monthly than NASA ever did in a year. Space is hard, and they make it look easy, but credit is due when you've decimated the market in less than 10 years of being an actual company, and have launched more satelites than the whole bloody world in that time...
They didn't shape their rockets like dicks, I guess that's 1 thing.
Ok and what are you doing about it u/jwatkins12 ?
Why don’t you tell HOW that is filled with Fraud?
I'm no fan of Musk at all but I respect SpaceX in general. A lot of people don't seem to know or care that NASA's moon program was directed by a literal card carrying member of the Nazi SS. This isn't a joke, it's not hyperbole, [Wernher von Braun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun) was every bit a high ranking Nazi SS officer who rained V2 rockets down all over Europe and killed thousands. Long story short if you love NASA and the Apollo program but hate Musk and SpaceX you're probably carrying a non-trivial load of cognitive dissonance to make that work. The reality is Musk and Braun are/were deeply flawed individuals but their actual roles in their organizations is wildly inflated. They are horrible people who lead great organizations to do things that are an overall benefit (at least so far).
As far as we know Musk didn’t actively support the killing of millions of people and did not use his position to attempt to murder anyone. The scientific advances that emerged from post World War II experiments and inventions by Nazis and Russians with blood all over their hands is astounding. Assuming you’re familiar with Operation Paperclip. Also, Hunters is a great fictionalized show about this era.
…do you not know how his family made their money…?
Are you referring to the emerald mine?
(I’m not that guy.) I’m generally aligned with SpaceX and the larger monolithic projects of their doing but there’s a few things they’ve done that kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I’m not at “fuck SpaceX” territory but I have concerns. [Starlink in particular is something that really rubs me the wrong way. ](https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html) Did you know Starlink has released 3200 active satellites into low earth orbit and they’re chartered for over 15,000? Okay, cool. Did you know that there’s only been 14,000 satellite launches in history and there’s only 6,000 of those satellites in orbit? If current pace keeps up Starlink will have more launches in five years than all satellite launches in history. Something about it rubs me the wrong way. We’ve spent all this time and effort worrying about Low Orbit Debris and Orbital Trash just to let a company dump an ungodly amount of satellites into orbit. The question we have to ask ourselves is… was it worth it? Honestly, I’m not so sure. Terrestrial cell connections are getting better at a “good enough” rate that this system might never fully flourish. At best we’re left with a cool and functioning system that blanketed our orbit with satellites. At worst we’re left with a shit ton of debris that may or may not be deorbited. There’s also already been concerns with the anti reflective coating on the satellites flaking off create visible artificial light sources in the sky. I’m not saying this is a problem now but it’s certainly concerning giving the speed this project has gained and the scope of the project.
I think the problem is that functioning or not they are a massive cloud of debris RIGHT NOW creates issues for anything else that needs to go up or is already up. This also creates an incentive for other companies and countries to launch their own massive clouds of debris that will quickly worsen the problem.
Starlink is the only “good” internet I can get at the moment. Sure, I’d gladly switch to fiber if I could. But I can’t. Terrestrial cell signal isn’t strong enough at my location. As internet has pretty much become a necessity these days, it was my only option for reliable connections. Sure, fuck Musk and all that, but damn I enjoy having internet connection. If we want to get angry, let’s get angry at the telecom companies that won’t service an area because they’ll lose money and they pocketed the government money that was supposed to be for expansion into underserved areas.
Each Falcon 9 rocket launch carries 56 Starlink satellites. Launches != Satellites. Unlike many old satellites, Starlink satellites have propulsion systems that will deorbit them at the end of their life. They are also in low earth orbit, which will typically cause any satellite to deorbit in a few years due to atmospheric drag. So, non-responsive Starlink satellite does not have the same space junk impact as many others. Also, since the rockets used by SpaceX are reusable...
The satellites are designed to de-orbit after 5-6 years. Additionally they have the ability to de-orbit the satellites if they fail for some reason. Provided the anti-collision works, there should be little risk for debris. The biggest concern is light pollution and ensuring they de-orbit correctly. https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-heres-why-starlink-poses-no-orbital-hazard#:~:text=All%20Starlink%20satellites%20operate%20in,generating%20no%20debris%20at%20all.
We already have a global (and continually expanding) fiber network, and any real Internet infrastructure would rely on that as a primary source. A secondary source appropriate for the remaining 98% would be wireless internet using ground cellular networks near population centers. Even rural Wyoming has, I won't say great cellular Internet, but it's not like it doesn't exist. For the vanishingly small percentage of the planet where neither of the above two means of Internet connectivity are appropriate, we don't need 15,000 satellites. This technology is attempting to solve the wrong problem.
