FEW launches? ULA has nearly 40 contracts for launches over the next 18 months. These are REAL commercial contract launches, not Elon Musks rockets launching Elon Musks satellites for Elon Musks global comm network.
If anything, this is trying to prevent dirty tactics by SpaceX. What they are saying is that SpaceX would be directly disrupting their competitors and preventing their operations at the cape, if they are allowed to launch Starship as frequently as planned.
@@Hungary_0987 Starship operations come with significant noise pollution for the whole area, and when Starship is fueled, the whole area around it needs to be evacuated, not just the Starship pad itself. Constantly requiring hearing protection and needing to evacuate their launch sites every two days would be disruptive to SpaceX's competitors at the Cape.
Or launch anything to orbit. They want to tie up SpaceX until they can catch up. But that is NEVER. At some point NASA has to stop giving billions to losers and fund companies that are successful. They continue to flush taxpayer money down a dry hole.
All these companies complaining about Spacex are trying to stifle them because they know that starship will put them all out of business. They should not have ignored the writing on the wall…
@@The-KP It's definitely somewhere inbetween. These companies are all being bitchy and anti-competitive because they know they're behind. At the same time, there are valid concerns that need to be addressed. Just ULA and BO are exploiting those concerns for their own gain.
All these companies complaining about SpaceX are trying to prevent SpaceX from stifling them, because they know Starship launches would disrupt their work at nearby launch pads. It's SpaceX who is trying to effectively monopolize the cape and force out their competitors with the noise and almost daily evacuations that would come with Starship launches and tests.
Lol their lawsuits are 100% justified. Kathy Lueders abused her position as the interim NASA administrator to award SpaceX the sole contract for HLS/Artemis. Then, as soon as she was replaced with Biden's handpicked administrator she immediately went to work for SpaceX overseeing the very contract she had just solely awarded them. You SpaceX leg-jumpers are something else... Musk wouldn't stop to urinate on you if you were on fire, so why carry water for him? Pathetic.
Folks, this is not a football game - picking a "side" doesn't really make sense here. I'm assuming most of us here want "space stuff" progressing swiftly. However, we WANT an adverserial process that brings forward concerns, as long as they are legitimate (and I'm not saying they are or they're not - that is up to the FAA or the courts to decide). Remember that even self-serving actors can advocate for concerns that end up benefiting those other than themselves. Is BO and ULA being "whiney"? Sure. But that's OK - they are using whatever legal avenues they can to make up for having fallen behind. And competition is good for the end product, regardless of motives. Trust the process, and don't forget that SpaceX success is absolutely in US's best interests.
true but spacex doesn't have competition, not really and right now none of the agencies can catch up... starship is already having test flights and has proven it can reach orbit, what about new glenn? it will be obsolete in a year (3 times smaller payload to leo and hasn't even launched yet) if starship starts lifting things. Not to mention spacex has an assembly line for those mfs
@@AnkardTan Not really. If New Glenn is perfected, it will have the reusability equivalent to a Falcon 9 with the payload capacity of a Falcon Heavy and a huge shroud. A shroud unsuited to the payload capacity of the Falcon Heavy is its weakness. Starship will have better numbers, but New Glenn will be highly competitive with almost any booster in existence at the present time. And Vulcan has enough lift to replace both the Atlas V and Delta Heavy. ULA could speed up their reusability plans for the engine section if they saw business slipping away. I agree with the original commenter. Competition is necessary in the space business, especially given Elon Musk's "mercurial" nature.
The obvious answer would be to restrict Starship launches at the cape to some maximum frequency, such as no more than once every two weeks unless SpaceX can show that Starship launches don't disrupt the operation of other nearby launch pads.
@@plainText384 Are you serious? Imagine saying this in the 1960s and not being accused of being a commie. lol At best their concerns are an engineering problem that can be solved. At worst it's a location problem that they can relocate others to. NASA needs SpaceX at Canaveral for more than they need BO or ULA. If they can't support SpaceX requirements SpaceX will relocate.
@@javierderivero9299 Well, currently starship looks to be the best shot at getting to Mars and by that, spacex is likely to be the atleast making the launch vehicle for the first human missions to moon
@@techietisdead Mars Dreaming??...maybe late in the 2030s....because they won't even get to the moon until 2028....Starship is not even a rated ship to orbit, then comes refueling in space (not done yet), needs 10 launches to refuel that ship, according to Musk, others said it will need 15 launches, then comes land on the moon...then comes land on the moon with humans....at this pace all are dreams, that's why the billionaire from Japan ready to pay for a seat quit...worst than BO , at least with BO there is not much of a hype
Those comments would only apply if the launch pad at the Cape was going to be the pre-water deluge pad, which of course it's not. These comments are just spam from companies that can't keep up. Meh.
The water system does nothing to alleviate the concerns of disruption of service, hearing protection required and the fallout were a RUD to occur on the pad. Some of it is butthurt people who can't keep up, but they aren't wrong. It's the FAA's job to weigh the pro's and con's and decide whether it's worth it.
@@lowstrifelook, that pad, and its surroundings have been used for launches since the Apollo program. There is no Way this rocker would do anything different then the previous
@@Hungary_0987 And Starship is both larger then the Saturn V, and will launch more frequently. We can disagree with the severity of the "concerns", but they aren't entirely invalid.
@@Hungary_0987actually I think it will be significantly different from the Apollo program because spaceX plans to launch far more frequently. Like the other commenter said, the concerns aren't unreasonable even if the source is somewhat laughable.
@lowstrife How many of Blue's zero launches would ANY of SpaceX' launches impact? ULA isn't much more active. SpaceX could completely stand down the few times a year ULA flies. Yes - the FAA will do their job. Unfortunately, they are forced to treat the spam as if it's legit. Meh again.
