Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere

spaceweatherarchive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 231 posts

Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere

#211

Post by samus »

Jeff_Brown wrote: post #18
panick21_ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The waste, waste majority of sats never turn into space debris. Every single sat that launches today in the West has a deorbit planned. The only sat that turn into space debris will be those that brake unexpectitly and totally unrecoverable. And the Starlink sats are so low that they dont really turn very meaningful debris ever. And in general, yes LEO can handle millions of sats. We have like 150k cars in a single t…

> the Starlink sats are so low that they dont really turn very meaningful debris ever. Is that right? Scientific American seemed to think it could be a problem in 2019[1]. Space.com says Starlink satellites orbit at an altitude of about 342 miles (550 kilometers)[2]. And the Wikipedia article on Kessler Syndrome[3] (which is a chain reaction of satellite debris) mentions an incident at 555km that was problematic: "In…

Most satellites are deorbited in a planned fashion and thus generate very little if any space debris. If the orbit is low enough, the orbit will decay by themselves by aerodynamic braking after a few years.

Compared to that, anti-satellite missile bust a satellite into pieces and carry indeed the danger of creating a Kessler syndrome. In case these would be used on a large scale, WW III would be imminent anyways. Apart from that, missiles are too expensive to knock out Starlink satellites, and the latter are comparatively easy to replace.

Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere

#212

Post by simonh »

seadan83 wrote: post #203
simonh wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are thousands of people responsible for planning, certifying and monitoring the operations of these launches. Within SpaceX, but also the launch site owners, the FCA, journalists covering it all. There are comprehensive environmental impact assessments, with opportunities for comments from the public. One of the thousands of people involved in all of that is a billionaire. Furthermore it’s an issue that affects…

Evaluations from SpaceX employees needs the biggest grain of salt. Their jobs depend on a certain result and their boss is notoriously pushy. Journalists are not scientists. Did you mean FAA rather than FCA? The FAA did ask SpaceX to do a lot of additional ground level items: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/13/faa-spacex-starship-environm... The reviewers at th ed FCA were unlikely to be in the thousands, the rest menti…

Yes sorry, FAA. I’m a Brit so not as familiar with the US institutions.

My point is there is extensive and persistent oversight, debate and opportunities for input and objection. Journalists play a role in the public interest in any democratic society.

One person didn’t ask whether we should? Space technology has been controversial since its inception. Citizens, journalists and politicians have been questioning it throughout its history. You really honestly think you’re the first person, or this is the first time anyone has stopped to wonder about it?

Incidentally, there’s one particularly famous example of this from 1970 that’s a bit of a classic: https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-space-...

Of course nobody should get a free pass to wreck the Earth. That’s a cartoonishly absurd caricature of what’s going on.

Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere

#213

Post by andirk »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #196
adhesive_wombat wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should be banned anyway. The more we can do to make their operations impossible the better. Their mere existence makes a mockery of the idea of the stock market as a considered reflection of value of companies and explicitly makes it into a gambling den for dead-eyed people competing to have the fastest card counting systems under their suits. If a company is valuable now, it'll be valuable in 5 minutes.

Have you ever listened to an earnings call? It only takes a few words from CEO or CFO to reduce the value of the traded stock to nearly zero.

Earnings call is a review of the quarterly earnings document usually released earlier that day. The stonk price fluctuates almost entirely on how accurate the guidance was and what the future guidance is. Even doing excessively good in a quarter can have a negative impact because they didn't give their investors an accurate heads up. I guess maybe some horrible pro-Hitler rant may affect the price, but to zero? I haven't seen that.

Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere

#214

Post by ElectronCharge »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #107
pologreen wrote: post #73

I feel like this isn’t a good thing in the long term Does anyone else feels it’s a good thing?

It’s the early blips of an eventual space faring civilization. The signal might propagate and alert other intelligence that we are attempting something challenging. Hopefully they send help.

Our radar/radio/TV emissions and nuclear blasts have already provided MUCH bigger “we are here” signs… ;-)

Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere

#215

Post by serf »

simonh wrote: post #212
seadan83 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evaluations from SpaceX employees needs the biggest grain of salt. Their jobs depend on a certain result and their boss is notoriously pushy. Journalists are not scientists. Did you mean FAA rather than FCA? The FAA did ask SpaceX to do a lot of additional ground level items: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/13/faa-spacex-starship-environm... The reviewers at th ed FCA were unlikely to be in the thousands, the rest menti…

Yes sorry, FAA. I’m a Brit so not as familiar with the US institutions. My point is there is extensive and persistent oversight, debate and opportunities for input and objection. Journalists play a role in the public interest in any democratic society. One person didn’t ask whether we should? Space technology has been controversial since its inception. Citizens, journalists and politicians have been questioning it th…

>Of course nobody should get a free pass to wreck the Earth. That’s a cartoonishly absurd caricature of what’s going on.

