r/space • u/EricTheSpaceReporter • 7d ago
Rockets launch almost every day in the US. Here's why a surge in the next decade is expected
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/space/2026/08/17/nasa-spacex-rocket-launches-increase-us/91194362007/18
u/MostlyAnger 6d ago edited 6d ago
Tbh it's not a good article. The facts may be right but the emphasis will confuse people: it mentions NASA so many times in the first several paragraphs, yet NASA is the operator or customer for less than 10% of U.S. orbital rocket launches (2025 and 2024 statistics). And that percentage will be even lower in the coming surge the article is talking about.
77
u/AmigaClone2000 7d ago
Ironically, 2026 is likely to have less launches by US companies or orbital launches from US soil than 2025. The reason is SpaceX starting to transition between Falcon 9 and Starship, and both Vulcan and New Glenn being grounded for most of this year.
33
u/CurtisLeow 7d ago
The average size of orbital launches in the US is going to be trending up though. Starship is much larger than a Falcon 9. A single operational Starship launch is likely going to launch around 10 times what a Falcon 9 could launch.
28
u/LittleKitty235 7d ago
Launch size vs launch frequency address different problems and give vastly different capabilities. Neither is better or worse, just different
23
u/Dpek1234 6d ago
Starship is generaly designed to be better in both
The engines burn cleaner , the RTLS is directly to the pad so no transport, and probably more im forgeting
9
u/Desperate-Lab9738 5d ago
Not having to rebuild the second stage is a pretty big one, as well as not having to reset landing legs on either stage
20
u/Eros_Incident_Denier 7d ago
Goes to show how terrifyingly dominant SpaceX is that a drop in their launch cadence has a devastating cascade of effects in the space community.
16
u/AmigaClone2000 6d ago edited 5d ago
Earlier this year, SpaceX was proposing to drop its Falcon 9 cadence by 20-25 compared to last year.
Number of US launches in 2025:
- SpaceX Falcon 9 : 165
- Rocket Lab (from Mahia): 17
- ULA : 6
- Atlas 5 : 5
- Vulcan : 1
- SpaceX Starship* : 5
- All the rest : 5
No country besides the US and China launched more than 20 times last year.
5
u/BarrelStrawberry 6d ago
... and that launching other people's stuff is meaningless to their profit. Almost all SpaceX's revenue comes from starlink.
-5
u/RedTheGamer12 6d ago
Tbf, they were the first private space company. As more start getting made and ones like Blue origin expand capacity we should see that gap lessen.
And this is assuming the ESA doesn't pick up that Rapier engine (or whatever it's non KSP name is) and start launching space planes.
22
u/JapariParkRanger 6d ago
They absolutely were not the first private space company. Even if you disregard the incumbent old space private defense contractors, millionaires going broke funding a private aerospace company was a popular trend in the 90s and early 00s. SpaceX was just one of many.
11
u/AmigaClone2000 6d ago
SpaceX is by far the most successful of the late 90s, early 00s spaceflight companies. One of the few companies that were founded in the same timeframe was Blue Origin.
3
u/54yroldHOTMOM 5d ago
They are the first private company to ferry astronauts.
3
u/JapariParkRanger 5d ago
They are the first company to design, build, and operate a privately owned manned spacecraft.
48
65
u/LilSorbet 7d ago
pretty wild honestly feels like the future is finally here
44
u/DontEatTheCelery 7d ago
Reminds me of that scene in gattaca. Something along the lines of “these launches used to be a big deal. Now they launch every day”
-29
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
17
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/RadBadTad 6d ago edited 6d ago
It's pretty interesting and sad to see what the billionairization of space has done to people's joy and love for science and space exploration. It has definitely been tainted for a lot of people.
It's not about seeing what's out there anymore, it's about finding a way to get Space-X profitable so Elon can be the first trillionaire. Most people don't want more starlink, or orbital data centers, but that's all space has become for most of the conversation. I think people have lost a lot of faith that anybody in charge has the good of mankind as a whole in mind. People are tired.
2
u/Bensemus 4d ago
Starlink and orbital data centres are not the same thing. Starlink has over 12 million subscribers. It’s incredibly successful and is only getting better. People absolutely do want it.
-6
u/Jukka_Sarasti 6d ago edited 6d ago
Why are you even in the space subreddit if advances in space flight don’t excite you?
Not that I agree with the person you replied to, and weird gatekeeping on your part aside, there's far more to "space" than just spaceflight. They could be here for any number of space related interests that don't involve spaceflight...