I think they made a few good points, especially about starship creating a monopoly. The environmental factors are a little silly, I'm pretty sure ULA uses solid rocket motors which are terrible for air quality, they also dispose of certain stages into the atmosphere which is not a good thing. Maybe space x will need to launch from the ocean after all. (Monopoly at the cape I mean, if they hinder other companies by causing evacuations then that’s unfair)
The thing about a monopoly is NOT a reasonable point. SpaceX isn't stopping ULA or BO from launching. They are more than capable of stopping themselves from launching, as they have already proven beyond any doubt.
they wanted to launch Saturn every month from the cape also sls has huge stacks of solid boosters also ever seen heard a space shuttle take off??? its all political willy waggling as they cant compete, nothing todo with the things they stipulated.
The issue with concerns over starship creating a monopoly is that isn’t SpaceX’s concern other companies can’t keep up. Bashing in the knees of the most successful company just to preserve the facade of competition is every bit anticompetitive as a monopoly crushing its competitors.
@@josephpentony4804the issue isn't that other companies can't keep up, it's that other companies won't be able to do their work at the cape, if a Starship launch or test forces them to evacuate every 1-2 days and everyone is constantly required to use extensive hearing protection.
There are no laws against building a company from scratch that becomes a monopoly. That is called innovation and taking risks. SpaceX have essentially never stopped R&D and have pumped billions into development when they were already well ahead of the competition. Similar to Amazon in the online retail sector. ULA could have done the same thing but they spent decades relying on what they had rather than pushing forward.
If starship wants to hit the absolutely ridiculous launch cadence necessary, they'll likely need to build launch facilities out on the water. Even if they get the entire cape to themselves, a one day turn around time would likely be too much for the surrounding area to reasonable handle for such a large rocket. Personally, I would prefer for them to just Deal With It, but it would likely be easier to go offshore that find a suitable place on land for their launch cadence.
"The Cape isn't meant for a monopoly." That's rather amusing coming from ULA, who essentially had exactly that until SpaceX came along. Note that I do like ULA and Bruno in particular, but that comment is just ironic given their prior status.
I'm not a fan of Elon. However, if his competitors put their money and time into improving and building their craft instead of whinning, that would be a more productive use of their time than trying to use litigation to stop any competition.
Not a fan of what.......excellence, forward thinking, technological advances, walking the walk, dominating lesser competitors? All of the above??????? Just asking 🤔🤔🤔
NASA should take these comments with the seriousness they deserve. One company that lauches a handful of times a year and one company that has NO launch capability AT ALL. I have a pile of dog droppings whose comments should be taken more seriously than either of these two companies.
I tend to lean in the direction that BO needs to stfu and be competitive. But some points are valid, like having to shut down operations and evacuate your worksite because the neighbor is doing a fuel test or launching. That is a reasonable ask if you're slow af like BO and never launch anything, but SpaceX wants to fly every week, closing all the time to accommodate that is a bit unreasonable.
Jeff Bezos and Tory Bruno can't handle clearly can't handle any competition, and instead of legitimately competing, they complain. Starship isn't even operational, and they're already resorting to litigation. Its pathetic.
This is about how frequent Starship launches would disrupt all of SpaceX's competitors' operations at the Cape. If anything this is about preventing SpaceX from artificially suppressing their competitors.
Yes is not opeerational the last year the Texas community complained the Starship debris they were going to sue (not BO)...and that was a singular rocket launch ..can you imagine 120 launches a year...good luck if a debris of a car size fall in your roof....definitely you won't go to mars
I get the fact that of course BO and ULA are a bit salty about the competition here, but the point about the noise and evacuation zones isn’t entirely meritless. I love starship but there’s no arguing it’s a big ship and spacex shouldn’t expect everyone to bow before them. The downside of all the spacex success is the one sided bias, but the cape is a busy place.
Keep in mind that NOVA was planned to launch from KSC and the environmental impact assessments way back when were planned with this in mind. Additionally, SpaceX's entire plan is to launch hundreds of times each year. To stymie this would kill the Cape as a primary launch location. They know this, which is why they have framed the complaint about limiting the number of launches rather than saying no launches to seem reasonable, but in reality it's the same outcome: keep Starship from the Cape.
So you want SpaceX to make smaller rockets so Bo and ula can play also. What happens when they finally prove they can make a rocket and they want to crank up the number of flights. This is dumbing down to the lowest level because their rockets will become redundant in light of SpaceX success. They can't compete so they are looking to litigate. Everybody doesn't get a shiny medal for competing.
@@robinheider414You didn't actually address or counter @pmasters2 points. Nowhere did he make any of the statements you appear to be responding to, which makes your reply seem rather disingenuous.
I can understand any company having to shut their doors to the employees and stop produciton every third day jusy because a new neighbor want to light up his toys sure, they don't launch often, but you are talking about taking away over a third of the available work days each year for testing and R&D, etc...
I'm mad blue orgin started their blue ring tug program, I was planning on making a startup to produce ion based space tugs once I finish my bachelor's and work in control systems engineering for a few years to figure out how to control, monitor, and improve something like that. Now the world will have to wait 5 additional years.
Well the first the first thing that stuck out to me after watching this whole video, was that know one pointed out that the version of starship that makes it to cape canaveral will be a ploshed finshed prduct with almost none of the issues there worried about. Or is that a uninformed view point? 🤥
Not uninformed, but BO is trying to present the most powerful argument they can. Fair and balanced is not part of this “persuasion petition.” SpaceX will be allowed to counter, if necessary.
The version that will launch from the Cape will likely be V2 or V3 and be even bigger, with even more propellant, requiring even larger evacuation zones. It will also be even louder with 35 more powerful Raptor 3 engines on the first stage. If anything future versions of Starship will be worse, right?
