- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Earlier this week, SpaceX launched for the 75th time this year, continuing a flight cadence that should see the company come close to 100 missions by the end of December.
“With our 2 million users, (we) need that constellation refreshed,” the SpaceX official told Ars on background.
SpaceX’s success in recovering and reusing Falcon 9 boosters and payload fairings has been vital to making this possible.
Technicians can swap out parts like engines, fins, landing legs, and valves that malfunction in flight or show signs of wear.
Engineers have shortened the time needed to reconfigure SpaceX’s busiest launch pad in Florida to less than four days.
Supply chain management isn’t as eye-popping as landing rockets on a floating platform in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, but it’s still important.
The original article contains 399 words, the summary contains 130 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
Fewer Letters More Letters RP-1 Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene) SRB Solid Rocket Booster Jargon Definition Starlink SpaceX’s world-wide satellite broadband constellation
3 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 4 acronyms.
[Thread #13 for this sub, first seen 21st Oct 2023, 10:50] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
And this has NO effect on the environment right?
Of course it has an effect on the environment. Everything does. Tim Dodd did a nice analysis: How much do rockets pollute?
TL;DR: Falcon 9 is better than most rockets, as it doesn’t use SRBs, and the first stage and fairings can be reused many times. Starship will be better still, as it uses methane instead of RP-1 (reducing soot), and the entire vehicle is designed with reuse in mind.
Ah, methane. That’s the safe greenhouse gas. Why so many launches? What is being left in space?
Once burnt, yes, safe greenhouse gas. At least, no worse than any other combustion products. I mean, it would be nice if hydrogen wasn’t such a pain, but we have to work with the universe we are given.
Methane leaks need to be contained to the amount practical, but they are doing that.
If by “left in space” you mean the payload, then mostly Starlink satellites. A considerable number of other people’s satellites as well. Those stick around until the end of their service life, then they re-enter the atmosphere and burn up.
If you’re asking if any part of the rocket gets left up there, then the answer is no
There was a recent lemmy post and discussion where “burn up” wasn’t making stuff magically disappear out of our atmosphere.
Right. It’s more like the molecules come apart from one another but still exist. Kinda like when bread turns into toast in the toaster: matter transforming as energy flows though it.
Nah, I’m asking about why so many trips, and what is being left. You won’t find a list of it anywhere.
muskyboi has to keep replacing his starlink satellites burning up
Dont worry, according to elonmusk.today, it’s been 679 days since he anounced they would make rocket fuel from carbon in the air. So, that program is bound to produce results, right? riiiiight?
As someone who lives near enough that it rumbles my apartment when they launch - I can tell
In fifth years there will be a hundred launches per day
fifty
