Like does anyone have a comprehensive list?

I was wondering because this has happened before and it caused more than half of the Satellites to fail to reach orbit, but this time they launched today.

Could this be a repeat of before?

https://paxex.aero/gogo-5g-slips-again-leo-push/

:: Snipped ::

Galileo is, of course, not the only LEO option on the market; Starlink also offers its product to business jet owners. Thorne had no shortage of commentary as to why that would be a bad choice for those aircraft. As part of the prepared remarks he recognized the “lore of Mr. Musk” as helping to drive business for Starlink. But Thorne also was adamant that, once it has a product available, Gogo will compete well in the space and “capture a significant share of this market.”

In the Q&A portion things became more interesting, as Thorne truly opened up as to why he believes the Starlink solution is inferior to Gogo’s.

I think, frankly, the real issues are not going to be around the service itself. I think the service will be good when it’s available. The issues from my perspective are more around the equipment and what they’re doing there. This is a very demanding market in a lot of ways. The equipment needs to be small, because space is at a premium on business aircraft. It needs to be aerodynamic for safety and fuel consumption purposes. And it needs to be ruggedized to withstand extreme vibration and temperature variations. And it needs to be easy to install. Our HDX and FDX check all those boxes.

Starlink has taken a very different approach. They are taking consumer off the shelf products that they mass produce in order to keep the cost down for consumers and they’re trying to move into aero, and that doesn’t work very well. They’re hard to install. It’s 39 inches wide, which will make it difficult to install on narrow diameter planes. By contrast our HDX is 12 inches wide, easy to install and narrow diameter planes. [The Starlink antenna is] 44 inches long; FDX, which is our big one,is only 30 inches long. And that’s important because when you’re on the top of an aircraft, there’s all kinds of other antennas and gear up there. And the more of that stuff you have to move in order to put an antenna on the more expensive the install is.

[Starlink is] very complex to install. They’ve got like 39 pieces of equipment and 200+ fasteners to attach the antenna to the plane Our FDX has 12 pieces and 16 fasteners; our HDX is nine pieces and 14 fasteners. Those numbers out there just to give you sort of a sense of what we mean when we talk about complexity.

They also have designed this thing in such a way that the FAA is requiring periodic maintenance. No other antenna for in flight connectivity requires periodic maintenance. We build these things to last for the 25-30 year life of the aircraft and they never require maintenance. That maintenance will actually require owners to remove the headliner inside the aircraft which can be, believe it or not, very complicated. On some planes you have to take out the seats to take out the floor so you can get the side panels out to take the headliner down and then get into the fuselage inside the aircraft. And you’re gonna need to do that for periodic inspections. You’re also going to need to take the radome off for those inspections and you’re going to have to lubricate parts of this and that’s unheard of in our space.

I could go on and on. I mean they just have all kinds of crazy things because they are consumer off the shelf. They cannot survive outside the pressure vessel, this equipment can’t go from 130 degrees on the tarmac to minus 60 at 50,000 feet in 10 minutes. So you have to put all this stuff inside the pressure vessel, taking up room for luggage, seats, a place to put your golf clubs, etc. We’re ruggedized and we can be installed inside or outside the pressure vessel

They also require a lot of different pieces of gear. Because they’re made for consumer they are AC powered. Most business aviation is DC power. So you have to have a power converter then you need a fan in order to cool all that because that gets very hot. Most passengers don’t like having a fan whirring inside the cabin.

I could go on and on and on. But there’s a lot of things they that are kind of inconveniences, minor problems added up. If you can pay about the same and the service is about the same, why would you put up with all those nuisances? And, frankly, a higher total cost of ownership, with all the maintenance costs you’re gonna have the end of the day. And from a company where you don’t know if they’re gonna be in the business for long term.

I got a question… one of the more recent launches from California I was able to see with my naked eye from the Phoenix Arizona area. Today I stayed up and tried to see this launch but had no luck. What determines if I am going to be able to see the launch for my future reference? Is there different flight paths or weather that determines that?

Just enjoyed this great video on the subject by Eager Space. I'm really asking about the interior. Starship solves a lot of the most pressing problems for space tourism (cost, mass, habitable volume, launch safety). But it doesn't address the challenges associated with microgravity (space sickness, space toilets etc) or a confined pressurized space (e.g for cooking). I suppose ultra low launch costs could enable you to bring up more water to hydrate food and take showers (ala Skylab).

I expect the first stations would be in microgravity. When they do get around to artificial gravity space stations, I would imagine the first such station would be much more like the tumbling stick approach of Vast rather than a more complicated rotating wheel.

So the first few landing videos had great footage of Mission Control and the crowd outside going absolutely nuts when Falcon landed, but I can't find a single video on the interwebs of Mission Control these days basically going "Falcon has landed, carry on, business as usual" with actual shots of Misson Control instead of a voice over.
Does anyone know where I could find such a video?
Reason I ask is I'm trying to put together a comparison video showing the extreme difference in those reactions. Thanks!

Several Mars Rovers and deep space probes like Voyager use Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators. To my knowledge SpaceX has never launched anything more radioactive than a freeze dried banana.

Is there some law, regulation of FAA paperwork hurdle preventing it? There's steps that needed to be taken to certify Falcon 9 as crew rated for NASA launches, do some regulatory body have a similar certification process to approve a rocket to carry radioactive payloads? You don't want just anyone launching 8kg of Plutonium on a rocket that might explode and scatter it everywhere so logically there's probably some paperwork to do first.

Or maybe I'm wrong and they HAVE launched a radioactive source before. But with nearly 350 launches its hard to keep track.

I'm going to try and watch the launch from Vandenburg AFB tonight and could use some insight into what to expect.

First, how punctual are the luanches? If the launch window is from 7:48pm-10:30pm, can you guesstimate what time it will actually launch?

I am visiting the Kennedy Space Center tomorrow and have a tour booked at 11 am. Does anyone have experience if they adjust the tour for the launch or should I skip it?

Thanks!