gregatron5

Ars Legatus Legionis
11,280
Subscriptor++
On raising the orbit. Spoiler for the book Seveneves by Neil Stephenson
This was a major plot point of the book. They raise the ISS to converge with (what's left of) the moon. They take an entire water asteroid to use as a source of power for a fusion reactor and it takes almost the entire asteroid to provide enough fuel to raise the orbit. It's fanciful sci-fi, but we're nowhere near having the ability to do anything like that.

The other thing about a parking orbit is: you've got this giant, brittle, non-working structure just waiting to fall apart and/or get torn apart. I would assume the risk of a catastrophic incident to the ISS even in a parking orbit is way too high to seriously consider. I can't imagine what would happen if a solar panel started wandering around all helter skelter after breaking off the ISS, let alone a module or section of modules. I think we'd have to coin a new phrase because "catastrophic" wouldn't begin to cover the havoc it could wreak.
 

Megalodon

Ars Legatus Legionis
34,252
Subscriptor++
How much more delta v to send it to a realistic graveyard orbit, where the inevitable breakup as vacuum takes its toll would not be a problem.

You can in theory do that with lower thrust higher ISP means. I guess a lot

That's not a very attractive option I think largely because it would take quite a number of years to do, with not many good options to fix it if something goes wrong during the raise. Since it would mean spending a long time in radiation belts, there's both a lot to go wrong and it would be very difficult to visit, maybe impossible to do safely.

There's a lot of satellites in graveyard orbits above geosynchronous, and it's a reasonable option for those, but geosynchronous is already a very high orbit, close to escape.
 

Dr Nno

Ars Praefectus
4,503
Subscriptor++
There's a lot of satellites in graveyard orbits above geosynchronous, and it's a reasonable option for those, but geosynchronous is already a very high orbit, close to escape.
Nitpick: Orbital velocity at a geostationary altitude is just above 3km/s, far from the 11km/s required for escape. There's no hope of easily send those decommissioned satellites in an interplanetary trajectory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: continuum

demultiplexer

Ars Praefectus
3,325
Subscriptor
Nitpick: Orbital velocity at a geostationary altitude is just above 3km/s, far from the 11km/s required for escape. There's no hope of easily send those decommissioned satellites in an interplanetary trajectory.
I was initially confused by this phrasing, but the absolute orbital velocity doesn't actually matter - the delta-V to escape matters. You don't need to impart another 8km/s to a GEO satellite to get it to exit.

1280px-Delta-Vs_for_inner_Solar_System.svg.png


From GEO you need about 2.3km/s to escape
From LEO you need about 3.2km/s to escape

Fun fact: Getting from the surface to GEO actually takes more delta-V than to escape.
 

MilleniX

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,835
Subscriptor++
Orbital velocity at a geostationary altitude is just above 3km/s, far from the 11km/s required for escape.
To belabor the correction point, 'escape velocity' actually puts you at 0 relative velocity as you approach infinite distance. It's just enough kinetic energy to not get pulled back down.
 

diabol1k

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,424
Moderator
NYT out with a long article about how SpaceX and the FAA work through/around environmental regs in/around Boca Chica. Most of the allegations center around SpaceX promising one thing (we are going to build Falcons in Texas, we are only going to close a beach near Vandenberg 12x/year) and then doing something else (Starship, already >12 in 2024 with more Vandy launches manifested).

An examination of Mr. Musk’s tactics in South Texas shows how he exploited the limitations and competing missions of the various agencies most poised to be a check on the ferocious expansion of the industrial complex he calls Starbase. Those charged with protecting the area’s cultural and natural resources — particularly officials from the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service — repeatedly lost out to more powerful agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration, whose goals are intertwined with Mr. Musk’s.

Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/07/...e_code=1.5U0.-8hd.fbkeY2K6ti96&smid=url-share
 

diabol1k

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,424
Moderator
Less environmental (at least, I omitted the environmental part of the paragraph) new thing I learned from the article I linked above:

The agency has also raised concerns about SpaceX’s approach to congestion in Boca Chica. The traffic was so bad on the tiny two-lane road that serves the area — as SpaceX builds out a one-million-square-foot rocket factory, adds a second launchpad and erects worker housing — that SpaceX built a hovercraft shuttle exclusively for its employees
 
  • Wow
Reactions: continuum

Tom the Melaniephile

Ars Legatus Legionis
47,520
Moderator
Less environmental (at least, I omitted the environmental part of the paragraph) new thing I learned from the article I linked above:
That hovercraft mention was quite interesting.

It was a detailed, though noticeably biased article. If you're going to spend that much time talking about (largely minor) negative environmental impacts and fail to mention any good SpaceX has done (such as saving thousands of sea turtles in the cold stun event, or increasing protected parkland by hundreds of acres).... the bias is pretty apparent.
 

Tom the Melaniephile

Ars Legatus Legionis
47,520
Moderator
SpaceX donated a generator during the sea turtle cold stun event. The volunteers and town did the actual work. You are purposefully giving them way too much credit.
SpaceX employees directly rescued (ie, found and brought in) 800+ turtles and supplied the generator which kept thousands from dying.

Without power, the vast majority of the 4000+ turtles in the convention center would have died. SpaceX were the only ones who showed up and provided the means to keep them alive.

The article failed to report it at all.
Much of that parkland was just a buffer for his launch site, so he did not have to buy more land.
So, phrasing aside - you agree with me. SpaceX added hundreds of acres of protected parkland and the article failed to report it. Speculation about motivation is irrelevant.