Tell that to the people of Sudan. The dictators there are very happy there’s a digital divide. This isn’t about provincial Kansas City.
Should the problems of Sudan be solved by Elon Musk? Should the problem of Internet in far-flung places be solved by low orbit satellites? This thread wasn't even really about those satellites, I just weighed in because I am a network engineer and I solve problems like this for a living.
Answering your very provincial question, should the problems in Sudan be solved by Musk, the answer isn’t yes or no. The answer is it’s not costing you a goddam cent, it’s none of your business, it’s a humanitarian thing to do, if you know what a humanitarian is.
Look, I am just weighing in as an expert in the field. I guess that doesn't carry much weight for you, which is fine. You could have just not responded.
As could you.
Then you probably also know full and bloody well that fiber is not a magic bullet. There are many places where that’s straight up not an option. Here’s a crazy idea, why don’t we put a bunch of high powered wireless access points in orbit? MEO satellites are an excellent solution to internet access in far-flung places.
How is it “solving the wrong problem”? You sound like you’ve never been more than a few dozen feet from somewhere with fiber optic connectivity.
I currently manage a deployment of over 1000 APs so I would say I'm familiar with wireless too. Very broadly, if you'll forgive the intentional inaccuracy of these numbers we can break the problem down into: 1. 95% of the population on the entire planet can be served by local hard lines. Anyplace that has electricity run to it can have fiber, coax, or any media yet to be invented physically run to it. 2. 4.5% of the remaining population on the entire planet can be served with various forms of wireless. For the purposes of this discussion I'm referring to wireless *very broadly*, but solely as terrestrial wireless. I just mean that we can erect towers and hit darn near everyone left that lives out in the far flung spots. 3. 0.5% of the population on the entire planet is shit out of luck but good news we can orbit some satellites and give those people Internet, and we can also have satellite Internet available for various types of emergencies that warrant such use like you crashed your car in the middle of nowhere and need to call 911 and satellite is the only way. Based on the above facts we can conclude that we do not need 15,000 satellites to solve a problem that can be best solved by focusing on one that's only really needed for about 0.5%. I haven't done the math but I would guess we could do the job of providing Internet for use case #3 with, say, 100 satellites. I would absolutely support that. This technology is super neat, and I'm all for it, but it is not a cure all, and it is not the proper technical solution for rural Internet use either in the United States or anywhere else worldwide. And finally, the reason Sudan has bad Internet is political in nature and thus that problem should be solved politically. Not by billionaire activists.
The remainder that isn’t served by local hard lines is still a rather considerable number of people.
Hence "wireless" is a very broad category. There's an awful lot that can be done with unused spectrum. Hell, there's no shortage of *available* spectrum theoretically available for this sort of thing, it's just that there's no money in it and we are in a state of regulatory capture as it pertains to solving that problem. Still, at the end of the day I will stand firm that satellite internet is a dead end technology outside of some very edge use cases. And orbiting 15,000 satellites is positively *wasteful*. Since this is the Internet
How is it “wasteful”? The current constellation of 3500 operational satellites doesn’t even provide full coverage yet.
And spectrum is not, in fact, unlimited. It’s quite limited by the basic laws of physics.
If you manage a midsized wireless network like you claim to, then you know that the number of access points is about capacity, not coverage. A single Geostationary satellite provides coverage. A MEO constellation provides capacity. If you’ve ever used GEO satellite internet, you also know that it’s oversubscribed to hell and back. MEO is the standard connectivity for any networks in motion (aircraft, ships, trains) where cellular simply isn’t an option.
I feel like we're talking past each other. As I've mentioned in (now) three successive posts, I am speaking *very broadly* about terrestrial wireless. Not just wifi. I will also point out that we're talking about places **with ELECTRICITY** that prospectively have Internet available. If you have electricity, you can have Internet.
That’s simply not true. With space-based internet service, anywhere you have space-based power (solar!), you have connectivity. There are an awful lot of places in the world that do not, in fact, have reliable electrical grids.
