Rocket Report: Blue Origin suffers setback; SpaceX’s Falcon 9 wins new business

A new crew launched to China's Tiangong space station, and one of the astronauts will stay for a year.

See full article...

 

[Yui]

Specifically, the Pentagon is talking about a new military-run spaceport.

What about expanding MARS (Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport)? Or going back to Kwajalein Atoll would be nice. It's already got sophisticated radar equipment and a sizeable military base. I'm sure the army would be happy, for a fee of course.

Edit: I forgot that MARS is civilian run. But Kwaj is still good.

 

[soulrip]

I'm glad no one was hurt by the NG failure, but this is indeed a "rough day" for heavy launch in general..

 

[MLMichael]

This Week’s Additional Launches

Somewhat to my surprise after last night’s disaster, range authorities at the Cape permitted this morning's Falcon 9 launch so, obviously, this week's schedule will not be impacted. There are five scheduled launches beyond the next three this week, two Chinese unknown payloads, South Korea again attempting a demonstration flight of its new small sat launcher, and two Starlink launches.

May 30 | 18:07 UTC: Long March 2D | Unknown Payload | LC-3, Xichang Satellite Launch Center, China

Jun 1 | 05:00 UTC: ADD Solid Fuel SLV | Demo Flight | ADD Offshore Launch Platform, Jeju Island, South Korea

Jun 3 | 08:02 UTC: Falcon 9 | Starlink Group 10-43 | SLC-40, Cape Canaveral SFS, Florida

Jun 3 | 14:00 UTC: Falcon 9 | Starlink Group 17-47 | SLC-4E, Vandenberg SFB, California

Jun 4 | 11:41 UTC: Long March 6A | Unknown Payload | LC-9A, Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center, China

 

[milkywayer]

How many moon bases you guys think could be funded if we had diverted the funds from Iran war and damages to US economy by these inflated gas prices because of Israel/trump ?

 

[Anacher]

Rocket Report all written under the filing deadline aaaand... new last minute breaking news to add!

 

[Veritas super omens]

Move slow...and still break things...?

 

[nucrash]

Sadly, the New Glenn explosion will likely hamper returning to the Moon by a year or more. There are concerns it might be until the end of the decade before the United States gets someone ready to land on it.

Sadly this feels like kicking Blue Origin while they are down due to the failure of the previous launch.

 

[CatNamedHugs]

Sadly, the New Glenn explosion will likely hamper returning to the Moon by a year or more. There are concerns it might be until the end of the decade before the United States gets someone ready to land on it.

China's still on track for a manned moon mission by 2030. And even better, they don't have an Epstein class that will use it for PR purposes.

 

[Lexomatic]

Incremental summary of rocket launches by SpaceX and others

• Time frame: 2026 YTD through Thu 5/28 (day 148 of 365, week 22 of 52, 0.41 year)
• Increment: 5/8 to 5/28 (3 weeks)
• By SpaceX: 62 (+3 w/w), of which 60 by Falcon 9, of which 48 Starlink (79%)
• By others: 66 (+3 w/w) by 20 providers of 8 nationalities [1], of which 34 by China (52%)

Spoiler: Launch performance by SpaceX

Launches completed, during increment and YTD

• Total launches: +7=62
• By customer/contract type:
  • Internal: +4=48 (Starlink)
  • External/paying: +2=13 (ISS: +1=3, other U.S. gov: +1=3, other: 7) [2]
  • Test: +1=1 (Starship-Super Heavy)
• Payload upmass:
  • Potential: >1,020 ths. kg [11]
  • Known and estimated: >767 ths. kg (~1.9 ISS-masses) [3,4,11]
  • Known excl. Starlink: >35 ths. kg
  • Satellite count: >1,510
• By launch site: CCSFS: 29, KSC: 1, VSFB: 31, Starbase: 1
• By landing site:
  • Florida: ASDS ASOG: 13, JRTI: 12, RTLS LZ-1: 0, LZ-2: 1, LZ-40: 4, expend: 1 [5]
  • VSFB: ASDS OCISLY: 27, RTLS LZ-4: 4
  • Controlled splashdown of Super Heavy (success/attempt): 0/1
  • Controlled splashdown of Starship (success/attempt): 1/1

Performance goals (F9 and FH), during 2026
Launch rate:

• In five prior years: 31, 61, 83, 138, 165
• Goal for this year: 145 [12]
• Achieved: 61
• Turnaround of core stages, in days: *** [7]

On-time statistics for external/paying launches:

• Count of launches: 13
• Days of delay, mean: 2.0
• Days of delay, spectrum (days x count): 0x4, 1x3, 2x3, 3, 6x2, 8
• Exceptional delay(s): None

On-time statistics for internal/Starlink launches:

• Count of launches: 48
• Days of delay, mean: 4.3
• Days of delay, spectrum: 0x16, 1x6, 2x9, 3x3, 4x3, 5x3, 6, 9, 16x2, 17, 18, 62

Spectating a SpaceX launch, during 2026 (probabilities)
At Florida's Space Coast:

• No more than one day after initial schedule: 0.43 (=13/30) [8]
• On any given day: 0.20
• Within any given week: 0.76
• Weeks without a launch: 4/22
• During dawn, daylight or dusk hours: 0.50 (=15/30)
• RTLS: 0.03 (=1/30) [9,10]

At VSFB:

• Within any given week: 0.77
• Weeks without a launch: 1/22
• RTLS: 0.13 (=4/31) [9,10]

Spoiler: Fleet utilization by SpaceX

F9 and FH cores, annual summary:

Year	2023	2024	2025	2026 YTD
Added	***	2	8	3
Expended	4	6	2	1
Lost	***	1	1	0
Reuse, mean (flights per core)	***	5.3	6.6	2.6
Reuse, range	***	1 to 10	1 to 11	1 to 5
Turnaround (days)	***	35.2	44.7	***
Falcon Heavy launches	5	2	0	1

Detail by tail number

• 2024
  • Added - 3: B1072, 85, 98
  • Expended - 6: B1060, 61, 64(s), 65(s), 87(c), 89(c)
  • Lost - 1: B1062
• 2025
  • Added - 8: B1091, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 1100
  • Expended - 2: B1073, 76
  • Lost - 1: B1086
• 2026
  • Added - 2: B1101, 1103
  • Expended - 1: B1098
  • Lost - 0

Fleet, by location (surviving/total):

• East coast: 14/18 - B1067, 69, 73[-], 76[-], 77, 78, 80, 83, 85, 86[-], 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98[-], 1101
• West coast: 10/10 - B1063, 71, 75, 81, 82, 88, 93, 97, 1100, 1103

Flights, over comparative periods

• By model, during 2024-2026: F9 338, FH 3, SS-SH 10
• By core number, during 2026 only:
  • 1 flight: 5 - B1072, 75, 92, 94, 98[-]
  • 2 flights: 6 - B1063, 67, 90, 96, 1101, 1103
  • 3 flights: 7 - B1069, 71, 77, 80, 85, 88, 95
  • 4 flights: 3 - B1078, 81, 93
  • 5 flights: 2 - B1097, 1100
• By core number, over full lifetime:
  • 1 flight: B1087(c), 89(c), 98
  • 2 flights: B1072(s), 1101, 1103
  • 3 flights: B1091
  • 5 flights: B1086(s), 95
  • 6 flights: B1064(s), 65(s), 96, 1100
  • 7 flights: B1094, 95
  • 9 flights: B1097
  • 10 flights: B1092
  • 11 flights: B1090
  • 13 flights: B1093
  • 15 flights: B1088
  • 15 flights: B1085 [6]
  • 16 flights: B1083
  • 21 flights: B1082
  • 22 flights: B1075, 76[-]
  • 24 flights: B1081
  • 26 flights: B1080
  • 28 flights: B1077, 78
  • 31 flights: B1069
  • 32 flights: B1063
  • 34 flights: B1067, 71