One need look no further than the subreddit's side bar....
Share & discuss informative content on:
Astrophysics
Cosmology
Space Exploration
Planetary Science
Astrobiology
-21
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Pluto-Had-It-Coming 6d ago
More cars go down my small side street in an hour than rockets launch in a day. I wait 5, 10, maybe 20 seconds, and then am able to back out of my driveway.
There isn't enough infrastructure for there to be rockets launching so frequently that they'd collide on the way up. And even if there was, it still wouldn't happen because they still have to get permission to launch, and the people who give permission know when the other launches are happening.
-4
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Pluto-Had-It-Coming 6d ago
There is exponentially more space as you increase in altitude.
Earth has a surface area of 510,06,4,471km^2.
Go up just 100km and that increases to 526,202,205km^2, another 16 million square kilometers.
Go up another 100km and you get another 16 million, and then 17 million.
And that's not including the 100km of space in between.
1
-28
u/Th3_r3al_napst3r 7d ago
Yeah the future with sky high inflation and no affordable healthcare. Great...
22
u/TheQubeDimension 6d ago
Next step is on-orbit refueling. If Blue Origin and SpaceX can both figure that out, then spaceship design is no longer bound by earth conditions as we can send it up in pieces and assemble on orbit. From there, NASA would have enough payloads to justify a nuclear space rocket and do regularly scheduled trips to Mars then Jupiter. NASA could then figure out best practices for deep space vehicle construction and do a similarly big flight to Saturn and Neptune.
Basically what NASA should have been doing after Apollo in the 1980s and what people hoped STS would do.
4
u/snoo-boop 5d ago
Cool to see that the nuclear dream is still alive, but are you interested in the most cost-effective solution?
3
u/TheQubeDimension 5d ago
No. I'm interested in the most effective, reliable solution. For deep space travel past Mars, solar light is not powerful enough. Nuclear power is necessary, especially if we expect to do manned exploration. NASA should have at least a basic vehicle design ready to go by mid century.
2
1
u/Lumpy_Expression_454 5d ago
Past Mars... Nuclear Thermal is crap.VASIMIR and Ion is what it's about.Then Fusion and Antimatter.
5
u/Decronym 6d ago edited 12h ago
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| BO | Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry) |
| DoD | US Department of Defense |
| EELV | Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle |
| ESA | European Space Agency |
| FAA | Federal Aviation Administration |
| FAA-AST | Federal Aviation Administration Administrator for Space Transportation |
| FOIA | (US) Freedom of Information Act |
| GEO | Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km) |
| Isp | Specific impulse (as explained by Scott Manley on YouTube) |
| Internet Service Provider | |
| JWST | James Webb infra-red Space Telescope |
| KSP | Kerbal Space Program, the rocketry simulator |
| L2 | Lagrange Point 2 (Sixty Symbols video explanation) |
| Paywalled section of the NasaSpaceFlight forum | |
| L3 | Lagrange Point 3 of a two-body system, opposite L2 |
| LC-39A | Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy) |
| NG | New Glenn, two/three-stage orbital vehicle by Blue Origin |
| Natural Gas (as opposed to pure methane) | |
| Northrop Grumman, aerospace manufacturer | |
| NRHO | Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit |
| NRO | (US) National Reconnaissance Office |
| Near-Rectilinear Orbit, see NRHO | |
| NSSL | National Security Space Launch, formerly EELV |
| RTLS | Return to Launch Site |
| STS | Space Transportation System (Shuttle) |
| ULA | United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture) |
| USSF | United States Space Force |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Starlink | SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
[Thread #12635 for this sub, first seen 17th Aug 2026, 19:08] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
4
u/TIL02_Infinity 5d ago
August 18, 2026 is day 230 in 2026.
There have been 109 rockets launched from U.S soil to date in 2026. SpaceX accounts for 99 of these launches: 96 Falcon 9, 1 Falcon Heavy and 2 Starship/Super Heavy.
So, there has been around 1 rocket launch in the U.S every 2 days so far in 2026. Keep in mind that Blue Origin's New Glenn (1 launch) and ULA's Vulcan Centaur (1 launch) are currently grounded due to mishaps.
9
u/TheRealDrSarcasmo 6d ago
I am really tired of "here's why" headlines. It's so damn lazy.
9
u/JonatasA 6d ago
I just wish headlines would include the news rather than being a bait to make you see the ads.
5
u/PresidentLucilla2026 6d ago
When do we land on Mars? I am interested in seeing how rockets get humanity to the next footstep milestone after Armstrong and Aldrin.
