also reducing risk as it will be flight proven
I’m slightly surprised they don’t always use Starlink sats as the payload on a booster’s 1st flight, these days.
And I’m slightly more surprised they didn’t do so in this case, as they were trying something new (using a FH centre core in a single-stick config).
NASA’s SpaceX Crew-10 Return to Ellington Field
“Video was recorded on August 9, 2025” (despite saying August 11 in the title)
And yes, it really is the whole of Crew-10. (I’ve got a feeling the Cosmonauts are normally already on their way to Russia by this point. Perhaps this is a new procedure, now that splashdown has moved to the West Coast.)
If you posted something and it seems to be stuck in some sort of purgatory
No. Every post I’ve ever made ‘to Lemmy’ has seemingly been ‘published’(?) quickly, but I couldn’t rule out that this was happening via fast manual approval.
I was mostly just asking out of interest. Perhaps out of a feeling that if there was moderation then I didn’t need to think quite so hard about whether a given post was worthy of submitting.
Personally, I think the examples you provided would be perfectly worthy of their own posts! :)
Thanks, it’s good to get a ‘steer’ on this. But are you including my “F9 barge landing perspective that I don’t remember seeing before” example in that? And if so, is that just because you hadn’t seen it before either?
What if it had been something else, that already was widely known about? Maybe just let people down-vote the post? Or merely not up-vote it? Maybe we should only post if we’d guess a 60% probability that 60% of community members haven’t already seen the post contents?
Love the view of the ISS from Dragon at 1:33:34 (and 1:34:30, 1:35:31, etc.)
U-k_LyA1DQQ @27:54 = Cardman playing with her own deck of cards, man!
206O9S9GLbg @3:38:38 = Zena emerging from the Zena’ith Port.
If you told a hundred people that one of these rockets is called Black Arrow, how many would guess that it’s actually the one which looks like something out of Thunderbirds?
(i.e. The bottom one. Thunderbird 1 perhaps?!)
Another example of something that, to me, doesn’t warrant its own post: Interview with Jim Cantrell
Indeed.
I assumed the comment was satirising one common form of misguided critique of SpaceX’s “hardware-rich” approach to this development programme. But yes, now I’m not so sure.
Groaning:
And of course, some of us contain multitudes …
strike Mars FIRST
Definitely saved the best 'til last. (The Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boom clip!)
Until now I’ve been too lazy to look into what rules/guidelines exist for this community. Am I now right in thinking there aren’t any? (If so, I’m not complaining!) Or am I just not finding them (as an inexperienced Lemmy user)?
The thing I was going to look into was any posting guidelines. How significant should something be to warrant its own post? For example, this tweet includes a video with an F9 barge landing perspective that I don’t remember seeing before.
FWIW, my own feeling is that I’d like a quarterly “General Discussion Thread” (as with the equivalent Subreddit), to gather up all the minor stuff.
Are posts automatically ‘published’ or do they go through moderation first? (If this is something I should be able to determine myself, if I knew more about Lemmy, LMK and I’ll go & do some reading!)
P.S. My thanks to you and all the team for all your efforts.
I’m a rocket ship on my way to Mars [in a sense]
I’m burnin’ through the sky, yeah [over Namibia, at about ~3:43:11 for about a minute]
LMK if you find anything interesting! My guess is that if there is any melting & re-solidifying going on, it will be nothing larger than a droplet.
Relevant spaceflightmemes post: https://sh.itjust.works/post/38958595
Dan Huot jinxed it by invoking Kubrick on the livestream. It was subsequently inevitable that SpaceX’s hardware abstraction layer (HAL) would claim not to be able to do it. I just hope it was telling the truth.
HAL: I'm sorry, Dan. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dan: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dan: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: It's right there on your screen Dan, the actuators are stuck.
Dan: Oh yeah. Anyway, do you know any songs? You might want to start singing in about 27 minutes.
Make a good reef.
Hope so!
Though I believe that it was the Gulf of Mexico that received (large chunks of) B14.
Whereas the Indian Ocean has probably some small bits of S35 debris. (Unless it fully vapourised on re-entry? You’ve also got me wondering whether any of the materials merely melt, and then re-solidify as solid lumps, either in the lower atmosphere or after hitting the ocean.)
And while I’m being pedantic, @threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works, the table above says “Soft water landing” for the booster, which isn’t how I’d describe the plan they had for it.
Where do you get the information from that he deleted videos?
Well here’s one example of the accusation (“deleted videos where he said spacex would never be able to re-fly a 1st stage”). Two replies seem to endorse it (e.g. “I recall him saying something like that”) and another seems to be fairly familiar with his output and to endorse the general point (“later tried to delete and cover up”). One of the replies links to a different video, which I haven’t looked at.
Note that the first ever booster re-use was around March 2017 so we’re probably talking about a deletion that happened no later than April 2017. And I’d expect he’d not be so stupid as to wait that long; he’d have probably deleted any such videos as soon as SpaceX announced that they’d found a willing customer (and insurance company), at the latest. So probably by late 2016 or early 2017.
Other stuff I just found …
Seems he had some argument with another unreliable You Tube ‘personality’ called Sargon who made a response video back in May 2017. That video is unavailable now but apparently it was still available in 2022 and convinced one person who had until then been unconvinced, that Thunder Foot “apparently just made up shit about someone which was completely false”.
I’ve just looked at one of his more recent “BUSTED!!” videos (July 2021, about Starlink) and I didn’t notice any outright falsehoods, so perhaps he’s being more circumspect these days. Also, he hasn’t deleted that one, even though it’s pretty embarrassing for him. So credit where it’s due.
That said, the simplest example I’ve come across of an apparently uncorrected falsehood from him is also from 2021: https://x.com/thunderf00t/status/1364020482572492801 It’s hardly a big deal, but he clearly knew that his followers believed the claim to be false, so it seems that at best he was lazy in not bothering to go back and read the 3 replies that proved they were correct.
Some general “debunkings” of more of his SpaceX claims:
https://old.reddit.com/r/thunderf00t/comments/lthowt/some_fundamental_errors_in_thunderf00ts_spacex/ and https://old.reddit.com/r/thunderf00t/comments/lu6evm/a_more_casual_fact_check_on_thunderf00ts_spacex/
Seems that this will be, in a sense, the 1st time a FH centre core has ever been recovered! (Back to dry land in one piece.)
Going by this, the stats for actual FH launches are:
If Musk was as committed to comedy and “fate loves irony” as he says, he should have proceeded with the launch the previous day, instead of postponing it “due to unfavorable recovery weather conditions”, and let nature take its course!
That said, maybe nature will yet find a way to intervene! Best keep an eye on Port Canaveral to see if B1091 does actually make it back to dry land!