Missions by Dragon capsules, over full lifetime

• Test vehicles and Cargo Dragon 1 (flown 2010 to 2020) - 20 missions by 11 capsules:
  • C103: 1 (CRS-1)
  • C104: 1 (CRS-2)
  • C105: 1 (CRS-3)
  • C106: 3 (CRS-4, 11, 19)
  • C107: 1 (CRS-5)
  • C108: 3 (CRS-6, 13, 18)
  • C109: 1 (CRS-7)
  • C110: 2 (CRS-8, 14)
  • C111: 2 (CRS-9, 15)
  • C112: 3 (CRS-10, 16, 20)
  • C113: 2 (CRS-12, 17)
• Test vehicles and Cargo Dragon 2 (flown 2019 to present) - 15 missions by 8 capsules:
  • C201: Ground prototype, status: retired
  • C202: Ground prototype, status: retired
  • C203: Ground test article, status: active
  • C204: 1 (Demo-1) status: destroyed
  • C205: 1 (In-flight abort test) status: retired
  • C208: 5 (CRS-21, 23, 25, 28, 31)
  • C209: 6 (CRS-22, 24, 27, 30, 32, 34)
  • C211: 3 (CRS-26, 29, 33)
• Crew Dragon 2 (flown 2020 to present) - 20 missions by 5 capsules:
  • C206 Endeavour: 6 (Demo-2, Crew-2, Ax-1, Crew-6, 8, 11)
  • C207 Resilience: 4 (Crew-1, Inspiration4, Polaris Dawn, Fram 2)
  • C210 Endurance: 4 (Crew-3, 5, 7, 10)
  • C212 Freedom: 5 (Crew-4, Ax-2, Ax-3, Crew-9, 12)
  • C213 Grace: 1 (Ax-4)
• United States Deorbit Vehicle (USDV) - under development

Spoiler: Fleet utilization by other providers

This section will be more interesting once alternatives to SpaceX's Falcon 9, U.S.-domiciled or otherwise, come into regular service.

U.S. - Virgin Galactic (suborbital, program on hiatus):

• SpaceShipOne: 17 test (2003-2004)
• SpaceShipTwo VSS Enterprise: >30 test (2010-2014)
• SpaceShipTwo VSS Unity: 25 test (2016-2023) and 7 passenger (2023-2024)
• Delta class: Under development

U.S. - Blue Origin New Shepard (suborbital, program on hiatus):

• NS2: 5 (NS-2 to 6)
• NS3: 9 (NS-7 to 13, 17, 23)
• NS4: 17 (NS-14 to 16, 18 to 22, 24 to 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38)
• NS5: 6 (NS-27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37)
• RSS Jules Verne: 7
• RSS First Step: 16 (..., NS-30, 32, 34, 36, 38)
• RSS H. G. Wells: 12 (..., NS-29, 35)
• RSS Kármán Line: 4 (NS-27, 31, 33, 37)

U.S. - Blue Origin New Glenn:

• GS1-SN001 So You're Telling Me There's a Chance: 1
• GS1-SN002 Never Tell Me the Odds: 2
• GS1-SN003 No, It's Necessary: 0 (lost during static fire)

U.S. - USAF/USSF Boeing X-37 aka OTV (spaceplane):

• Vehicle 1: 4 (2010, 2012, 2020, 2025)
• Vehicle 2: 4 (2011, 2015, 2017, 2023)

China - Reusable Experimental Spacecraft (spaceplane):

• One or more vehicles: 4 (2020, 2022, 2023, 2026)

Spoiler: Launch counts by other providers, during increment

Total: +9=66
Orbital providers who have launched, by nationality (65 launches):

• China: +7=34 - CASC: +5=23, CAS Space: +1=3, Chinarocket: 3, Deep Blue: 0, ExPace: 1, Galactic Energy: 2, i-Space: 0, LandSpace: +1=1, Orienspace: 0, SAST: 0, Space Pioneer: 1
• Europe [1]: 2 - Arianespace: 2
• Germany: 0 - HyImpulse: 0, Isar: 0 (pending)
• India: 1 - Agnikul: 0, ISRO: 1
• Italy: 1 - Avio: 1
• Japan: 1 - JAXA/MHI: 0, Space One: 1
• Korea, South: 0 - Innospace: 0, KARI: 0
• Russia: 9 - Roscosmos: 5, VKS: 4
• U.S.: +1=17 - ABL: 0, Blue Origin: 2, Firefly: 1, NASA: 1, Northrop: 0, Relativity: 0, Rocket Lab: +1=8, ULA: 3, USDOD : 0

Suborbital providers (1 launch):

• Canada: 0 - Concordia University: 0
• UAE: 1 - TII: 1
• U.S.: 0 - Virgin Galactic: 0

Infrequent or aspiring providers, by nationality (0):