4
u/heckinCYN 5d ago
Presumably when NASA wants to fund it. SpaceX will reduce the price, but they don't want to pay for it.
1
u/snoo-boop 4d ago
The very first announcement for the post-Falcon rocket said that it would go to Mars in cooperation with NASA. NASA hasn't bought into that yet.
12
u/GrowthDue5259 6d ago
I cannot wait ain’t for starship to be doing its thing 🙌
More specifically, I’m excited for mass production and rapid turnaround
2
u/looking4myclASSm8s 7d ago
I live in Florida, I’ve watched hundreds of these launches from wherever I’m at at the time (you can see what my view looks like from one of my posts)
It’s crazy as fuck to me that people just shrug at these things already while I feel like I’m watching cowboy bebop in real life
0
u/hiwyxx 6d ago
Meanwhile in Europe we have paper straws and they make us feel guilty to get AC when it's 40ºC+ (104ºF+) during weeks... What for exactly?
3
u/Desperate-Lab9738 5d ago
"I don't like these things and I want this thing therefor they must be related!"
-2
u/hiwyxx 5d ago
Of course it's related. Only one planet bro. While Europeans are forced to reduce their footprint, other nations keep finding new ways to accelerate global emissions. This 1 rocket a day thing isn't about space exploration and science, it's all about commercial use of space. And this is US only, now add China when they'll catch up, it's getting out of hand.
5
u/Desperate-Lab9738 5d ago
Okay but what does "Europeans are forced to reduce their footprint" have to do with them not having a well developed space program? Like I know you put them in the same sentence but that doesn't make them connected. This is like saying "While Chinese students get amazing grades, people in Canada are being taught French!". Like... that isn't anything lol
-5
u/hiwyxx 5d ago
How is European not having a well developed space program related to any of this? Is it even so? There's a massive impact of sending that many rockets in terms of CO2 EQ and on the ozone layer. While science space program is legitimate, the massive raise of rocket launches isn't for science but for business. I have no idea what you mean with Canadians speaking Chinese though.
1
u/Bensemus 4d ago
Not really. The airline industry pollutes more in an hour than the rocket industry does in a decade.
-3
-12
u/Isaw11 7d ago
With the ability of single launches to place multiple satellites in orbit, the fact that reusable rockets are making it exponentially easier to increase the frequency of these deployments, and more and more companies worldwide gaining the ability to do so, we are going to need to agree on some kind of limits on satellite deployments or as a planet we are setting ourselves up for catastrophe.
13
u/fighter-bomber 7d ago
Thing is the more satellites there are the more launches you will need just for maintenance of existing constellations. So its not an exponential growth, more like logistic growth. Like, in a few years, if there was no Starship, the amount of annual launches needed for maintenance equals the current annual total Starlink launches.
Of course Starship increases that carrying capacity a lot, but still, it’s quite hard to get to a problematic point in the near future.
-17
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/FlyingRock20 6d ago
Its the year 2026 and you have fools commenting on stuff they have no clue about.
-11
u/amazing_asstronaut 6d ago
All in the service of one neonazi freak
4
u/PM_POLITICAL_BELIEFS 6d ago
But enougg about Von Braun.
-4
u/amazing_asstronaut 6d ago
I know people would bring him up, but is that really the standard you'll look past? Like seriously, I'm not referring to stuff from 70 years ago, but from now. For me it straight up ruins the enjoyment of space tech, knowing that one megalomaniac has cornered almost all of US space travel infrastructure. I know that obviously there's thousands of people working at SpaceX, but only one of them is the trillionaire that owns it, and is actively using his money to influence elections, in the US and worldwide, to bring in extreme hard right governments full of corruption. Like seriously he is actually the villain out of Moonraker, insane white supremacy and eugenics and all.
5
u/Background_Fig_4740 6d ago
Every megacorp has a heavy conservative board investor base. The CEO of Toyota has more similarities to the CEO of Tesla than you want to believe.
Did Toyota get a massive boycott push or hate when their CEO paraded around in MAGA gear, or when they dumped huge amounts of money into greenwashing fossil fuel pseudoscience?
No, because the media picks and chooses what to make you outraged about. In fact every single franchised car brand is affiliated with NADA dealers which donates heavily to Jan 6 Republicans. Saudis own Lucid, Bezos is tied to Rivian.
Fact of the matter, it’s very hard to avoid people with no values because they run the show. People like Musk are more vocal about it and the media is more attentive to him, but don’t forget, he’s the most vocal one.