@plainText384 Agreed that a V2/V3 starship will be worse in terms of a larger evacuation zone and in terms of noise levels and energy propagated to other launch sites, correct. However, other issues presented in the document such as failures of systems, damage to the pad and fuel infrastructure would in theory if designed in combination with a correct environmental assessment + FAA input result in the best solution to mitigate all failures attributed. Especially since a flame diverter will be for sure used rather the water deluge system, they would need to further add noise suppressors such as inclined walls + potentially wave dampeners to diffract and disperse sound waves. And as seen by the progress of SpaceX, albeit behind timeline for Artemis, each test flight is improving the reliability of the overall starship system after liftoff, and no IFT has yet experienced a launch pad RUD, which is the highest risk factor for any launch. Additionally, note that the KSC launches for starship will be required to facilitate the Artemis missions which will inevitably require multiple launches let us assume a dozen within a month to ensure a controlled boil off for refueling plus a lunar starship. In conclusion, I would say that the competitors make very valid points, but as @737smarting mentioned, not all of the arguments presented are necessarily fair and balanced.
@@BrainRobo KSC launches are probably necessary for Artemis, but not at the level of 100+ per year, and refueling can (and probably will) take multiple months. IIRC there was a interview where a NASA official talked about 1 launch every 6 days, alternating between Texas and KSC, so one launch from the KSC every 12 days. As for risk of catastrophic failure near the pad, yes it hasn't happened since IFT-1, but the risk will always be greater than 0, and should be considered, especially if Starship will be launching hundreds of times. Another factor here is the constant changes to the Starship design, which may introduce new failure options later down the line (similar to the New Shepard failure after changes to the engine).
I don't think it's odd, it's direct, easy to understand, and very refreshingly doesn't resort to hyper inflection that is too common on UA-cam with channels that try to shout their way into your attention. Keep it up 👍
@@samrusoff Odd is a positive in my world. Rare or unique might sound better. It´s the cadence of the narrator... no ooh´s and aah´s and no upspeak...rather a slight down pitch when ending sentences. Very good. Relaxing almost.
I saw the words blue origin, but I thought this was like a laugh factory or some kind of a comedy show. I didn’t realize for a few moments that it was a serious space show.
They know the incidents sited were early iteration test flights. Part of the process is dealing withe environmental/ sound concerns at Boca Chica BEFORE full operation in FLA.
It sounds like there's a mix here: some legitimate logistical concerns pertaining to the practical realities of coexisting in relatively close proximity to such a large, high-thrust, high-sound-level vehicle; and then also some concerns that come across as being more of the dubious/disingenuous kind. (For an example of the latter sort: is it really fair to basically suggest that future Florida operations will just, like, use the IFT-1-era launch mount arrangement, with no flame diverter or water deluge system, and have chunks of concrete going airborne, when it's abundantly clear that SpaceX addressed that issue immediately following IFT-1, and have had it under control ever since, and have done three successive flight tests without any such problems?) Anyway... I think many commenters go too far when they say that this is *all* purely just ULA and BO being butthurt or whatever. Is there an element of that? Of course: companies like to pile on extra things in situations like this to try to push their advantage as much as they can at the expense of their competition. But I don't think it's really fair to act as though *all* of the things that were brought up automatically have no validity to them; or to suggest that "lol BO hasn't even launched an orbital rocket yet"-a very true and very embarrassing thing-is a great basis to just straight-up dismiss any concerns that that company might have related to being a fellow user of CCSFS/KSC's launch facilities or the actual logistics of being close neighbors to a very large and very ambitious rocket. Nuance, people, nuance! There are real practical considerations involved with launching a Very, Very Big Rocket at a facility with a variety of pads operated by different companies. SpaceX is very cool (I'm personally a big fan), and they are doing a lot of very impressive things; but that doesn't mean that they get a free pass, or that nobody else's concerns could possibly have some degree of validity to them.
That makes no sense, as any such contract penalties would be illegal and unenforceable. If the litigation is legitimate, or their concerns brought to the FAA have merit, then that is exactly what the legal system and regulatory bodies are for. If the lawsuits are frivolous, they will be thrown out, and plaintiffs possibly sanctioned if an anti-SLAP statue is applicable. As for the FAA, regulatory bodies are best positioned to assess the validity of the concerns brought. Just because you and I want SpaceX to plow ahead, that doesn't mean that the competitors should be punished for exercising their legal rights. Plus, we have nothing to worry about - no one is catching up to SpaceX anytime soon, even if some delays are introduced.
Blue Origin is always pissed about something, but they and ULA do seem to make some valid points. Florida and NASA will probably need to look for an expansion somewhere down the coast or SpaceX will need to maintain some launch capacity in Texas.
I live in Satellite Beach just south of the Cape. I love watching the frequent SpaceX launches. I can see the Cape and launches from the beach. I have never seen a ULA or Blue Origin launch but hundreds of Falcons! Bozo should build rockets rather than law suits. They are jokes, unfortunately.
Space travel is suppose to be affordable as a airplane ticket and tho only way it gets there is a lot of launches a day. Spacex is building the infrastructure that is needed and the other guys are to far behind to do anything to change space travel for the very very very rich
"Ability to maintain assured access to space" Launching every 3 days vs 1/month seems to assure something is getting up there. Worried about a monopoly? Then get your ship off the ground.
Starship is very LOUD, their ARE health and acoustic dangers with the current design of Starship, and this will get exponentially increased as Starship evolves. These are LEGITMATE concerns, considering their will soon be Four major launch providers at the Cape soon. New airports or airports that expand takes years to design, approve and constructs. New air routes take DECADES to plan and implement. Professionals know this not a humbug but a legitimate concern by providers.
The other guys are just jealous because they don’t have the same money as SpaceX and they try to hold them back by limiting their launches. Even so, they could never catch up.
