totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[Spaceman.Spiff]

Just now, RealKerbal3x said:

Building on a few kilometres of marshland isn't 'screwing earth'. There's absolutely no reason why we can't explore new worlds while still protecting this one. 

But treating the Earth as if it's disposable is their whole thing isn't it? 

The apparent goal is an "escape" from our planet, while we would be better off investing in saving it.

[tseitsei89]

4 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

It promotes a culture of ignorance and one that believes that mars and space is just a fresh start of humanity so screw earth. 

WOW! That was a fast leap. 

What I mean is that technological advancements have always needed and will probably always need some sacrifices. One extreme is still living in a hunter-gatherer tribe society and leaving nature completely untouched and the other extreme is just "screw earth" as you put it.

Obviously neither of the extremes is good, but we can't simply stop all scientifical and technological advancements  just so we can leave nature untouched.

[Beccab]

Just now, Spaceman.Spiff said:

 

The apparent goal is an "escape" from our planet, while we would be better off investing in saving it.

That's the goal of the space company in question, yes, that's what space companies do. Are you asking why a space company doesn't invest much in saving earth?

We can and should protect earth, but spacex has nothing to do with it

[SpaceFace545]

2 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Building on a few kilometres of marshland isn't 'screwing earth'. There's absolutely no reason why we can't explore new worlds while still protecting this one. 

Like spaceman said, spacex's goal is to leave earth. Starship isn't being built to be a launcher, it is to go to mars. Even dragon was developed initially as a mars lander. Spacex is run by a man obsessed with mars and he could care less about earth. They haven't done anything for this planet and its people and I doubt they ever will.

[YNM]

3 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

The apparent goal is an "escape" from our planet, while we would be better off investing in saving it.

Yeah, it would be really nice to finally be exempt from all the income taxes too I suppose.

Still, since USACE have a project to actually keep the shoreline by doing stuff to it it's not that bad to convert some area behind it for launch pads.

Edited May 7, 2021 by YNM

[SpaceFace545]

1 minute ago, Beccab said:

That's the goal of the space company in question, yes, that's what space companies do. Are you asking why a space company doesn't invest much in saving earth?

We can and should protect earth, but spacex has nothing to do with it

spacex is a mars company, not even a space company.

[Beccab]

1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Starship isn't being built to be a launcher, it is to go to mars

Starship is being built to be a launcher. It is a launcher that can also get to mars

Just now, SpaceFace545 said:

spacex is a mars company, not even a space company.

What does that even mean?

Edited May 7, 2021 by Beccab

[tseitsei89]

2 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

They haven't done anything for this planet and its people and I doubt they ever will.

 

1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:

spacex is a mars company, not even a space company.

Ok. I think I'm done here.

[SpaceFace545]

Just now, tseitsei89 said:

 

Ok. I think I'm done here.

thanks, im getting tired of this too.

[.50calBMG]

Yeah, the company named SpaceX, as in Space Exploration Technologies, who is partnered with NASA for missions to everywhere in the solar system, is only interested in one planet. MarsX was taken I guess

[RealKerbal3x]

6 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Spacex is run by a man obsessed with mars and he could care less about earth.

I suppose all of his efforts in the field of green energy (solar panels, batteries, electric cars) don't matter. 

7 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Starship isn't being built to be a launcher, it is to go to mars.

As mentioned above, Starship is, first and foremost, a reusable launch vehicle. Going to Mars is only one of its capabilities.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

1 minute ago, Beccab said:

We can and should protect earth, but spacex has nothing to do with it

I think you're misunderstanding me.

It's not their sole responsibility, but them destroying ecosystems and leaving debris all over the place is definitely their issue to fix.

[YNM]

49 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

But taking boca chica is taking a wildlife habitat.

... that'll soon have some structures in it anyway....

Spoiler

Full Document

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by YNM

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, SpaceFace545 said:

No

I mean kind of yes. It's stated pretty clearly in the Constitution and we've had a couple centuries of jurisprudence saying so.

[RCgothic]

A launch site is mostly exclusion zone anyway. It's not exactly a high impact development.

[Beccab]

8 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

leaving debris all over the place is definitely their issue to fix.