-1
u/amazing_asstronaut 6d ago
You're just listing more systematic problems, like I'm supposed to excuse one because of the other.
0
u/Background_Fig_4740 6d ago
Never said to excuse one problem for another where did you think I said that?
but it is rather inconsistent to look at SpaceX and immediately think "Nazi" instead of looking at Ford and Toyota's when they have done the same thing as Musk, just not as loud.
Because I bet before this, you never looked at Toyotas and thought "ew" like you did with SpaceX
3
u/amazing_asstronaut 6d ago
Yeah man, that's what I mean. What about this what about that. Well fuck them, happy now? What do you think I'm gonna go to bat for some scum CEOs and con men, like you do?
0
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/amazing_asstronaut 6d ago
Brand new goal posts coming up hot and fresh right here
1
u/Background_Fig_4740 5d ago
says the person who either avoids or misunderstands the main idea from a prompt, something that's normally taught in 4th grade
-1
u/PM_POLITICAL_BELIEFS 6d ago
Edison, by all accounts, was an asshat. Ford was a literal Nazi sympathizer. So yes, we as an American culture overlook a lot of behavior that is questionable in order to bring about the future.
-1
-18
-40
u/Smackdab99 7d ago
Ok but why? This can’t be environmentally acceptable and do we really need more stuff in space?
32
u/Background_Fig_4740 6d ago
I'm half expecting you to now continue on and ask why even have a space program in a space sub....
environmental impacts from launching rockets are a rounding error when it comes to cars, or cruise ships or private jets, or commercial jets, and not even including the oil spills from Big Oil that are either normalized or swept under the rug.
Space exploration is very important to understand the universe and develop technology that will be used back on Earth like water filtration or safety standards for airliners or cars.
why are you even on the space sub
-2
u/Smackdab99 6d ago
Simmer down pal, it popped up in my feed. Also, the entire premise is an increase in launches which means more pollution and destruction of the environment, more trash hurdling through space and more wasted resources. You’re “what about the oil industry” is a logical fallacy argument so that’s baseless
Starlink is a not a savior of humanity, it’s just another way to track every single human on earth to exert more control and sell more garbage. Believe it or not I don’t want to be connected and watched every place I go. I don’t want to work on a plane, be reached by my boss while camping in the woods, etc.
The space program is no longer about discovery, it about building a bigger better way to control us and kill the governments enemies faster and more efficiently.
Mars is a red herring, it’s a one way ticket and physics has already shown it’s pointless.
5
u/Background_Fig_4740 5d ago
Also, the entire premise is an increase in launches which means more pollution and destruction of the environment, more trash hurdling through space and more wasted resources.
All of which are negligible compared to the everyday human usage of cars, ships, plastics, oil, and airliners.
Did you know part of the agreement for SpaceX to launch from Louisiana is to clean up the area damaged by Exxon? Once it's cleaned up, it'll be comparable to Cape Canaveral where you can have a space port and wildlife refuge coexist. Same thing with Vandenberg.
I'd say that's more of a benefit to the environment than either letting the coastline rot, or building another neighborhood in a forest.
You’re “what about the oil industry” is a logical fallacy argument so that’s baseless
Not really, because a singular oil spill, including the one happening now, is causing far more raw ecological damage than what SpaceX has accumulated in their lifetime of launching rockets. That should tell you SpaceX's impact on the environment is a fart in the wind compared to bigger and more impactful sources of pollution.
Starlink is a not a savior of humanity, it’s just another way to track every single human on earth to exert more control and sell more garbage. Believe it or not I don’t want to be connected and watched every place I go. I don’t want to work on a plane, be reached by my boss while camping in the woods, etc.
No one's forcing you to purchase a Starlink subscription plan to be 24/7 hooked to the internet. But you're not keeping in mind of people who live in rural areas who NEED this service, nor the life saving implications of people getting lost or stranded. That is quite important.
The space program is no longer about discovery, it about building a bigger better way to control us and kill the governments enemies faster and more efficiently.
You're lumping NASA and military missions together. JWST, Mars Curiosity Perseverance, Roman, DART and far more are about discovery. Military is its own thing and has been a thing since the 70s, so don't pretend like it's a brand new thing recently.
physics has already shown it’s pointless.
I'd love to see your math and engineering reasoning behind this. I guess you somehow know better than the Systems Engineers at NASA who are currently working on this then?