Holy Neil Armstrong! SpaceX Fanboys will be spitting poison at ULA and Blue Origin over this move. I can almost hear their teeth grinding as they compose their litanies of fury towards Tory Bruno and Jeff Bezos. Hello from New Zealand.🇳🇿🌴🌊🚀
BO’s “comments” are short sighted… their rockets will eventually fly at a high cadence as well… if they suggest limiting the number of flights, their rockets will be affected as well…
Oh the level of mindless devotion. While haters are fools the blindly devoted are not much better. Yes, there is some level of nonsense involved, but there are some legit concerns as well. Just because they're successful does not give them the right to act with impunity.
Omg will those agencies let FAA and EIS do their job . They already know the risks and capabilities. So so please sue origin and ula need to be quite and focus on their own jobs . For God sakes and for sue origin and ula quit crying like babies .
The environmental impact of rockets in general has been pointed long time ago....people in the Texas community (not BO) have complained about Starship test debris....and that was the last year, not for the future 120 launches planned by SpaceX
Well there's those who can do and those do nothing but sue and try to patent ideas they've only seen others do. Maybe Blue Origin should take there tourist ride to the edge of space to some amusement park or better yet quit the rocket business let those who do actually already have space ships just do their job.
With the money Elon has I don’t understand why he doesn’t have his own property to do as he will. With the way the American government treats Musk and SpaceX he should have some offshore platforms he can use.
Perhaps NASA should let BO pack up all their crap and move their entire operation up to Wallops Island? That's kinda NASA's "Kiddie Pool" for the little baby ones.
This is old news and is not relevant know since it has 3 launches since then had no problems not like blue origin who last flight a parachute didn’t open, when they put humans at risk they should put their own problems first
Starships noise is a big problem. The marine life, animals and humans can’t sustain this level of noise on the long run. 120 launches a year is not realistic.
I am very much in favor of Starship and fully support Elon but I do worry every time Starship goes up. The largest non nuclear bomb in the US arsenal is a fuel air bomb. Under the right conditions I can imagine Starship producing the largest non nuclear human produced blast in history. I would like to be wrong about that. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could explain why that couldn't happen. Otherwise, perhaps these launches should be done off shore, way off shore. But they should happen. I think we need a Mars colony as a backup and as a first step to becoming a space faring civilization.
FAE's require a good mixing, even the shuttle broke up without a giant fireball and that was hydrogen, a gas FAR more combustion friendly than methane.
Blue Origin would be so much further along with their program if they weren't so busy suing SpaceX all the time.
Probably not. They'd just be doing nothing.
Before they worry about availability of the pad it would be nice to see them actually get a functioning rocket
Jeff should just change the name of his flying dildo company to 'Blue Onion' so people will know not to take it seriously.
Honestly, I'm not sure they'd really be *that* much further. Probably only a little bit further along.
The dude is very much like Boeing seem to to only be in it for the contract and the government monies.
Make reaching orbit a requirment to give a comment on what spacex does at cape
That's just mean. You make Jeffy cry.
@@gmarie701 😂😂😂
Don't worry, ULA, your few launches can be scheduled. As far as BlueO, you 1 launch a year can be whenever you can get it up.
Why worry about the big blue feather? They have yet to get to orbit.
*** your zero launch 🤣
FEW launches? ULA has nearly 40 contracts for launches over the next 18 months. These are REAL commercial contract launches, not Elon Musks rockets launching Elon Musks satellites for Elon Musks global comm network.
Dirty tactics by the competition. Not surprised at all.
If anything, this is trying to prevent dirty tactics by SpaceX. What they are saying is that SpaceX would be directly disrupting their competitors and preventing their operations at the cape, if they are allowed to launch Starship as frequently as planned.
@@plainText384how would they not lét them launch, if they only need 1 New pad??
Like I dont understand, someone explain to me
@@Hungary_0987 Starship operations come with significant noise pollution for the whole area, and when Starship is fueled, the whole area around it needs to be evacuated, not just the Starship pad itself.
Constantly requiring hearing protection and needing to evacuate their launch sites every two days would be disruptive to SpaceX's competitors at the Cape.
@@plainText384 Good try and innovative. Noise? You left out climate change, racism, (round up the usual suspects Here).
Blue Origin couldn't sue their way out of a paper bag!😅
Or launch anything to orbit. They want to tie up SpaceX until they can catch up. But that is NEVER. At some point NASA has to stop giving billions to losers and fund companies that are successful. They continue to flush taxpayer money down a dry hole.
I would not net a body part on that!
All these companies complaining about Spacex are trying to stifle them because they know that starship will put them all out of business. They should not have ignored the writing on the wall…
plus they depend on government money to keep them going, were SpaceX does not!
Comments here be either like "Yeah there's potential problems, FAA should look into it" or "SpaceX is PERFECT OMG you HATERS!!"
@@rudddude5294SpaceX has received over $14 billion in government R&D and operations money, so what are you talking about?
@@The-KP It's definitely somewhere inbetween. These companies are all being bitchy and anti-competitive because they know they're behind. At the same time, there are valid concerns that need to be addressed. Just ULA and BO are exploiting those concerns for their own gain.
All these companies complaining about SpaceX are trying to prevent SpaceX from stifling them, because they know Starship launches would disrupt their work at nearby launch pads.
It's SpaceX who is trying to effectively monopolize the cape and force out their competitors with the noise and almost daily evacuations that would come with Starship launches and tests.
Can’t beat them sue them.
Lol their lawsuits are 100% justified.
Kathy Lueders abused her position as the interim NASA administrator to award SpaceX the sole contract for HLS/Artemis. Then, as soon as she was replaced with Biden's handpicked administrator she immediately went to work for SpaceX overseeing the very contract she had just solely awarded them.
You SpaceX leg-jumpers are something else... Musk wouldn't stop to urinate on you if you were on fire, so why carry water for him?
Pathetic.
cant beat them have all your workers go deaf
Folks, this is not a football game - picking a "side" doesn't really make sense here. I'm assuming most of us here want "space stuff" progressing swiftly.
