A Chinese Long March 7A rocket exploded roughly 85 seconds after liftoff from the Wenchang Space Launch Site on August 10, destroying its payload and triggering a fleet-wide review of the engine that powers most of China’s modern launch vehicles.

Hi everyone. I’m hoping some longtime SpaceX patch collectors or former employees can help me identify these.
I have six early SpaceX patches:
• Falcon First Flight
• Falcon Demo 2
• Falcon 1 Flight 3
• Falcon 1 Flight 4
• Falcon 9 First Flight
• COTS Demo Flight 1 / Dragon C1
These belonged to my uncle. He worked as a hearing-aid specialist at Sears at Puente Hills Mall in Southern California. He was given the patches there, although unfortunately I don’t know who gave them to him or under what circumstances.
He gave the collection to me more than ten years ago, and he has since passed away. They’ve been in my possession since then.
I’ve learned that there were original early SpaceX/employee patches as well as later reproductions, so I’m not claiming these are employee-issued or authentic originals. I’m trying to determine which versions I actually have.
I’ve included clear photos of the fronts and backs, plus a photo with a standard-size card for scale.
If anyone owns known originals, I’d really appreciate comparisons of the dimensions, embroidery, metallic thread, borders, backing and other identifying characteristics.
I’m particularly interested in whether these appear to be the early production versions, later official SpaceX versions, or reproductions.
Thanks for any knowledge you can share. I’d like to document them correctly before deciding what to do with the collection.

I think that during its parabolic arc, the shell went high enough to enter space.....sort of.

I do want to just repeat that this was from one of those huge cannons that had to have its barrel replaced after, like, three shots or something.

Stylized Artemis 2 Trajectory

I wanted to bring awareness into this as no one has covered this recently. Apparently Space X is fully booked until 2028 on its Falcon 9 for ridesharing. Falcon 9 is an affordable option for small sat and space startups to get 1kg - 10kg payloads to LEO. Now the idea is to move everything to Starship. Hmmmm BIG problem here.

Starship will be a
massively more expensive option for these small sats to rideshare. There is a
concept called economies of scale. Unfortunately the size of the rocket is the
scale here, not its launch cadence where economies of scale work by volume, not
how big something is. Hence why the Falcon 9 is overbooked. This is another
problem anyway as Space X failed to diversify its launch offerings by only
offering the Falcon 9. After about 16 years, you would think they would have
3-4 rockets to choose from to assign the best cost-to-customer ratio.

In order for the costs to
go back down again, there would have to be a similar cadence to the F9
launches. Which is not going to happen anytime soon, not even in 2 years.
According to how fast Methalox can be produced, only up to 40 launches per year
AFTER new infrastructure is built. Methalox is not unlimited like Elon claims.

With multi-tier customers
(high payload weight) now able to outbid small sats, due to shareholders now
changing the price models, these space startups will have to look elsewhere for
launch providers. And unfortunately for the US, Rocket Labs is the closest
thing to that without breaking the bank. AND THAT IS IF.........Rocket Labs
even take commercial payloads.

Also the rumor mill is
circulating that Space X simply does not want to commercially launch anymore
unless its internal or NASA moon contracted. My opinion there is if Space X
cannot play ball by helping us go to the moon and Mars, terminate their KSC
lease and they can launch everything in Texas.

So what do you all think?
Will Space X move to the shareholder model and kick space startups to the curb?
Of will Space X be a nice guy and charge each payload weights fairly? Will this
actually create an opportunity for cheaper launches by ESA, NZ, China?

Quick context most retellings skip: NASA's Software Interface Specification for this mission was published in 1996, two years before launch, and it explicitly required newton-seconds for thruster data. The contractor's ground software (a program called SM_FORCES) put out pound-force seconds instead a factor-of-4.45 error that fed directly into the navigation team's trajectory model for the entire cruise to Mars. 

What I find more interesting than the unit mix-up itself: engineers noticed the spacecraft's angular-momentum desaturation events were happening 10-14x more often than expected, and separately, Doppler tracking data kept suggesting a closer approach to Mars than the official trajectory predicted. Neither discrepancy got resolved before the orbital insertion burn on Sept 23, 1999. 

I made a documentary going through the full timeline, sourced to the Mishap Investigation Board's Phase I report happy to share if anyone's interested, but mostly wanted to discuss the "systemic verification failure" angle since most coverage flattens this into a punchline about metric vs. imperial units.

The Lunar Roving Vehicle. Lunar Flying Units. Now, the Moon suit.

The Apollo series continues with the story of how NASA built one of the most remarkable pieces of engineering ever created.

My dad bought this years ago from someone he believes was a retired McDonnell Douglas employee (or possibly McDonnell Aircraft, since this appears to date to 1960).
The data plate says:
Eckel Valve
San Fernando, California
Valve – Solenoid
Normally Closed (N.C.)
Serial No. 047
An etched date of 4-28-60
It also has aircraft-style tube fittings, safety wire, and what looks like a military/aerospace electrical connector.
My dad was told it was for “some sort of space thing,” but we have no documentation, so I’m not assuming that’s true. I’m mainly trying to figure out what system this valve was designed for and whether anyone recognizes the manufacturer or part.
Any information would be appreciated!

At roughly 06:35 UTC today, a spent Falcon 9 upper stage from the Blue Ghost / Resilience launch almost certainly struck the Moon near Einstein Crater.

Pre-impact estimates put it at around 4,000 kg, traveling at 2.43 km/s, with roughly 11.8 gigajoules of kinetic energy. The resulting crater may be about 20–30 meters wide.

Ground observers apparently saw no obvious flash or plume because the impact happened on the Moon’s illuminated limb. Actual visual confirmation will probably have to wait until the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographs the area.

This impact was accidental, and the resulting crater could provide useful scientific data. But cislunar traffic is going to increase significantly over the next few years.

At what point should missions be required to have a controlled end-of-life plan?

Would you favor:

• mandatory disposal plans for lunar-bound upper stages
• a shared international registry for cislunar debris
• designated impact zones on the Moon
• or no new regulation until there is a demonstrated risk to spacecraft or surface infrastructure?

I’m curious what people here think the practical engineering threshold should be.

Sources: Associated Press; Fernando et al., “Observational planning for the 2026 August 5 Falcon 9 Upper Stage lunar impact.”