• Australia: 0 - Gilmour: 0
• Canada: * - MLS, NordSpace, Reaction Dynamics
• China: * - LinkSpace, OneSpace, Space Epoch, Space Pioneer
• Denmark: 0 - Copenhagen Suborbitals
• Germany: * - RFA
• France: 0 - Latitude, Maiaspace
• Iran: 0 - IRGC: 0, ISA: 0
• Italy: 0 - Sidereus
• Japan: * - Interstellar Technologies
• Korea, North: 0 - NATA: 0
• Korea, South: * - Perigee
• New Zealand: 0 - Dawn Aerospace
• Netherlands: 0 - T-Minus
• Poland: 0 - LIA: 0, SpaceForest: 0
• Spain: 0 - Pangea, PLD Space
• Sweden: 0 - Pythom
• U.K.: 0 - Astron
• U.S.: * - Radian, Stoke Space, Vaya

Defunct providers:

• U.K.: Orbex fka Moonspike (2015-2026), Reaction Engines (1989-2024)
• U.S.: Sea Launch (1995-2014), Stratolaunch (2011-2019), Virgin Orbit (2017-2023)

Spoiler: Abbreviations, methodology, endnotes

Abbrevations
n/a=not available, n/c=not calculated, w/w=week over week, BEO=beyond Earth orbit, F9=Falcon 9 Block 5, FH=Falcon Heavy, (c)=Falcon Heavy center core, (s)=Falcon Heavy side core, ASDS=autonomous spaceport drone ship, CCSFS=Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, GTO=geosynchronous transfer orbit, KSC=Kennedy Space Center, LEO=low Earth orbit, LZ=landing zone, MEO=medium Earth orbit, NLT=no later than, RTLS=return to launch site, SSO=sun-synchronous orbit, VSFB=Vandenberg Space Force Base, YTD=year to date.

For entities and programs: CASC=China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, CRS=NASA Commercial Resupply, IRGC=Islamic Guard, ISRO=Indian Space Research Organization, ISA=Iranian Space Agency, JAXA=Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, LIA=Łukasiewicz Institute of Aviation, MHI=Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, NATA=National Aerospace Technology Administration f.k.a. National Aerospace Development Administration (North Korea), RFA=Rocket Factory Augsburg, SAST=Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology, ULA=United Launch Alliance, U.S.=United States, VKS=Russian Aerospace Forces.

Methodology

• Counts include orbital launches; suborbital launches by entities with aspirations to be orbital, including tourist flights; complete success, qualified success, failure (i.e., launched but terminated); tests and production. They exclude ground tests, pad aborts and unintended launches (i.e., Space Pioneer 6/30).
• Date format: month/day, i.e., U.S. style.
• Annualized rates assume 366 days for year 2024.
• Metrics and formatting are subject to change.
• Counts and calculations are subject to correction.
• Figures are rounded.
• SpaceX launch mass assumes 730 kg for Starlink v2 Mini (per Wikipedia) and Starlink v2 Mini w/ D2C (they're reportedly heavier, but by an unknown amount); 575 kg for v2 Mini Optimized; 5,000 kg for Transporter-10; >12,000 kg for Crew-8; USSF-124 is unknown; Starship IFTs are excluded.
• Launch mass fraction assumes 419,725 kg for ISS.
• Unless otherwise stated, launch rate, fleet utilization and similar calculations include only the F9 fleet, not the (much less common) FH.
• Delay stats are subject to correction if initially-announced schedule (within a sequence of scrubs) is corrected. Aggregates will be marked "n/a" if I have incomplete data.
• Launch probability uses the Poisson method, per Wickwick 7/5.
• Nationality of provider vs. launch site: Rocket Lab is a U.S.-domiciled company but launches from New Zealand. Orbex is British but plans to build engines in Denmark. RFA is German but will launch from the U.K.
• Sources: EverydayAstronaut.com (previous and upcoming), Ken's Launch Schedule, NASA.gov (ISS CRS mission overview PDF), NASASpaceFlight.com, NextSpaceflight.com, Space.com, Space Explored, SpaceX.com, SpaceX.com X feed, SpaceflightNow.com, Wikipedia.