However, we WANT an adverserial process that brings forward concerns, as long as they are legitimate (and I'm not saying they are or they're not - that is up to the FAA or the courts to decide). Remember that even self-serving actors can advocate for concerns that end up benefiting those other than themselves.
Is BO and ULA being "whiney"? Sure. But that's OK - they are using whatever legal avenues they can to make up for having fallen behind. And competition is good for the end product, regardless of motives.
Trust the process, and don't forget that SpaceX success is absolutely in US's best interests.
I agree completely
true but spacex doesn't have competition, not really and right now none of the agencies can catch up... starship is already having test flights and has proven it can reach orbit, what about new glenn? it will be obsolete in a year (3 times smaller payload to leo and hasn't even launched yet) if starship starts lifting things. Not to mention spacex has an assembly line for those mfs
Space x is Putin's puppet . Sad
@@AnkardTan Not really. If New Glenn is perfected, it will have the reusability equivalent to a Falcon 9 with the payload capacity of a Falcon Heavy and a huge shroud. A shroud unsuited to the payload capacity of the Falcon Heavy is its weakness.
Starship will have better numbers, but New Glenn will be highly competitive with almost any booster in existence at the present time. And Vulcan has enough lift to replace both the Atlas V and Delta Heavy. ULA could speed up their reusability plans for the engine section if they saw business slipping away.
I agree with the original commenter. Competition is necessary in the space business, especially given Elon Musk's "mercurial" nature.
@@i-love-space390 I think that's wishful thinking about new glenn but we'll see in September if they launch
The obvious answer is to relocate BO and ULA to a safe place. Europe would be a good start.
We have enough trouble launching over here without BO, please don't pawn them off on us!
The obvious answer would be to restrict Starship launches at the cape to some maximum frequency, such as no more than once every two weeks unless SpaceX can show that Starship launches don't disrupt the operation of other nearby launch pads.
@@plainText384 Are you serious? Imagine saying this in the 1960s and not being accused of being a commie. lol
At best their concerns are an engineering problem that can be solved. At worst it's a location problem that they can relocate others to. NASA needs SpaceX at Canaveral for more than they need BO or ULA. If they can't support SpaceX requirements SpaceX will relocate.
ITAR.
Grow up. You clearly aren't a professional
They can complain all they want, Starship is too valuable strategically for the government to slow it down. A SpaceX Mars base is a USA Mars base.
Never underestimate the petty selfishness of bureaucrats.
What ??...Mars base??...Starship is not even working or ready to go to the moon??....dreaming like the people in BO???.....
@@javierderivero9299fanbois be fanboing. Don't expect reason from the cult.
@@javierderivero9299 Well, currently starship looks to be the best shot at getting to Mars and by that, spacex is likely to be the atleast making the launch vehicle for the first human missions to moon
@@techietisdead Mars Dreaming??...maybe late in the 2030s....because they won't even get to the moon until 2028....Starship is not even a rated ship to orbit, then comes refueling in space (not done yet), needs 10 launches to refuel that ship, according to Musk, others said it will need 15 launches, then comes land on the moon...then comes land on the moon with humans....at this pace all are dreams, that's why the billionaire from Japan ready to pay for a seat quit...worst than BO , at least with BO there is not much of a hype
Those comments would only apply if the launch pad at the Cape was going to be the pre-water deluge pad, which of course it's not. These comments are just spam from companies that can't keep up. Meh.
The water system does nothing to alleviate the concerns of disruption of service, hearing protection required and the fallout were a RUD to occur on the pad. Some of it is butthurt people who can't keep up, but they aren't wrong.
It's the FAA's job to weigh the pro's and con's and decide whether it's worth it.
@@lowstrifelook, that pad, and its surroundings have been used for launches since the Apollo program. There is no Way this rocker would do anything different then the previous
@@Hungary_0987 And Starship is both larger then the Saturn V, and will launch more frequently. We can disagree with the severity of the "concerns", but they aren't entirely invalid.
@@Hungary_0987actually I think it will be significantly different from the Apollo program because spaceX plans to launch far more frequently. Like the other commenter said, the concerns aren't unreasonable even if the source is somewhat laughable.
@lowstrife How many of Blue's zero launches would ANY of SpaceX' launches impact?
ULA isn't much more active. SpaceX could completely stand down the few times a year ULA flies.
Yes - the FAA will do their job. Unfortunately, they are forced to treat the spam as if it's legit. Meh again.
I think they made a few good points, especially about starship creating a monopoly. The environmental factors are a little silly, I'm pretty sure ULA uses solid rocket motors which are terrible for air quality, they also dispose of certain stages into the atmosphere which is not a good thing. Maybe space x will need to launch from the ocean after all. (Monopoly at the cape I mean, if they hinder other companies by causing evacuations then that’s unfair)
The thing about a monopoly is NOT a reasonable point. SpaceX isn't stopping ULA or BO from launching. They are more than capable of stopping themselves from launching, as they have already proven beyond any doubt.
they wanted to launch Saturn every month from the cape also sls has huge stacks of solid boosters also ever seen heard a space shuttle take off??? its all political willy waggling as they cant compete, nothing todo with the things they stipulated.
The issue with concerns over starship creating a monopoly is that isn’t SpaceX’s concern other companies can’t keep up. Bashing in the knees of the most successful company just to preserve the facade of competition is every bit anticompetitive as a monopoly crushing its competitors.
@@josephpentony4804the issue isn't that other companies can't keep up, it's that other companies won't be able to do their work at the cape, if a Starship launch or test forces them to evacuate every 1-2 days and everyone is constantly required to use extensive hearing protection.
There are no laws against building a company from scratch that becomes a monopoly. That is called innovation and taking risks. SpaceX have essentially never stopped R&D and have pumped billions into development when they were already well ahead of the competition. Similar to Amazon in the online retail sector. ULA could have done the same thing but they spent decades relying on what they had rather than pushing forward.
let's be clear, they are not worried spacex would fail, they are worried they will succeed.
