Given the probable lack of means to inert it anywhere near as well as the typical satellite, and the huge mass and surface area that it would expose to asteroids and other space debris, I think graveyard orbit is a very unlikely path to pursue.
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
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.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.
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.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.
Nice video, as usual.SX has put up a highlights video of Flight 4.
Some good views I don't think we've seen before, at least outside of twitter.
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.Orbital velocity at a geostationary altitude is just above 3km/s, far from the 11km/s required for escape.
Teasing but not committing to itLooks like they're teasing a chopstick catch for the next launch.
The latest track sends it further north. Houston will get flooding.Boca Chica is about to catch a Cat 1 hurricane in the face. Hopefully there won't be significant damage.
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.
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
That hovercraft mention was quite interesting.Less environmental (at least, I omitted the environmental part of the paragraph) new thing I learned from the article I linked above:
SpaceX employees directly rescued (ie, found and brought in) 800+ turtles and supplied the generator which kept thousands from dying.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.
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.Much of that parkland was just a buffer for his launch site, so he did not have to buy more land.
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.Secondly, the laws and regulations that we have today don’t have a balancing aspect
Who the fuck is talking about "nobility" other than you making it into a strawman?I think you read a lot of nobility in their actions, but I disagree that it is present.
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.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.
Ah, yes. 4,000+ sea turtles which would have otherwise died is "nothing."As of now, they have protected nothing.
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?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 did note your attempted goalpost move. So you concur that it's not "nothing" - just not as much as you would like.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.
Based on my knowledge of Texas state government, most likely waiting on the state to get through their excessively long and convoluted process.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?
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.
Hopefully NASA won't be ticketed for littering this time since it's a controlled re-entry....I remember when Skylab came down. The deorbit of the ISS will be fascinating.
Australia remembers!Hopefully NASA won't be ticketed for littering this time since it's a controlled re-entry....