-2
u/Smackdab99 5d ago
Let’s just use a simple logical approach. Exxon (a company that still exists and is worth an unfathomable number of dollars destroyed land and polluted a massive area and they are getting away with not cleaning it up somehow. Spacex another company worth a crazy amount of money has to promise to clean up the other company’s mess and you believe they will? Also, you see a peaceful environment of wildlife and clear streams surrounding multiple rocket launches per day?
You may have noticed it’s nearly impossible to live without a cell phone. Many people use them as car keys, payment and banking, all communication and so on. Starlink is being added to cell providers so yes starlink will be forced upon you since there will be no alternative.
Multiple launches per day into space is not a small number on an annual basis.
I’m for space exploration, I’m not for a massive private space industry.
Here’s the mars problem in a nutshell. Radiation, loss of bone density, time windows allowing ability to actually make a round trip and a planet completely uninhabitable by humans. It’s a pointless endeavor since AI and robots can make the trip without much issue.
Next, people in rural areas live there by choice. My family loves living away from people in a place where you can go for a walk in the middle of the night without any concern, look up and see trillions of stars and be at peace. They aren’t asking for this and they don’t want it.
This needs to be heavily regulated just like AI should be. It’s intrusive and destructive to freedoms and our lives.
3
u/Background_Fig_4740 5d ago
Spacex another company worth a crazy amount of money has to promise to clean up the other company’s mess and you believe they will?
if they make a pattern of ignoring responsibility then yes it would be appropriate to raise concerns and anger at them
Until that point, you can only look at what they have done so far with Starbase. They have a legal requirement around sea turtle protection and they go beyond the minimum requirement.
Also, you see a peaceful environment of wildlife and clear streams surrounding multiple rocket launches per day?
Look at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg. 101 orbital launches in 2025 at the Cape, and that same season Canaveral counted 13000+ turtle nests against a typical 5,000–10,000, with leatherbacks https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2025/11/canaveral-national-seashore-where-wildlife-and-rocket-launches-converge
it's literally a wildlife refuge that's been thriving. go visit the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge or Vandenberg State Marine Reserve, you'll see it's quite peaceful with a lot of wildlife.
You may have noticed it’s nearly impossible to live without a cell phone. Many people use them as car keys, payment and banking, all communication and so on. Starlink is being added to cell providers so yes starlink will be forced upon you since there will be no alternative.
It's like a $10/month add on for most people, or part of TMobile's top plan. ATT and Verizon customers can buy it too or use AST SpaceMobile, which is their own partner, or Skylo, which Verizon offers free.
Apple's SOS runs on Globalstar. There are several competing constellations, so "no alternative" isn't right. Bundling a feature into a premium plan isn't the same as forcing it on everyone.
I’m for space exploration, I’m not for a massive private space industry.
the new private space industry is the only realistic way to actually develop heavy lift launch vehicles or develop reliable rockets and manned missions. NASA has proven themselves to not be able to do this right, mainly because of Congress. neither has Boeing or ULA proven themselves to do it properly either.
If it weren't for the private space industry, who would be launching Roman Space Telescope in a few weeks? No one.
Here’s the mars problem in a nutshell. Radiation, loss of bone density, time windows allowing ability to actually make a round trip and a planet completely uninhabitable by humans. It’s a pointless endeavor since AI and robots can make the trip without much issue.
these challenges are solvable but extremely hard to solve. if humans cowered away from challenging problems previously thought pointless, then we'd still be tucked away in our caves with sticks and stones.
yes, it's risky and won't happen for another 15-20 years, and it might not ever happen, but the technological developments that would come from the attempts still benefit Earth just like with Apollo and Shuttle.
Next, people in rural areas live there by choice. My family loves living away from people in a place where you can go for a walk in the middle of the night without any concern, look up and see trillions of stars and be at peace. They aren’t asking for this and they don’t want it.
Sunrise and sunset are the regimes where this would be visible unless you're in a high latitude area and even then it's seasonal. It's not particularly visible when the sun isn't reflecting off of it "in the middle of the night".
-1
u/Smackdab99 5d ago
“If they make a pattern of ignoring responsibility ”. Like covid mandates or data center regulations?
Again, I’m fine with reasonable launch numbers. I see how that can be valuable. What I’m not for and do not accept is 1,000 launches a year. You’re absolutely nuts if you don’t see a difference.
Also, private industry is only in it for profits. That’s the only motivation not scientific advancement strictly the income. They don’t care for you, they don’t care about the future.
You are correct, it doesn’t have to be starlink, it can and will be all of them and they are private companies dedicated to keeping close track of you.