- Evenin' John.
- Evenin' Jimmy. Noise complaint ?
- Noise complaint. You, uh, working again ?
- No, i was just sorting some stuff out.
If starship wants to hit the absolutely ridiculous launch cadence necessary, they'll likely need to build launch facilities out on the water. Even if they get the entire cape to themselves, a one day turn around time would likely be too much for the surrounding area to reasonable handle for such a large rocket. Personally, I would prefer for them to just Deal With It, but it would likely be easier to go offshore that find a suitable place on land for their launch cadence.
The government could sell them Epstein Island
"The Cape isn't meant for a monopoly."
That's rather amusing coming from ULA, who essentially had exactly that until SpaceX came along.
Note that I do like ULA and Bruno in particular, but that comment is just ironic given their prior status.
@@firefly4f4 It IS ironic. But is not an untrue statement. I.e. ULA monopoly bad, but SpaceX monopoly also bad.
I'm not a fan of Elon. However, if his competitors put their money and time into improving and building their craft instead of whinning, that would be a more productive use of their time than trying to use litigation to stop any competition.
Not a fan of what.......excellence, forward thinking, technological advances, walking the walk, dominating lesser competitors?
All of the above???????
Just asking 🤔🤔🤔
You probably meant whining?
Especially when Blue Oragami hasn't even reached orbit yet.
@@PeaceMarauder I doubt it ever will
@@MrZnarffy Thanks😊
NASA should take these comments with the seriousness they deserve. One company that lauches a handful of times a year and one company that has NO launch capability AT ALL. I have a pile of dog droppings whose comments should be taken more seriously than either of these two companies.
A couple? Dozens with plans to expand that to over 120. But your point stands.
Funny how this comes right after SpaceX just made huge progress on getting starship operational.
Not really. A lot of those concerns are legit, there is good reason for them to be now worried as it looks more and more likely to be a reality.
I tend to lean in the direction that BO needs to stfu and be competitive. But some points are valid, like having to shut down operations and evacuate your worksite because the neighbor is doing a fuel test or launching. That is a reasonable ask if you're slow af like BO and never launch anything, but SpaceX wants to fly every week, closing all the time to accommodate that is a bit unreasonable.
Please stop blue origin. Its been a quarter century of failure to orbit. Cant we use this periods of launch windows for better purpose
Jeff Bezos and Tory Bruno can't handle clearly can't handle any competition, and instead of legitimately competing, they complain.
Starship isn't even operational, and they're already resorting to litigation.
Its pathetic.
This is about how frequent Starship launches would disrupt all of SpaceX's competitors' operations at the Cape. If anything this is about preventing SpaceX from artificially suppressing their competitors.
Yes is not opeerational the last year the Texas community complained the Starship debris they were going to sue (not BO)...and that was a singular rocket launch ..can you imagine 120 launches a year...good luck if a debris of a car size fall in your roof....definitely you won't go to mars
I get the fact that of course BO and ULA are a bit salty about the competition here, but the point about the noise and evacuation zones isn’t entirely meritless. I love starship but there’s no arguing it’s a big ship and spacex shouldn’t expect everyone to bow before them. The downside of all the spacex success is the one sided bias, but the cape is a busy place.
Keep in mind that NOVA was planned to launch from KSC and the environmental impact assessments way back when were planned with this in mind. Additionally, SpaceX's entire plan is to launch hundreds of times each year. To stymie this would kill the Cape as a primary launch location. They know this, which is why they have framed the complaint about limiting the number of launches rather than saying no launches to seem reasonable, but in reality it's the same outcome: keep Starship from the Cape.
So you want SpaceX to make smaller rockets so Bo and ula can play also. What happens when they finally prove they can make a rocket and they want to crank up the number of flights. This is dumbing down to the lowest level because their rockets will become redundant in light of SpaceX success. They can't compete so they are looking to litigate. Everybody doesn't get a shiny medal for competing.
@@robinheider414You didn't actually address or counter @pmasters2 points. Nowhere did he make any of the statements you appear to be responding to, which makes your reply seem rather disingenuous.
If BO or ULA are in SpaceX shoe, do you think they will limit or scale back themselves?
BO and ULA are in bed together anyway so it's no surprise they are salty about SpaceX and their mighty vision for the future, 😂😂😂
How about blue origin actually does something before acting likena spoiled todler
Sounds more like billionaire's lawyers v.s. billionaire's lawyers.
I can understand any company having to shut their doors to the employees and stop produciton every third day jusy because a new neighbor want to light up his toys
sure, they don't launch often, but you are talking about taking away over a third of the available work days each year for testing and R&D, etc...
Oh no, they won't be able to test the rockets that Starship already entirely outperforms in every margin!
Wasnt a saturn v rocket about 212 decibels at the launch pad ?
Waaaaaa...SpaceX is making us look slow. Is all I heard.
All valid concerns, considering they’re from competitors. 🙄
Could you please also talk about the company giving up on developing a spacesuit?
I'm mad blue orgin started their blue ring tug program, I was planning on making a startup to produce ion based space tugs once I finish my bachelor's and work in control systems engineering for a few years to figure out how to control, monitor, and improve something like that. Now the world will have to wait 5 additional years.
SpaceX doesn't need LC-39A.
Well the first the first thing that stuck out to me after watching this whole video, was that know one pointed out that the version of starship that makes it to cape canaveral will be a ploshed finshed prduct with almost none of the issues there worried about. Or is that a uninformed view point? 🤥
Not uninformed, but BO is trying to present the most powerful argument they can. Fair and balanced is not part of this “persuasion petition.” SpaceX will be allowed to counter, if necessary.
almost like they are running a test program in Texas
The version that will launch from the Cape will likely be V2 or V3 and be even bigger, with even more propellant, requiring even larger evacuation zones. It will also be even louder with 35 more powerful Raptor 3 engines on the first stage.