Endnotes

• Note 1. "Nationality" counts "European Union" separately from individual member states, to account for Arianespace launches under the aegis of ESA.
• Note 2. Customer allocation: Some early launches of Starshield were believed to be mixed with Starlink, so they would count towards both "internal" and "U.S. government excl. ISS." Later launches are believed to be categorized openly as NROL.
• Note 3. Starting with Starlink Group 7-9 in January 2024, most launches have manifested a mix of sats with D2C capability. The number of each type is announced by SpaceX, but the mass of the latter is not known.
• Note 4. Sea-level mass is not necessarily comparable to delta-V, given differences attributable to orbital inclinations. In other words, "we've lofted three ISS-masses this year" is not the same as "we could've put three duplicates in the ISS's orbit."
• Note 5. A FH counts for one launch but three landings.
• Note 6. Counting the fleet is tricky because cores may be used as singletons or FH side cores, e.g., B1064 and B1065, which flew five times as F9 and a final time as expended FH.
• Note 7. Turnaround time of F9 cores: Trimmed mean of most recent 20 flights, i.e., start with >=20 flights, pick most recent 20, drop the outliers at each extreme, and average the remaining 18. Unlike other YTD stats, this count spans year-boundary. Uses launcher identity per NextSpaceflight.com.
• Note 8. Most (>65% during 2024) launches are F9 carrying Starlink and hence fungible for spectating purposes, so a long delay attributable to any particular mission (e.g., 10-2 was delayed 12 days while B1073 was swapped for B1078, during which 9-1 and SES-24 launched) doesn't reduce the chance of seeing a launch in general.
• Note 9. Starlink launches always land downrange on a drone ship, so RTLS is a possibility only on the 30% that are paying-customer launches.
• Note 10. A FH dual landing counts as one RTLS viewing opportunity.
• Note 11. Maximum mass, to the launch orbit, with recovery. Crew and Cargo Dragon missions are excluded, because they "are" satellites but do not "deliver" satellites. Potential mass accounts for NRO and rideshare missions that have unspecified payloads to known orbits, i.e., F9 carries 16,000 kg to LEO and 6,500 kg to SSO.
• Note 12. Launch goal during 2024 for SpaceX is per comments of VP Jon Edwards at Everyday Astronaut Astro Awards 1/14/2024; includes four launches delayed from 2023. Goal for 2025 is per comments by Elon Musk on X on 12/17/2024 (>180) and Gwynne Shotwell at CSIS (175-180). Goal for 2026 is per comments by Gwynne Shotwell, interview with Time on 3/26/2026.

 

[fenris_uy]

Chinese officials said they have not determined which of the astronauts will be tasked with the one-year stay in orbit

I know that Chinese authorities don't care much about personal rights, but launching without knowing if you are coming back in 6 months or a year, looks like a disrespect to the astronauts.

 

[Navalia Vigilate]

Support for diversity… Specifically, the Pentagon is talking about a new military-run spaceport. Defense officials are wary of the vulnerabilities of private or state-run launch sites to potential attack, and they argue that geographic diversity could help the military overcome bottlenecks at the Cape and Vandenberg.

How about the south side of West Palm Beach? Quick access from PBI airport. Definitely a good location to move SpaceX's Super Heavy / Star Ship and Blue Origin's New Glenn operations.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Successful launch from Florida.

Deployment of 29 @Starlink satellites confirmed

 

[NetMage]

By SpaceX: 62 (+3 w/w), of which 60 by Falcon 9, of which 48 Starlink (79%)

I wonder if Amazon is talking to SpaceX this morning about pulling their Leo launches earlier on F9’s schedule. It could be that SpaceX doesn’t get to scale down F9 launches this year unless Starship can start carrying Starlinks.

 

[Veritas super omens]

How about the south side of West Palm Beach? Quick access from PBI airport. Definitely a good location to move SpaceX's Super Heavy / Star Ship and Blue Origin's New Glenn operations.

I vote we move it to Mar a Lago...

 

[bozoid]

Hopefully the Air Force will choose a site that won't be underwater within the next 30 years.

Can Cape Canaveral still operate with one meter of sea level rise? I'm pretty sure Wallops Island can't.

 

[Wickwick]

Sadly, the New Glenn explosion will likely hamper returning to the Moon by a year or more. There are concerns it might be until the end of the decade before the United States gets someone ready to land on it.

Sadly this feels like kicking Blue Origin while they are down due to the failure of the previous launch.