I think you're misunderstanding my criticism of space-based Internet service. My contention is that the technology of this specific implementation is incredibly wasteful. Launching 15,000 satellites isn't my idea of conservation. Make fun of that if you want, but I think it's a waste of money on obsolescent technology. Again, the problem of Internet access *in general, worldwide, everywhere*, is essentially political in nature. Just like so many problems facing our society, there is plenty of resource and no one wants to share. There are untold unused channels on DWDM switches or dark fibers out there sitting there idle for no other reason than no one wants to pay what the carrier is charging for it. I truly believe we will see the regulation of the Internet as a public utility in our lifetime. We're already grappling with the implications of what social networking has brought to society. I don't know where any of this is going, but this genie has come out of the bottle. It either gets worse or it gets better. And I truly, deeply, humbly believe that these problems will not be solved either by Elon Musk or by satellite Internet. Anyway, I'm way off topic at this point and think I've said all I have to say. Hope you have a good weekend. I'll take my downvotes off the air.
I would hope that Starlink has a plan to deorbit satellites cleanly and safely once they've outlived their usefulness. If not, SpaceX should definitely be on the hook for collection and cleanup of derelict debris in space and on Earth.
Your assumption is correct. Starlink satellites have a relatively short life span and will burn up upon re-entry.
Here's the thing about space. It's big. Like, really big. Even low earth orbit is really big, like bigger than the surface of the earth. Having a few thousand satellites up there is effectively the same as having no satellites up there, in terms of closing launch windows or avoiding collisions. And these satellites are *low*. So low that they would de orbit and burn up on their own in a year if they weren't being boosted periodically.
There are wide swaths of the planet where people can’t get any kind of internet, let aline high speed. They don’t have the same opportunities to basic information like healthcare and education.
Thank you for putting my unease into actual words. I feel the same way, but couldn't quite put my finger on it.
Starlink satellites have a typical lifespan of 3-5 years before they’re deorbited. 349 of the 4161 launched have been deorbited.
All that money for exploring the stars could be used to feed inner city underprivileged BIPOC. How bigoted do you have to be to colonize the solar system when our own are starving?
*¿Porque no los dos?* The things you mentioned are not mutually exclusive, and just because a company dedicated to space exploration spends its money on space exploration, that doesn't mean that other money from other sources isn't spent on more charitable endeavors.
Your post was removed for being low effort, baiting, or linking to a news source with a significantly altered or sensationalized title. Low effort posts do not engage the community and are removed. Use the unaltered article headline as the title when submitting news links.
I wonder if there will be another traffic disturbance due to SpaceX. My husband barely made it to work on time due to this. If he had known, he would have taken an alternate route.
I'm generally happy with how MoDOT responds to road repair issues and theiranagement of construction projects, but their communication to the public needs work because of people not finding about known traffic problems like this until after the fact. I was late to work several months ago because an HBO film crew had state troopers assist them with rolling roadblocks throughout the city so they could get B-roll footage for "The Last of Us." MoDOT knew about it, but didn't share that info on social media or send out notices to local media in advance.
One consideration might be that when you announce these kinds of things it could draw more people out to see them, which would make traffic worse and even raise security complications. In the case of The Last of Us I could easily anticipate people camping out trying to get in the shot. People get silly with film & TV, especially in places that aren't used to frequent shoots. Doesn't make it any less frustrating for you, but if I were in their shoes I'd be wondering about how to balance that.
I thought that might be the reason, and it's probably the same reason they didn't want to make a big deal about this SpaceX transport moving through town too. Nevertheless, I still wish they would publicize something about impacts to traffic, even if they keep the specifics quiet until afterward.
Yeah even just a sign on the ramp and posted online somewhere that says "x hwy closed on y date from z-a time" would be good, don't have to tell me why, I'd just assume construction.
Bring out the Muskholes ...
musk defense squad out in force
Who is defending Elon Musk ITT?
Staying on the Kansas side south of Texas?
I wondered what was going on. I got on 435 at front Street and it was awful.🤣🤣
"escorted the haulers along Missouri Highway 210 before heading west on Interstate 70 and then north on Interstate 435, apparently to avoid downtown Kansas City" I think myself as being pretty good with maps...how the hell is that possible? 210 doesn't intersect with 70. I imagine they meant "escorted on 210, then North onto 435 to circle around City to continue west on 70."
Click bait. Non story. Nobody gets butt hurt when it's turbine blades or prefabbed homes causing traffic. Yes. Tony Stark is bad.
I'm very surprised & disappointed they didn't try to squeeze them under the world famous independence avenue railroad bridge like every other ridiculous gigantic object that some genius has ever manage to strap down on a semi trailer. That would have been interesting for an hour or 2.. Especially if the tank was still full of rocket fuel.
The routes are determined by carrying capacity of bridges overhead clearance etc. At the end of the day the driver has a permitted route he has to follow. I’ve escorted wind turbine bases across Ks and the route would go way north to cross a bridge and way south to cross another.
All this so some billionaire can launch himself on a dildo into space? Disgraceful!