If anything future versions of Starship will be worse, right?
@plainText384 Agreed that a V2/V3 starship will be worse in terms of a larger evacuation zone and in terms of noise levels and energy propagated to other launch sites, correct.
However, other issues presented in the document such as failures of systems, damage to the pad and fuel infrastructure would in theory if designed in combination with a correct environmental assessment + FAA input result in the best solution to mitigate all failures attributed. Especially since a flame diverter will be for sure used rather the water deluge system, they would need to further add noise suppressors such as inclined walls + potentially wave dampeners to diffract and disperse sound waves. And as seen by the progress of SpaceX, albeit behind timeline for Artemis, each test flight is improving the reliability of the overall starship system after liftoff, and no IFT has yet experienced a launch pad RUD, which is the highest risk factor for any launch.
Additionally, note that the KSC launches for starship will be required to facilitate the Artemis missions which will inevitably require multiple launches let us assume a dozen within a month to ensure a controlled boil off for refueling plus a lunar starship.
In conclusion, I would say that the competitors make very valid points, but as @737smarting mentioned, not all of the arguments presented are necessarily fair and balanced.
@@BrainRobo KSC launches are probably necessary for Artemis, but not at the level of 100+ per year, and refueling can (and probably will) take multiple months. IIRC there was a interview where a NASA official talked about 1 launch every 6 days, alternating between Texas and KSC, so one launch from the KSC every 12 days.
As for risk of catastrophic failure near the pad, yes it hasn't happened since IFT-1, but the risk will always be greater than 0, and should be considered, especially if Starship will be launching hundreds of times. Another factor here is the constant changes to the Starship design, which may introduce new failure options later down the line (similar to the New Shepard failure after changes to the engine).
You have an odd interest envoking voice. I like your cideos... Detalied, to the point, and no unneccesary flare. Very nice. Thanks :-)
I don't think it's odd, it's direct, easy to understand, and very refreshingly doesn't resort to hyper inflection that is too common on UA-cam with channels that try to shout their way into your attention. Keep it up 👍
@@samrusoff Odd is a positive in my world. Rare or unique might sound better. It´s the cadence of the narrator... no ooh´s and aah´s and no upspeak...rather a slight down pitch when ending sentences. Very good. Relaxing almost.
Sue Origin needs to worry about themselves.
I saw the words blue origin, but I thought this was like a laugh factory or some kind of a comedy show. I didn’t realize for a few moments that it was a serious space show.
Like a Blue Onion video...
Valid concern: “We would need to evacuate our facilities each time the starship is fueled”
Invalid: “test flight didn’t go as planned”
Still glad the algorithm got me here.
ULA and BO prepared that with the same energy as an angry ex-wife recount her marriage. Holy bitterness Batman.
I just hope that SpaceX puts in the same claims against Blue Origin and ULA about their new rockets.
Well we sure don't have to worry about ULA and BO' s environmental impact goven they don't launch anything.
They know the incidents sited were early iteration test flights. Part of the process is dealing withe environmental/ sound concerns at Boca Chica BEFORE full operation in FLA.
It sounds like there's a mix here: some legitimate logistical concerns pertaining to the practical realities of coexisting in relatively close proximity to such a large, high-thrust, high-sound-level vehicle; and then also some concerns that come across as being more of the dubious/disingenuous kind.
(For an example of the latter sort: is it really fair to basically suggest that future Florida operations will just, like, use the IFT-1-era launch mount arrangement, with no flame diverter or water deluge system, and have chunks of concrete going airborne, when it's abundantly clear that SpaceX addressed that issue immediately following IFT-1, and have had it under control ever since, and have done three successive flight tests without any such problems?)
Anyway... I think many commenters go too far when they say that this is *all* purely just ULA and BO being butthurt or whatever. Is there an element of that? Of course: companies like to pile on extra things in situations like this to try to push their advantage as much as they can at the expense of their competition. But I don't think it's really fair to act as though *all* of the things that were brought up automatically have no validity to them; or to suggest that "lol BO hasn't even launched an orbital rocket yet"-a very true and very embarrassing thing-is a great basis to just straight-up dismiss any concerns that that company might have related to being a fellow user of CCSFS/KSC's launch facilities or the actual logistics of being close neighbors to a very large and very ambitious rocket.
Nuance, people, nuance! There are real practical considerations involved with launching a Very, Very Big Rocket at a facility with a variety of pads operated by different companies. SpaceX is very cool (I'm personally a big fan), and they are doing a lot of very impressive things; but that doesn't mean that they get a free pass, or that nobody else's concerns could possibly have some degree of validity to them.
There should be contract award penalties for companies which litigate and/or use regulatory shenanigans to slow competition
That makes no sense, as any such contract penalties would be illegal and unenforceable.
If the litigation is legitimate, or their concerns brought to the FAA have merit, then that is exactly what the legal system and regulatory bodies are for.
If the lawsuits are frivolous, they will be thrown out, and plaintiffs possibly sanctioned if an anti-SLAP statue is applicable. As for the FAA, regulatory bodies are best positioned to assess the validity of the concerns brought.
Just because you and I want SpaceX to plow ahead, that doesn't mean that the competitors should be punished for exercising their legal rights. Plus, we have nothing to worry about - no one is catching up to SpaceX anytime soon, even if some delays are introduced.
Blue Origin is always pissed about something, but they and ULA do seem to make some valid points. Florida and NASA will probably need to look for an expansion somewhere down the coast or SpaceX will need to maintain some launch capacity in Texas.
BO and ULA absolutely SHOOK.
I live in Satellite Beach just south of the Cape. I love watching the frequent SpaceX launches. I can see the Cape and launches from the beach. I have never seen a ULA or Blue Origin launch but hundreds of Falcons! Bozo should build rockets rather than law suits. They are jokes, unfortunately.
I hear Elon wants to rename the area CapeX.🤣
This is how progress work, if you can't ride it, leave. Why slow down progress just because you don't have the capability to give similar performance.
