Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Space

SpaceX Launches 29 Starlink Satellites on Memorial Day (spaceflightnow.com) 126

Posted by EditorDavid from the flight-patterns dept.
"The expansion of SpaceX's Starlink network of internet relay satellites continued Monday with a Memorial Day launch from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station," reports Spaceflight Now. The mission added another 29 Starlink satellites to more than 10,000 already in low Earth orbit: This was SpaceX's 60th orbital flight of the year, consisting of 59 Falcon 9 rockets and one Falcon Heavy rocket...

Nearly 8.5 minutes after liftoff, [Falcon 9 first stage] B1078 landed on the drone ship, 'A Shortfall of Gravitas,' positioned in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of South Carolina. This was the 151st landing for this vessel and the 614th booster landing to date for SpaceX.

Meanwhile, the second stage shut down eight minutes and 39 seconds into flight and entered a coast phase, before short second burn at T+52 minutes. The stack of Starlink satellites deployed 61 minutes and 26 seconds after launch.
On X.com SpaceX shared footage of the booster rocket landing, and a longer video showing Starship's 12th test flight Friday.

SpaceX Launches 29 Starlink Satellites on Memorial Day More | Reply

SpaceX Launches 29 Starlink Satellites on Memorial Day

Comments Filter:

  • Say what you will re: free trade or protectionism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Monday May 25, 2026 @01:25PM (#66159872)

    but one of the big reasons the US has a world-leading space launch and satellite services industry is that it is just flat out illegal to outsource or off-shore it.

    ITAR is an absolute pain in the ass, but it seems to be worth it on the whole and in the context of the hollowing out of everything else industrial in the country.

    • Re:Say what you will re: free trade or protectioni (Score:4, Interesting)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Monday May 25, 2026 @02:47PM (#66159946)

      But the counterpoint is that we'd likely have moon bases and be on Mars by now. Elon has stated that SpaceX would have been able to evolve much faster without ITAR, well at least he did in the era before he went full MAGA: https://www.instagram.com/reel... [instagram.com]

      • The thing with ITAR is it makes it a lot more difficult to hire non-US persons that will have access to anything covered by ITAR, which is basically anything that might ever be part of or even come into contact with a rocket. H-1B is still done, but with much more difficulty.

        I think the main reason Elon had the falling-out with Trump was over immigration.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's Musk though, so is just as likely to be an excuse for his hilariously optimistic claims about how easy and quick it would be to get to Mars.

        He seems to have realized, over a decade later, and is now talking about a moon base. Wait till he discovers what a shit-show that is.

      • Sometimes you have to decide which tradeoff to make. Do you want domestic production, or do you want a low price?

        There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

      • Teraform the Gobi desert, then work out way up to the harder stuff like living on Mars for a year.

    • but one of the big reasons the US has a world-leading space launch and satellite services industry is that it is just flat out illegal to outsource or off-shore it.

      What are you talking about? Many US space projects use non-US launch facilities. The James Webb Telescope is a prominent example. And there are all the rides hitched by US astronauts on Soyuz rockets between the retirement of the STS and the rise of alternatives like SpaceX Dragon.

      • The James Webb Telescope is a prominent example.

        Tell us you don't know what we're talking about without telling us.

        The JWST is not space launch or service industry. It's a single product, and there's no limit of who can launch it.
        The JWST is also not "US". It's an international joint project by multiple countries (including agencies like the ESA, CSA and NASA) collaborating to develop a telescope.

        By the way there is one good example in the JWST of what we're actually talking about: The JWST was launched on an Ariane-5. The Ariane-5 is wholly manufactured

        • I read RightWingNutJob's post as saying that a US space project cannot use a non-US launcher because it is "flat out illegal to outsource or off-shore it." "It" being the space-launch and satellite services.

          Well, JWST is a US space project. Sure, it had international participation, but the US is the lead. CURIE and GOLD are other examples. Even the military used a non-US launcher, for example the US Air Force STP-S26 being launched by India.

          And if you mean it the other way around, that the US can't launch n

          • I mean exactly what I said. If you run an aerospace company in the US, you can't hire foreign nationals, subcontract parts of your rocket or satellite to foreign companies without an export license *for the system requirements in your rfp* and you can't have it launched abroad without an export license.

            In practice this doesn't mean you can't have foreign parts, just that they need to be entirely off-the-shelf, which most specialized aerospace components are not.

            • You may have meant "exactly" what you said, but what you said was absolute with no qualifiers: you said it was "flat out illegal to outsource or off-shore it."

              And now you're backtracking and adding conditions. And they're wrong.

              Getting an export license for an entire satellite or components of it may take significant effort, but that doesn't make exporting satellites "flat out illegal."

              Aerospace companies subcontract to foreign companies all the time, for components, software, and mission support or monitor

          • Well, JWST is a US space project. Sure, it had international participation, but the US is the lead.