Bias in the article is pretty damn evident. They can go on for paragraphs over a handful of bird nests which regrettably were destroyed. But zero coverage of the positive things which SpaceX has done for the environment.
 

papadage

Ars Legatus Legionis
41,922
Subscriptor++
I think you read a lot of nobility in their actions, but I disagree that it is present.

They are helping protect a few hundred acres of land that they use as a buffer since they are in the hole of the don't use a shit-ton cheaper than the thousands they would need to buy otherwise if they were any other launch facility. This is especially true since their cadence is much more frequent than what they put in their environmental impact disclosures before opening.
 

diabol1k

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,424
Moderator
I don’t read the article to be focused on the individual nests (and therefore don’t find the failure to mention one event saving sea turtles), but instead on the systemic way that SpaceX (sometimes with the help of FAA) has worked around environmental laws. I also don’t think that reporting about breaking laws and regulations needs to be balanced with times where SpaceX didn’t break the law. Compliance is an all the time responsibility, not a most of the time responsibility. “But officer I usually drive the speed limit” won’t cut it, nor should it with environmental issues.

Secondly, the laws and regulations that we have today don’t have a balancing aspect… i.e. SpaceX doesn’t get to ignore the rules because they (we) think they are doing something cool and important. I’ll leave this point here because I think taking it further is Soap Box territory.
 

MilleniX

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,835
Subscriptor++
Secondly, the laws and regulations that we have today don’t have a balancing aspect
The National Environmental Policy Act actually more or less does. There are hard stops on some potential projects from things like the Endangered Species Act, but for the most part, NEPA requires that the permitting agency make a reasonable assessment of the costs and benefits of some proposed action, consider reasonable alternatives, and issue a decision with those considerations in mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baenwort

papadage

Ars Legatus Legionis
41,922
Subscriptor++
Then why are you insisting on pointing out relatively small offsets to more significant issues with their present location and how they operate?

You come out calling an article biased, play gotcha with phrasing, but insist you don't have a dog in the fight. I am not buying it.

Has SpaceX even bought the 477 acres promised as a swap for a sizable chunk of Texas' few state parks near the coast yet? They did not even own it as of last month, and I have not seen any updates since.

As of now, they have protected nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scotttheking

diabol1k

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,424
Moderator
The National Environmental Policy Act actually more or less does. There are hard stops on some potential projects from things like the Endangered Species Act, but for the most part, NEPA requires that the permitting agency make a reasonable assessment of the costs and benefits of some proposed action, consider reasonable alternatives, and issue a decision with those considerations in mind.
Sorry, clumsy wording. Agree with you on NEPA, but NEPA doesn’t allow skirting itself/other rules if the project is cool enough. The process has to be followed, the reviews have to be done (and redone if facts change)… and the outcome may be that yes, Starship launches are worth the environmental risk/damage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bardon

papadage

Ars Legatus Legionis
41,922
Subscriptor++
That's a big ass movement of the goalpost. A one-time, couple-of-day effort and a generator do not make them a green company, minimize the harm they do, and take away from their attempt to reduce a state park in size and other issues.

What happened to these hundreds of new acres you claimed they helped protect?
 

Quarthinos

Ars Tribunus Militum
1,932
Subscriptor
That's a big ass movement of the goalpost. A one-time, couple-of-day effort and a generator do not make them a green company, minimize the harm they do, and take away from their attempt to reduce a state park in size and other issues.

What happened to these hundreds of new acres you claimed they helped protect?
I thought Tom was originally talking about whether an article in the NYT was biased or not? Tom has included a lot of things that could have been included in the article that weren't and you just seem to be venting your spleen about the evils that SpaceX has perpetrated on the US's laws and the people of Boca Chica. I'm speculating you are 100% aganist anything Elon Musk owns becuase he's a bad person, regardless of whether the company he founded is actually saving the US a lot of money on space launch and also helping innovation. Can you show me on the model of the ULA where SpaceX hurt you?
 

Tom the Melaniephile

Ars Legatus Legionis
47,520
Moderator
That's a big ass movement of the goalpost. A one-time, couple-of-day effort and a generator do not make them a green company, minimize the harm they do, and take away from their attempt to reduce a state park in size and other issues.
I did note your attempted goalpost move. So you concur that it's not "nothing" - just not as much as you would like.
What happened to these hundreds of new acres you claimed they helped protect?
Based on my knowledge of Texas state government, most likely waiting on the state to get through their excessively long and convoluted process.

You're the only one I've heard claiming that it's not happening.
 

papadage

Ars Legatus Legionis
41,922
Subscriptor++
I thought Tom was originally talking about whether an article in the NYT was biased or not? Tom has included a lot of things that could have been included in the article that weren't and you just seem to be venting your spleen about the evils that SpaceX has perpetrated on the US's laws and the people of Boca Chica. I'm speculating you are 100% aganist anything Elon Musk owns becuase he's a bad person, regardless of whether the company he founded is actually saving the US a lot of money on space launch and also helping innovation. Can you show me on the model of the ULA where SpaceX hurt you?

He mentioned two things. One is illusory, and the other is a minimal, one time activity.

Why is that venting spleen when you guys are white knighting for a company doing mostly environmental harm?
 

papadage

Ars Legatus Legionis
41,922
Subscriptor++
I did note your attempted goalpost move. So you concur that it's not "nothing" - just not as much as you would like.

Based on my knowledge of Texas state government, most likely waiting on the state to get through their excessively long and convoluted process.

You're the only one I've heard claiming that it's not happening.

They do not even own the land you said they protected…pledged to protect…offered to buy to pledge to protect.

It’s the schrodinger land grant.