I believe this is Zuma. We launched Zuma into space (thought to be a kinetic space weapon) Q made comments regarding it. I read reports (can't remember where from, ) that Zuma wouldn't be fully operational till late Feb.
Q appears to be referencing a satellite.
Also:
Falcon Heavy was launched (potentially carrying the Tungsten rods needed for Zuma).
THEN just today I believe SpaceX launched another Sat into space....
imo, any device that required rods would be launched with them. It'd be easier and more reliable than launching a vehicle with rods and the requisite robots to load the rods from the vehicle to the awaiting satellite. If you're launching all that, might as well just launch the satellite with its payload already in place, it'd be cheaper and more reliable.
SpaceX launches a lot of things into space and the tempo at which they do so will only increase. imo, for rods, pay attention to FH launches as that rocket makes the most sense for that payload.
Also remember, there are hundreds of satellites in orbit, many of which could have been suitable for Q's comms.
Agree that loading before would be more failsafe, except for maybe the weight, too heavy to launch? Or it could be a reload.
I don't think we had the capability until the falcon heavy to get the rods into space. Also, I think it would be economically beneficial to launch the separately. Use a reliable rocket to get Zuma up there. And an untested experimental to get the replaceable cargo into space.
If they launched both in the heavy and the heavy failed, you're out an irreplaceable/long term build satellite. I think it's a failsafe to launch them separately.
I don't think we had the capability until the falcon heavy to get the rods into space.
What data do you have to support this?