Some of the concerns raise are legit.
Waaaaaaaaa! Jealousy, fueled by an innate lack of competence is a powerful emotion.
Space travel is suppose to be affordable as a airplane ticket and tho only way it gets there is a lot of launches a day. Spacex is building the infrastructure that is needed and the other guys are to far behind to do anything to change space travel for the very very very rich
Blue Origin should first make it to low orbit before complaining, and i'm also curious about their first landing of the New Glenn on a drone ship.
blue origin suing SpaceX is like a virgin suing a porn star. 'I can't do it, so you shouldn't either!😭'
Sounds like a very high sniffle factor from two very egregious underachieving companies!
The FAA are going to have to start treating rocket launches like they do plane flights. As time goes on the traffic going to space will become huge.
SpaceX does - BO & ULA whine about why they CAN'T
"Ability to maintain assured access to space" Launching every 3 days vs 1/month seems to assure something is getting up there. Worried about a monopoly? Then get your ship off the ground.
Wow…. Whining from company’s that haven’t been able to launch squat.
Starship is very LOUD, their ARE health and acoustic dangers with the current design of Starship, and this will get exponentially increased as Starship evolves. These are LEGITMATE concerns, considering their will soon be Four major launch providers at the Cape soon. New airports or airports that expand takes years to design, approve and constructs. New air routes take DECADES to plan and implement. Professionals know this not a humbug but a legitimate concern by providers.
ULA won’t be around for long if and when Blue Origin gets up and running.
How dare they attempt to use a rocket launch complex to launch rockets.
The other guys are just jealous because they don’t have the same money as SpaceX and they try to hold them back by limiting their launches. Even so, they could never catch up.
It is getting ridiculous how the losers attempt to regulate the winner.
Holy Neil Armstrong! SpaceX Fanboys will be spitting poison at ULA and Blue Origin over this move.
I can almost hear their teeth grinding as they compose their litanies of fury towards Tory Bruno and Jeff Bezos.
Hello from New Zealand.🇳🇿🌴🌊🚀
It will be three days a week available to everyone else.
BO’s “comments” are short sighted… their rockets will eventually fly at a high cadence as well… if they suggest limiting the number of flights, their rockets will be affected as well…
"we don't want they to have a monopoly"
Then make a better machine!
22 pages? Big Rocket scary. Too big. Our rocket small. Stop big rocket.
Oh the level of mindless devotion. While haters are fools the blindly devoted are not much better. Yes, there is some level of nonsense involved, but there are some legit concerns as well. Just because they're successful does not give them the right to act with impunity.
Sour Grapes ?
Blue and ULA just need to get busy and build stuff or just get out of the way
If you can't beat them, Why not join them? Theyre just salty because of their slow development vs SpaceX's fast phased achievements lmao.
Omg will those agencies let FAA and EIS do their job . They already know the risks and capabilities. So so please sue origin and ula need to be quite and focus on their own jobs . For God sakes and for sue origin and ula quit crying like babies .
Local community? It's a massive rocket launching region. Complaining about rocket launches is like living at a harbour and complaining about ships.
Eff Blue and ULA.
LMFAO - Whing Whing Whing - How about Spacex just STOP going the ISS - That should fire up Nasa 🤣🤣🤣
The environmental impact of rockets in general has been pointed long time ago....people in the Texas community (not BO) have complained about Starship test debris....and that was the last year, not for the future 120 launches planned by SpaceX
The comments here are as usual completely toxic and incorrect as alway
womp womp ULA
Well there's those who can do and those do nothing but sue and try to patent ideas they've only seen others do. Maybe Blue Origin should take there tourist ride to the edge of space to some amusement park or better yet quit the rocket business let those who do actually already have space ships just do their job.
With the money Elon has I don’t understand why he doesn’t have his own property to do as he will. With the way the American government treats Musk and SpaceX he should have some offshore platforms he can use.
Perhaps NASA should let BO pack up all their crap and move their entire operation up to Wallops Island? That's kinda NASA's "Kiddie Pool" for the little baby ones.
Compete by making a better rocket.
Whine all you want, SpaceX is doing you our suing. SpaceX is much more important than you are! 😂
B.O. and Bezos are jealous
It's a comment, not a lawsuit. This is only being covered to get fandom clicks. This is one of the biggest nothing burgers of all time.
Maybe its just a comment but it does highlight a real logistical concerns for the industry
#Space2Xplore
This is old news and is not relevant know since it has 3 launches since then had no problems not like blue origin who last flight a parachute didn’t open, when they put humans at risk they should put their own problems first
FAA should stick to airplanes.
third! lets go
Never stop crying .look they can't count there balls and get the same number twice.all the good people are at space x every one knows that
They built starbase next to a nature reserve, need i say more
😎😎😎
Sue Origin😂😂😂😂😂
Starships noise is a big problem. The marine life, animals and humans can’t sustain this level of noise on the long run. 120 launches a year is not realistic.
🤦♂
Stop "CRYING" Jeff Bezos😁
Comments here be like "SpaceX is PERFECT OMG you HATERS!!" You perceive exactly as Elon wants you to. DO NOT LOOK BEYOND THE VEIL.
Both extremes tend to be fools.
Who is this awfully droll AI narrator?😅
I am very much in favor of Starship and fully support Elon but I do worry every time Starship goes up. The largest non nuclear bomb in the US arsenal is a fuel air bomb. Under the right conditions I can imagine Starship producing the largest non nuclear human produced blast in history. I would like to be wrong about that. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could explain why that couldn't happen. Otherwise, perhaps these launches should be done off shore, way off shore. But they should happen. I think we need a Mars colony as a backup and as a first step to becoming a space faring civilization.
FAE's require a good mixing, even the shuttle broke up without a giant fireball and that was hydrogen, a gas FAR more combustion friendly than methane.