            That's not how those words work. NASA is the project lead, that's it. It's not a US project. Now if NASA developed a satellite by itself without help from anyone else then outsourcing would be allowed. You also mentioned the Soyuz earlier but conveniently left out the bit that the only assistance received from Russia is to the international space station - also not a US project.

            Now, kindly tell me what you are talking about.

            US projects.

            • Well, JWST is a US space project. Sure, it had international participation, but the US is the lead.

              That's not how those words work. NASA is the project lead, that's it. It's not a US project.

              While technically an international project, it sure feels American:

              * NASA payed for 90% of it
              * NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center managed the development
              * The primary contractor was Northrop Grumman
              * It's controlled from Johns Hopkins' Space Telescope Science Institute
              * The ground segment uses NASA's deep space network

              A good portion of the instruments were designed and/or built by ESA and CSA, and of course it was launched on an Ariane 5.

              • Not to mention it was named after a NASA administrator.

                The Apollo space program that put Americans on the moon wasn't 100% US-supported either. I daresay nobody will claim it wasn't a "US space project."

        • "Tell us you don't know what we're talking about without telling us." - You use that trope a lot... maybe you should find a different insult thing.

          • Why? Did you understand what I said when using the trope? I suspect yes. That means we communicated, which is the purpose of me typing in this box. It clearly works and works well.

            If you want change for change's sake go join Microsoft's UX division.

          • "Tell us you don't know what we're talking about without telling us." - You use that trope a lot... maybe you should find a different insult thing.

            I know, I know (waves hand dorkily) - how about "I'll take things that never happened for $1000 Alex!"? Everyone loves that one!

    • Our space launch program was nationalized for decades and decades. Yeah there were private contracts but the really expensive research that loses money was all done by the government and the private contracts were mostly just there to line pockets and to put money in certain districts for political reasons.

      If you have something that is universally desirable and needs to be built at scale you generally need to do it with the government one way or another. This is why I transportation network is almost en

    • It doesn't seem possible to disentangle LEO lift from missiles with rocket technology so you can understand the argument.

      Same with Starlink. We just learned that the attack on the Girl's high school dorm in Luhansk last week was done with four plywood and epoxy drone airplanes with manually targeted rockets strapped to the wings. Strapped to the top of the fuselage was a Starlink mini, per analyst reports (cf. Garland Nixon stream from last night) so operators could guide the rockets into the dormitory.

      Per

    • The big reason number one is that an South African yahoo immigrated into the US.
      And that some other bozzos have a big pile of money to spent ...

  • title of the next Musk bio?

  • Cape Canaveral Space Force Station

    Since when did they desecrate Cape Canaveral by adding war mongering to its name?

    • Before it was a space force installation, it was an air force installation. The air force was split off as an independent service in 1947, having previously been a branch of the Army under the War Department. The Navy was its own cabinet level department, dating back to the days of the Confederation Congress. They were merged in 1947 under a single department.

      Would a cape canaveral war station be more to your liking?

    • 1951, apparently:

      Cape Canaveral was known as Cape Canaveral Launch Area upon its foundation in 1949, but renamed to LRPG Launching Area in 1950. It was known as Cape Canaveral Auxiliary Air Force Base from 1951 to 1955, and Cape Canaveral Missile Test Annex from 1955 to 1964. The facility was known as Cape Kennedy Air Force Station from 1964 to 1974, and as Cape Canaveral Air Force Station from 1974 to 1994 and from 2000 to 2020, taking the designation Cape Canaveral Air Station from 1994 to 2000.[8][9][10] The facility was renamed "Cape Canaveral Space Force Station" in December 2020.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      Try looking before you leap next time?

  • More pointless space junk (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Monday May 25, 2026 @04:03PM (#66160026) Homepage

    Not to mention the pollution from the launches. Counting down the years until Kessler kicks in.

    • Re:More pointless space junk (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday May 25, 2026 @05:39PM (#66160096)

      Not to mention the pollution from the launches. Counting down the years until Kessler kicks in.

      That's nothing compared to ignorance on the topic. Starlink satellites re-enter the atmosphere within about 5-6 years. They leave zero space junk and don't contribute to Kessler Syndrome. They are in too low of an orbit.

      Also give the low orbit, the relative efficiency of spacex launches, and the number of satellites in a payload per launch it turns out each Starlink satellite produces 340/25/5 = 2.72 Tonnes CO2 / year, or about half as much as your car. The entire Starlink program produces less emissions than a tiny tiny country town near bumfuck nowhere, Wisconsin.

      There's so many problems with Starlink, how did you pick the two things that are completely irrelevant to complain about?

      • Right, not to mention that they have thrusters which means they can move into a different orbit if the one they're in gets crowded.

