Rocket Launches from Cape Canaveral: What Happened and Why You Missed It

The Race to Space is Heating Up, But Are We Measuring the Right Things?

SpaceX just pulled off another rapid-fire launch sequence, and ULA finally got its Atlas V off the ground. The pace is undeniably accelerating. But I can't help but wonder if we're so focused on launch cadence that we're missing the bigger picture.

SpaceX managed two Starlink launches within roughly three and a half hours from Florida's Space Coast. Starlink 6-89 lifted off from Kennedy Space Center at 10:08 p.m. EST, following Starlink 6-85 from Cape Canaveral at 1:44 a.m. EST. Both carrying 29 Starlink V2 Mini satellites. The booster B1078, making its 24th flight, landed successfully on the drone ship. SpaceX completes second fastest turnaround between Falcon 9 launches from Cape Canaveral – Spaceflight Now

That's impressive, no doubt. Twenty-four flights for a single booster is a testament to reusability. And with these launches, SpaceX now has nearly 9,000 satellites in low Earth orbit. But what does this relentless pace mean beyond just a higher satellite count?

Quantity vs. Quality in the New Space Race

The ULA launch, after a series of delays due to a faulty valve, finally took place at 10:04 p.m. EST on November 13. This launch carried the ViaSat-3 F2 mission, an ultra-high-capacity broadband spacecraft. The launch window was specifically chosen to comply with FAA restrictions related to the government shutdown (commercial launches only permitted between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. local time). Recap of the Thursday ULA Atlas V rocket launch from Cape Canaveral

Here's where my skepticism kicks in. We're celebrating launch frequency, but are we tracking the actual impact of these launches? SpaceX is deploying thousands of Starlink satellites. Viasat is launching a single, "ultra-high-capacity" satellite. What's the comparative bandwidth delivered per launch dollar? What's the energy consumption per bit transmitted? These are the metrics that matter for long-term sustainability and actual value creation.

I've looked at hundreds of these launch reports, and almost none of them focus on these fundamental metrics. It's all about "successful launch," "reusable boosters," and "number of satellites deployed."

The Hidden Costs of "Success"

The weather forecasts for both SpaceX missions were "greater than 95 percent chance for favorable weather at liftoff." That sounds great, but it glosses over the broader environmental impact. What's the cumulative effect of these launches on the upper atmosphere? What are the long-term consequences of repeatedly burning rocket fuel at this scale? These questions rarely make it into the press releases.

And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. We're quick to tout technological advancements, but slow to acknowledge potential downsides. It's like celebrating the speed of a new car without considering its fuel efficiency or emissions.

Frankly, the focus on speed and frequency feels… shortsighted. It's a land grab, sure. But it's a land grab without a clear map of the terrain.

More Satellites Doesn't Equal Progress

The launch data is impressive, no doubt. But the real story isn't in the launch times or booster reusability. It's in the impact. What's the societal benefit? What's the environmental cost? Until we start tracking those metrics, we're just measuring the wrong things.

The Real Scorecard is Still Unwritten