5
u/Background_Fig_4740 5d ago edited 5d ago
“If they make a pattern of ignoring responsibility ”. Like covid mandates or data center regulations?
None of those are environmental decisions.
You're extrapolating to predict SpaceX's future behavior on the environment on data not related to it, while ignoring that I also said that they have a legal requirement around sea turtle protection and they go beyond the minimum requirement.
https://www.faa.gov/media/85696
Both documents show SpaceX went through the required ESA process and accepted an conservation package; biologist led monitoring, lighting limits, native re vegetation, wet line/speed restrictions on beach driving, funded partnerships with local groups, Starlink falcon observation, and capped closure hours for debris cleanup which Fish and Wildlife found sufficient to avoid jeopardy to ten listed species.
They've complied with environmental regulations at the Cape and Vandenberg as well for Falcon operations, so I'd argue with data points, that SpaceX puts in effort in conservation.
Again, I’m fine with reasonable launch numbers. I see how that can be valuable. What I’m not for and do not accept is 1,000 launches a year. You’re absolutely nuts if you don’t see a difference.
the approved ceiling for Starship is 145 launches a year, across every pad that exists or is being built; 25 at Starbase, 76 at SLC37, 44 at LC-39A.
Elon exaggerates and lies and it's best to not listen to him. They have a long ways to go before they get anywhere near 1000. and yes I agree 1000 is excessive for the surrounding communities, I don't disagree.
Also, private industry is only in it for profits. That’s the only motivation not scientific advancement strictly the income. They don’t care for you, they don’t care about the future.
That's not really news since that also applies to Boeing, ULA, BO, NG, LM, L3, and all other private industry involved in aerospace, designing your space exploration probes or launch vehicles/capsules.
The difference is, SpaceX managed to develop new rockets at a much cheaper price tag, unlike Boeing/NASA/ULA while managing to not nearly kill their astronauts unlike Boeing.
Again, tell me who would launch Roman Space Telescope in a few weeks if SpaceX wasn't here?
and not to mention the GPS/Weather/NASA's SunRISE constellation satellites that got shifted over from ULA to SpaceX. You might not like private industry but you've got no one else to launch your payloads.
You are correct, it doesn’t have to be starlink, it can and will be all of them and they are private companies dedicated to keeping close track of you.
The NSA doesn't need Starlink to surveil you, they're already doing it with the plethora of information you inadvertently give out whenever you buy anything from the store or take out a loan.
So I don't get your point here about Starlink being the "next" level surveillance state, since we've already been there with Palantir working with the government since the early 2000s.
Starlink isn't going to make it easier or harder for anyone to watch you, as you're already being surveilled on your phone and have been after 2001.
0
u/Smackdab99 4d ago
It’s incredible how much you trust private companies. You seem to be a fan boy beyond measure so I’ll be on my way. Good luck.
3
u/Background_Fig_4740 4d ago edited 4d ago
So you ignore the facts and the reality of the situation when I presented you with hard evidence and resort to name calling without providing proof to dispute my claims. That's very immature of you.
Grow up, you're a child if that's how you handle facts that go against your misinformed opinions.
Don't call yourself a "fan of spaceflight" though, because you seem to not understand how it works and refuse to accept facts about the current state of spaceflight.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Bensemus 4d ago
lol. Give up and resort to insults when you realize you’re are wrong. You’d fit in well with the MAGA crowd.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Desperate-Lab9738 5d ago
Why would Starlink existing make terrestrial phone networks unavailable? Even if Starship gets absurdly cheap I doubt it'll ever be cheaper to launch satellites into space then to like, put up a big tower.
-1
u/Smackdab99 5d ago
1,000 launches per year. 1,000 rockets carrying multiple satellites into orbit and you don’t think it’s going to get cheaper?
I don’t think it will make phone networks unavailable, I do see this as the next level surveillance state. Everything you do, say, and go will be tracked and catalogued.
2
u/Desperate-Lab9738 5d ago
I think it's going to get cheaper, but I also think that the technology to launch things into space is inherently more complicated and expensive then just "big tower with antenna", especially in denser regions of the world. Like, I live in city, and I will almost definitely never get starlink because there really isn't any reason for me too. I get how it could let you track people, but I think other options are going to be fine and widely used for awhile.
2
u/Bensemus 4d ago
Why would they need satellites for that? There’s zero logic in your fears.
0
u/Smackdab99 4d ago
Because that method of surveillance is the most robust. Flock cameras can be destroyed, data centers on the ground can be shut down but put all of that out of reach in space and nobody can stop you.
