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.
The SpaceX Thread
- Thread starter daveklingler
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aerospace rockets satellites spacex
On raising the orbit. Spoiler for the book Seveneves by Neil Stephenson
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.
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.
How about a near rectilinear halo orbit. Can’t see any good uses for those /s
I figured it was unrealistic but nice to know why.
I figured it was unrealistic but nice to know why.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The latest track sends it further north. Houston will get flooding.
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).
Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/07/...e_code=1.5U0.-8hd.fbkeY2K6ti96&smid=url-share
Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/07/...e_code=1.5U0.-8hd.fbkeY2K6ti96&smid=url-share
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.
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.
Much of that parkland was just a buffer for his launch site, so he did not have to buy more land.
Much of that parkland was just a buffer for his launch site, so he did not have to buy more land.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who the fuck is talking about "nobility" other than you making it into a strawman?
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.
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.
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.