> test the new heat shield which will replace the Artemis II design in an unmanned re-entry as well.

NASA desperately needs more options. They shouldn't need to expend an SLS to launch an uncrewed Orion with a test heatshield on a trajectory equivalent to a moon return. They should be able to launch that on top of a Falcon Heavy. A Falcon Heavy can launch 63 tons to LEO and a fueled Orion plus service module weights slightly north of 20 tons. An Orion mass simulator with enough attitude control mated with a FH second stage would leave a lot of delta-v to accelerate the capsule back into the atmosphere.

▲

withinboredom 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd prefer if we just wrote off space-x and pretend they don't exist.

▲

randallsquared 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

SpaceX is the only major operator of spaceflights in the US: more than 95% of all satellites launched are launched by SpaceX, not just in the US, but worldwide.

▲

oritron 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's an eye catching stat. What is the impact of starlink satellites on the number, ie what if you drop them from both numerator and denominator?

	▲	Tadpole9181 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It looks like 70% of all satellites deployed in 2025 were starlink. Seems they make up over half (~65%) of all satellites currently in orbit.

▲

rbanffy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> more than 95% of all satellites launched are launched by SpaceX

Another way to look at this number is that they are responsible for 95% of the light pollution caused by orbiting objects.

▲

hersko 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Lets just ban lightbulbs so we don't have light pollution.

	▲	rbanffy 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We have regions where we deliberately minimize light pollution, but those regions aren't immune to Elon's swarm of photobombing satellites. Not that I don't think it's cool to have a web of spacecraft enveloping the planet and bringing high-speed communications to everyone everywhere - it's pretty impressive to point up and show a train of satellites to a kid - but astronomers have been complaining about them and they are right.

▲

monkeywork 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

why because "elon bad" ??

cut your nose off to spite your face if you want but the rest of us will recognize the importance of space-x and be grateful it is here.

▲

withinboredom 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This is about going to the moon. Space-x is over budget and extremely late. It has nothing to do with the management there, only that it is better to come up with a solution without them.

▲

rbanffy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I only suggested a Falcon Heavy because the rocket exists, is flight proven, and has enough capacity to shoot an Orion to any trajectory it is expected to encounter.

▲

monkeywork 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If that was the truth I have a strong feeling your wording would be different.

	▲	withinboredom 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Please read the https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I literally can’t even continue this thread.

▲

TheBlight 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because of your personal politics?

▲

rbanffy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Imagine if NASA had the resources and the freedom to pursue a high-risk high-return strategy the same way SpaceX did. NASA can't afford high-profile failures because it needs political support to function from a Congress that doesn't understand engineering.

Now imagine the public good will if the US could have built a network of LEO satellites providing communications to everyone on Earth regardless of nationality, with equal access and funded by governments so that all their residents could have access to it for free (once they buy an antenna made in the US).

Some will say it'd be communism. I would say it could be part of a Pax Americana that doesn't involve coups, but is based on willing cooperation.