      • Re:More pointless space junk (Score:5, Informative)

        by caseih ( 160668 ) on Monday May 25, 2026 @10:10PM (#66160334)

        All true, but there is a measurable increase in pollution in the upper atmosphere now, some from launches, and most from all the satellite constellations burning up all the time. It's not as if these satellites just burn up to nothing. They leave behind all sorts of metals in the upper atmosphere, especially aluminum and magnesium compounds. It's a bit reckless. From what I read some of these particles might act as cooling agents, so hey it's all good. Nevermind the kerosene soot that lingers for years in the upper atmosphere after every spaceX launch. And other compounds damage ozone. We really have no idea how these effects will play out.

      • Re:More pointless space junk (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Coolfish ( 69926 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2026 @10:03AM (#66160722)

        That's nothing compared to ignorance on the topic. Starlink satellites re-enter the atmosphere within about 5-6 years. They leave zero space junk and don't contribute to Kessler Syndrome.

        See https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Essentially the reentry introduces a lot of metals into the atmosphere, that cause the ozone layer to deplete. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Also - Elon is an idiot. His companies succeed despite him, not because of him.

  • --Dio, "Heaven and Hell"

    With so many satellites, soon, no one will leave this rock.

  • Elon Musk requires employees to work holidays and weekends.

    • And a good thing too, otherwise we'd have nothing to do or watch as Walmart, Home Depot and all the movie theatres are closed.

      Oh, wait...

    • My first thought was, "but that's a holiday! Why make the crews work?" But it was quickly followed by, "Oh yeah, launch windows don't care which day it is".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kwerle ( 39371 )

        Launches slip *all the time*. I live about 50 miles from Vandenberg, so I keep an eye on when they go up to see if there's gonna be a good view. My guess is that about 25% of them slip - and when they do, mostly it's a 1 day slip.

        So slipping to the next day can't be a big deal. Especially if you're planning it ahead of time. Unless you're pushing up against the next launch - which would be unusual.

        Yes, there are windows for some satellites. But I think they are roughly daily with these.

        • Maybe they can delay for a day, but at what cost? If your guesses are accurate that is. For all we know, what looks to you like a one-day delay is actually a three-month delay, they just had a different launch scheduled the next day.

          To me at least, launch windows makes more sense than just making non-retail employees work on a federal holiday.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by kwerle ( 39371 )

            For all we know, what looks to you like a one-day delay is actually a three-month delay, they just had a different launch scheduled the next day.

            No. Launching a rocket is not like launching a plane. You have to get it to the platform and set it all up. You have to register with the feds. It's a whole thing. And here (well, at Vandenberg) there is just one SpaceX platform at the moment. I think they are talking about building another.

            Maybe they can delay for a day, but at what cost? If your guesses are accurate that is.

            You might be right and maybe I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. Here's the thing:
            https://spaceflightnow.com/lau... [spaceflightnow.com]

            If you keep an eye on that site because you live 50 miles away and like to stand in your driveway to watch launches then you start to notice things. You see the schedule slip by 24 or 48 hours on about 25% of the launches. Sometimes done ahead of time and sometimes the same day (with notes about weather delay on the spaceflightnow page) and sometimes near the last second - as verifiable because the live webcast gets scrubbed with N seconds left on the clock while the camera watches the rocket getting fueled, etc.

            I may be way off on the 25% number - it could be half that. It's not double. But it's really unusual for them to slip more than a day at a time.

            These launches happen nearly once/week at this point. It's not hard to see the patterns. Sadly, I could not find a good record of how often they are pushed back - I suspect because it's just not a big deal to slip a day or two for these kinds of launches. Moonshots would be a very different story. Mars even more so. But there are 10K+ starlink satellites in orbit and they go 'round every 90 minutes. I suspect they could do 90 minute slips if it were not for all the actual work that goes into a launch and the time to figure it out and the federal paperwork, etc.

            To me at least, launch windows makes more sense than just making non-retail employees work on a federal holiday.

            Here's the other thing: Elon is an ass. You can ask pretty much any of his current or ex employees - including myself. He doesn't much care what holiday plans he's ruining.

      • Launching sattelites, or doing a test launch to test the performance or failure of reentry and safe return and landing stages or boosters, does not require a launch window.

  • What day is that exactly?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Himmy32 ( 650060 )

      SpaceX's Starlink network of internet relay satellites continued Monday

      Monday...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by redback ( 15527 )

        which monday?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Himmy32 ( 650060 )
          I realize that you are trolling, because we both know that referring to a day of the current week doesn't require a date for reasonable people. But first sentence in the article under the picture:

          SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket lifts off from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station during the Starlink 10-47 mission on May 25, 2026.

  • For the last damn time: Memorial Day is NOT a fireworks holiday.
  • What people aren't realizing is that once the Starlink satelite-to-satelite laser links are running, Starlink will essentially have a monopoly on the lowest latency internet. High frequency traders, intelligence services, gamers, etc will pay unlimited money to have lower latency than the competition. Internet latency over long distances is dominated by time-of-flight, not time-through-routers. The speed of light in a vacuum is C; the speed of light in optical fiber is 0.7 * C. Starlink is only 300 mile

Slashdot Top Deals

Memories of you remind me of you. -- Karl Lehenbauer

Close