Despite BO's PR efforts recently, the mission of record for the first crewed lander has always been using the SpaceX Starship-derived lander. As such, last night's anomaly had zero impact on when people next walk on the lunar surface.

To believe that an alternate timeline could have unfolded requires one to believe that Blue Origin was poised to reach 7 or 9 launches per year faster than any private rocket company ever. Even without rockets destroying pads, there's no evidence Blue Origin has ever done anything faster than the entire launch industry.

 

[Wickwick]

I know Northrop Grumman had developed technology that required a small amount of electrical current be passed through the grain to allow the solid to keep burning. I wonder why DARPA is looking for other answers to throttling of solids.

 

[Elipsus]

Charting China’s contribution to space junk. There’s a problem with the drastic uptick in Chinese space launches over the last decade. China appears to be ignoring long-established norms about disposing of the upper stages of rockets,

Painting China here as "the junk generator that doesn't follow norms" while ignoring how much China has been and still is continually excluded from doing any kind of space collaboration because the great US of A decided so, and then having the audacity of blaming them for not following the rules that were created without any of their input is soooo american it makes me puke. (and I say that as a French dude who doesn't even particularly like China right now).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment - which resulted in a veto of the China participation on the ISS



And making a fuss about 250 tons when Elon musk is shitting hundreds of tons per month in the atmosphere, disintegrating materials at a record rate in the atmosphere and making astronomy a nightmare for the whole world is just cherry on top

 

[fenris_uy]

Despite BO's PR efforts recently, the mission of record for the first crewed lander has always been using the SpaceX Starship-derived lander. As such, last night's anomaly had zero impact on when people next walk on the lunar surface.

To believe that an alternate timeline could have unfolded requires one to believe that Blue Origin was poised to reach 7 or 9 launches per year faster than any private rocket company ever. Even without rockets destroying pads, there's no evidence Blue Origin has ever done anything faster than the entire launch industry.

They reused the first landed booster faster than SpaceX, didn't they?

B1019 was never reused, and B1021 took almost a year from landing to reuse.

"Never tell me the odds" took less than 6 months from landing to reuse.

 

[EllPeaTea]

It's all well and good for the US military to construct a new launch site. But how will they make providers actually use it? Rockets can only get so big before they can't be transported by road any more, so they will probably also need easy sea access. (Do we know what Stoke's transport solution is?)

So they need somewhere that can launch to polar orbits and to the east, that isn't near a built up area, and also has sea access?

 

[fenris_uy]

First look at LC-36

https://i.redd.it/up11l48z134h1.png

EDIT:
Tower and building next to pad appears to be done for.
Water tower might survive.
Tank farm might need to be retested.

 

[fenris_uy]

It's all well and good for the US military to construct a new launch site. But how will they make providers actually use it? Rockets can only get so big before they can't be transported by road any more, so they will probably also need easy sea access. (Do we know what Stoke's transport solution is?)

So they need somewhere that can launch to polar orbits and to the east, that isn't near a built up area, and also has sea access?

The eastern tip of Cuba.

 

[Wickwick]

It's all well and good for the US military to construct a new launch site. But how will they make providers actually use it? Rockets can only get so big before they can't be transported by road any more, so they will probably also need easy sea access. (Do we know what Stoke's transport solution is?)

So they need somewhere that can launch to polar orbits and to the east, that isn't near a built up area, and also has sea access?

Careful. That line of thinking might lead to the US having to invest in Puerto Rico's infrastructure...

Edit: Viques seems pretty ideal. It's already got a wildlife refuge and those seem to play nicely with rocket complexes.

 

[randomcat]

Virgin Galactic is still a thing? I thought Branson cashed out a while back and they were winding down.

 

[bozoid]

The eastern tip of Cuba.

Or Greenland.

 

[Wickwick]

Or Greenland.

That would be fine for polar launches, but shit for anything else.

 

[PatientZero]

How many moon bases you guys think could be funded if we had diverted the funds from Iran war and damages to US economy by these inflated gas prices because of Israel/trump ?

None. If we freed up that money, suddenly the cost of the moon base from the contractors would be a bit higher. Contracts expand to fill a any niches that are left open.

 

[EllPeaTea]

F9 transiting the sun this morning.

Spoiler: Tweet with photos

View: https://x.com/john_winkopp/status/2060353209630093561