Again, not true. The only debris that has reached the wetlands is SN11, which was not a normal occurrence, and as already stated the recovery is the issue that requires planning not to impact the enviroment badly. Leaving some steel debris for some more time where it alredy is is definitely less impactful than a badly executed recovery

[zolotiyeruki]

When engaging in this sort of debate, it's helpful if you have a similar historical situation to refer to by comparison.

...and we do, at Cape Canaveral, where the ecosystem doesn't seem to be terribly bothered by the presence of the world's largest rocket launch complex.

Also, six acres is a drop in the bucket compared the size of the area it's in.  Pull it up in Google Earth, and you can see just how small a footprint the SpaceX facilities are.

Also also, if SpaceX blow up a starship prototype, they scatter liquid oxygen, liquid methane, (or maybe a whole lot of CO2 and straight carbon), and stainless steel, plus a tiny fraction of other materials.  With the exception of the "other materials," the local ecosystem isn't going to care--methane and oxygen evaporate, stainless steel isn't going to taint the environment, and the rest of the stuff is generally at the back of the rocket and stays on or near the crash landing pad.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I mean more like white sands, literally in the middle of nowhere. But instead they rain debris on scarce habitats which are home to some very endangered* animals.

*I'm not really sure if the animals are endangered but these wetland environments definitely are.

then that powder sand from the texas coastline is definitely not good for starship then

Well the Cape Kennedy site is an wildlife refuge, why because its off limit for people. 
Animals has an radical other view of safe space, for them Chernobyl is an safe zone as none are hunting them there. Yes its radiation but its probably not gone kill you in 10 years hunters probably do.  
Dropping an rocket with non posion fuel into the area a then you have an failed launch once a decade has no real impact. 

And no you can not launch orbital rockets inland, look at China who is moving to the coast because dropping stages on houses will end up on youtube and the coast works better as its farther south. 

[YNM]

1 minute ago, magnemoe said:

And no you can not launch orbital rockets inland, look at China who is moving to the coast because dropping stages on houses will end up on youtube and the coast works better as its farther south. 

They're not planning to close down the three inland launch sites however... it's still much harder to spot a launch pad among the mountains than something on the coastline.

[tater]

The entire Boca Chica site, water to water (so actual footprint is lower) is ~175 acres. ~0.7 km².

I'd wager that a single Spring Break across the water at South Padre has far more environmental impact (not even counting the massive development on that coast that allows it).

The built up part of S. Padre Island (southern 1/3 or so) is >10X the area of the Boca Chica site.

 

KSC+Cape Canaveral are ~100,000 acres as a reference.

Edited May 7, 2021 by tater

[tater]

My own "spaceport" here in NM is White Sands Missile Range. It's 3200 sq miles, over 2M acres. Not only littered with spent ordnance, but a decent area is covered with green glass

Looks like the area glassed over in 1945 alone is about 42% of the size of Boca Chica.

Spoiler

 

Tempest, meet teapot.

Edited May 7, 2021 by tater

[.50calBMG]

"no"

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Not only littered with spent ordnance

In '92, I had the distinct joy of providing security patrols for a logistics company supporting a regimental artillery exercise out that way.   They set up inside an old impact zone. The sheer number of UXO I had to wend my way around was mind boggling. Cool thought - I only saw what was lying around on surface... 

 

While I did not see the green glass you show, I did find a whole lot of very old pottery shards. 

 

Before anyone asks - we had to leave the archeological artifacts as much alone as we did the WWII UXO. 

Point being - you can find all kinds of cool stuff in the desert! 

[tater]

19 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

While I did not see the green glass you show, I did find a whole lot of very old pottery shards. 

A buddy of mine in college was in the Army before going to the U (geology). He said they went out by the Trinity site in a UH-1 for some reason, and landed outside the fenced in area—the place that is open 2X a year for visitors had the top couple meters soil removed, and backfilled with soil many years ago—anyway, in his apartment he had an entertainment center with a plate sized piece of trinitite he gathered on that trip. The stuff is incredibly fragile, it might have self-destructed by now into smaller pieces.

(my piece in that pic is the size of a fingernail, lol)

[tater]