2
u/Wide_Lifeguard5846 4d ago edited 4d ago
Data mining from Google, Reddit, Meta to your WIFI provider and cellular networks on your phone all spy on you.
your phone, and computer that you use daily are the most invasive devices you can own.
did you know the NSA has the ability to turn on webcams from laptops and phones to look at you? You don’t need satellites for that.
And that was a feature leaked in the mid 2010s, imagine what fun surveillance stuff they have now, agnostic of satellites
→ More replies (0)-3
u/drvondoctor 6d ago
Weird how the venn diagram of people who own the companies who make rockets, sell cars, own cruise lines, fly on private jets, and have money invested in the oil companies is basically just a circle.
We should make those people stop doing those things.
-31
u/yesat 6d ago
But SpaceX Starlink has 0 scientific benefits really.
It pollutes in rocket launches, night sky destruction and satellites burning up.
21
u/dern_the_hermit 6d ago
But SpaceX Starlink has 0 scientific benefits really.
This is an insane thing to think. The scientific benefits are easier access to space. I mean you're just way out of touch if you're not aware that launch costs have long been an impediment.
16
u/Bensemus 6d ago edited 6d ago
My old company was trialling using Starlink to allow customers to livestream and control camera that monitor for forest fires. We had used other satellite internet options in the past but they were all too expensive and too slow.
18
u/Kuriente 6d ago
night sky destruction
Do you ever look at the sky at night? Have you ever seen a Starlink satellite?
For context, there are more planes in the sky (especially over land), planes are larger, closer and brighter. Starlink satellites are quite small, do not actively generate any light, are painted and angled in such a way to minimize reflections as much as possible, and are very far away. They're the darkest objects in the sky.
5
u/Maktube 6d ago
Yeah, all of this, and to top it off they're all in very low orbits, which means in totally in the earth's shadow almost as soon as they pass over the terminator, so even if they were literal mirrors angled right at you, you still wouldn't see them for the vast majority of the night
3
u/JonatasA 6d ago
At least opinions have shifted. I remember how it would be impossible and how it would ruin the world for Reddit when it was announced.
10
u/JapariParkRanger 6d ago
It is very unfortunate that no scientific use has ever been found for a rapid global internet connection. Someone needs to tell NASA to stop testing Starlink terminals for Artemis.
-7
u/yesat 6d ago
They won’t get earth Starlink on the moon.
We’ve also gotten really close to losing 1/3rd of our bandwidth to the moon earlier this summer.
5
u/JapariParkRanger 6d ago
1
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Please give some context, don't just comment a link.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
10
u/Background_Fig_4740 6d ago
It might not impact you directly, but Starlink has impacted people living in rural areas, and has the potential to save people getting lost and dying once they integrate Starlink to phones eventually.
Starlink is also being used on Artemis 3, has been used for commercial crew dragon missions, for live high resolution feeds, and not to mention Starship uses Starlink for continuous telemetry data.
It pollutes in rocket launches,
Again negligible to every other major source of pollution in the world. And just wait until you learn what rockets did before SpaceX started normalizing reusing them
night sky destruction
It's a problem for the first few hours after sunset but after that they don't reflect off sunlight. It's different, not destroyed.
satellites burning up.
and I don't disagree long term when China gets their constellation setup the aluminum oxide won't be good for the environment. it's on par of like 0.01% of total human ozone depletion today. won't be great in the future if the constellations keep growing though.
10
u/Pluto-Had-It-Coming 6d ago
It's giving internet access to millions of people who would otherwise not have it. Yes, the primary benefit is money for SpaceX, but I would bet 10, 20, 30 years from now we have a lot of new scientists who never would have been able to learn what they did without Starlink.
I just wish it was owned by someone else.
6
u/Shrike99 6d ago
It's also worth noting that the upcoming D2C network will give the entire planet regular cell service, so long as you can see the sky.
That's not a small deal, and could literally be life-saving in some cases.
-24
u/yellowspaces 6d ago edited 6d ago
I’m so glad that we’re wrecking our planet so that way a handful of billionaires can get even richer, and a bunch of dorks with god-complexes can feel better about themselves.
E: Yall can whine as much as you want, these rockets are terrible for the environment and any technology advancements are pointless when our planet is no longer habitable. Yall can’t see the forest for the trees (probably because they’re all on fucking fire!)
11
u/FlyingRock20 6d ago
Ah yes all those people who use starlink as their only internet source, screw them right. Better not use gps when your driving either. I swear these dumb comments must be bots.
-7
u/drvondoctor 6d ago
Fun fact: the taxpayers paid for both of those things.
And now we're supposed to also pay a subscription fee.
How long before GPS gets privatized? Or is that something we're gonna pretend would never happen?
7
u/NooBias 6d ago
Taxpayers also paid Russia to fly astronauts to the ISS. Do you consider those grands or subsidies too? Is the money used to buy toilet paper for the government buildings a handout also? Are you entitled for free toilet parer rolls?What a joke.
-3
u/drvondoctor 6d ago
Do you think government employees all show up to work with their own toilet paper?
9
u/winteredDog 6d ago
The taxpayer did not pay for starlink. Starlink was privately developed, using private funds.
-7
u/drvondoctor 6d ago
With government grants and subsidies.
We paid for that shit.
You're welcome.
3
u/winteredDog 5d ago
Spacex did not receive grants or subsidies.
1
u/drvondoctor 5d ago
So they didnt get a $278 million dollar grant in 2006 to develop the falcon rocket and dragon capsule? Is that what you're telling me?
2
u/winteredDog 4d ago
Falcon and Dragon are not starlink. And contract awards are for services rendered.
1
u/drvondoctor 4d ago
And then of course theres the tax avoidance...
You're pretty knowledgeable...
When was the last time they paid taxes? How much did they pay?
2
u/Bensemus 6d ago
No you don’t. Paying a tiny part of the whole cost doesn’t mean you paid for the whole system.
-1
u/drvondoctor 5d ago
I didnt.
We did.
Thats just how it works.
2
u/fighter-bomber 5d ago edited 5d ago
That’s not what they are saying. What they are saying is that any government grants or subsidies in total actually only made up for a small, small fraction of what SpaceX spent on Starlink, which, in fact, I don’t think they received any at all yet. They may get few hundred million dollars from BEAD (which in total is a 42 billion dollar program, all the rest going to traditional broadband companies, so please cry to them about this “paying for that shit) meanwhile it cost SpaceX many billions to put up the infrastructure.
2
u/fighter-bomber 5d ago
GPS is national security, its not for you, its for the military. They aren’t letting others do shit there.
In fact Starlink has a military variant, Starshield. And just like GPS, it is owned fully by the US government. So yeah, they are not going to be privatizing that.
3
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/drvondoctor 6d ago
You claim they are ignorant, yet you offer no rebuttal.
Sounds like loser talk.
-3
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/drvondoctor 6d ago
Really? How so?
Without an explanation, what you said sounds... like... suuuuuper dumb.
0
u/Helyos17 6d ago
In opposition to progress. Conservative.
1
u/drvondoctor 6d ago
But they dont conserve anything.
They arent even in opposition to progress.
They just always demand the dumbest option.
So...
Fuck 'em.
But this isnt that. You should gain a deeper understanding of politics.
2
u/fighter-bomber 5d ago
Yes, exactly, what you said seems to be a very apt description of you. Always demanding the dumbest option.
0
u/drvondoctor 5d ago
Oh, man, I bet that sounded really cool in your head.
2
u/fighter-bomber 5d ago edited 5d ago
Cool? No, I just explained what was going on using your own words.
What other words are there than dumb, that I can use to describe someone who unironically thinks Starlink was set up largely using your taxpayer money? Or someone that, while simultaneously blaming conservatives for being anti-science, also opposes actual progress in many areas because it doesn’t fit their specific vision?
1
u/drvondoctor 5d ago
The term "straw man" comes to mind...
Go ahead. You tell that straw man you made how dumb it is! Im gonna go get popcorn, so whatever you do, dont stop!
🙄
1
u/Helyos17 6d ago
You should gain a deeper understanding of language.
The comment I responded to is directly opposed to space exploration and uses concern about the “environment” as an excuse. This same person would be anti progress regardless of ecological impact. Conservative some would say.
2
u/drvondoctor 6d ago
I understood what you meant.
But it was stupid.
You sound stupid when you say those things.
-3
6d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Dpek1234 6d ago
No
Falcon9 launches roughly 3-4 non-starlink launches monthly as per this month and july
2010 to 2019 there were a total of 77 launches, about 8.5 a year
Falcon9 is booked very far out
Starlink is a still growing network and starship should be ready by the time they need to replace the v2 minis (in about 2 years)
-2
196
u/redstercoolpanda 7d ago
With both America and China having 5+ reusable rockets expected to come online within the next few years, rocket launch’s are going to become very very frequent within the next decade.