>My point is there is extensive and persistent oversight, debate and opportunities for input and objection.

the point that other commentators have made, which has seemingly been ignored, is that being the person with the most wealth in the entire world allows one to ignore a lot of the checks and balances associated with any activity.

A lot of the 'extensive and persistent oversight' comes from 1) internal employees and 2) government officials that have been 'taken out to dinner' enough times that they don't want to lose the opportunity to schmooze with what amounts to be the most and influential people in the world.

this is essentially how all of American aerospace operates, and I speak from personal experience -- most groups don't have the luxury of being a cult of personality on top of the thick wallets, however.

You can call CO2 harmless all you want, but the reality is that we have a tenuous grasp, if any at all, on what spilling hundreds of tons in a minute will add up to [0], and that's only a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the environmental accumulative 'unknowns'.[1]

In effect Musk's pass to wreck the Earth was by no means free, he paid for it. The problem is that someone , anyone with money and pop interest, can do that.

I'm by no means anti-space, but this trend of pretending that there isn't a sacrifice made on Earth to fuel these mega-ventures is absolutely naive, and the tragedy is that the every-person is going to be the one paying the bill; it won't be Musk's redirected billions.

[0]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220713-how-to-make-rock... [1]:https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/astrophysics/greenhouse-gas...

Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere

#216

Post by serf »

ericd wrote: post #118
lacrimacida wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The space industrial complex would pollute a whole lot more than today, and let’s hope space tourism it’s not something too feasible, aside from stroking egos it wouldn’t do much, space is very human unfriendly after all. I for one hope we move slower not faster.

It’s not just stroking egos; if you read any accounts by astronauts, there’s a profound effect on people that get a chance to look back at earth, and see how it’s actually not infinite. I hope every powerful person gets the chance to do that, I think it’d go a long way in reducing the petty bullshit we engage in.

I mean, we have a precedent; did Bezos' trip substantiate radical pro-human changes in his businesses?

The only thing I read about resulting from that trip was Shatner's induced depression over the sight.

Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere

#217

Post by kergonath »

panick21_ wrote: post #199
kergonath wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be surprised. It takes several years for the low emissions of an EV to compensate the increased emissions during fabrication compared to ICEs (and disposal: ICEs are mostly steel and plastic, with fewer fancy chemicals as batteries). Teslas, being large and heavy, also use way more energy than they should to move around 100 kgs of human. Energy that is not free of GHG emissions. EVs are mostly good over the…

EV are heavier but more efficent because electric motors are more efficent.

Yes, in isolation. But it the electricity production is burning gas, the inefficiency is moved to the power plant rather than avoided (this still makes EVs better, just not as good as they could be in a completely carbon-free grid).

The main effect of mass is when comparing 2 different EVs: one that is twice as heavy has ~twice the initial production emissions, as well as twice the energy consumption (and emissions, as the case may be). Even with EVs, large and heavy cars are very wasteful.

Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere

#218

Post by palata »

ericd wrote: post #118
lacrimacida wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The space industrial complex would pollute a whole lot more than today, and let’s hope space tourism it’s not something too feasible, aside from stroking egos it wouldn’t do much, space is very human unfriendly after all. I for one hope we move slower not faster.

It’s not just stroking egos; if you read any accounts by astronauts, there’s a profound effect on people that get a chance to look back at earth, and see how it’s actually not infinite. I hope every powerful person gets the chance to do that, I think it’d go a long way in reducing the petty bullshit we engage in.

> if you read any accounts by astronauts, there’s a profound effect on people that get a chance to look back at earth, and see how it’s actually not infinite

Still no astronaut says that they don't want to go back because it contributes to destroying the planet, do they?

Don't get me wrong: I would probably throw my principles out the window if I got to become an astronaut. But I don't think we can say that going in space makes you a big environmental activist.

Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere

#219

Post by ericd »

palata wrote: post #218
ericd wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just stroking egos; if you read any accounts by astronauts, there’s a profound effect on people that get a chance to look back at earth, and see how it’s actually not infinite. I hope every powerful person gets the chance to do that, I think it’d go a long way in reducing the petty bullshit we engage in.

> if you read any accounts by astronauts, there’s a profound effect on people that get a chance to look back at earth, and see how it’s actually not infinite Still no astronaut says that they don't want to go back because it contributes to destroying the planet, do they? Don't get me wrong: I would probably throw my principles out the window if I got to become an astronaut. But I don't think we can say that going in…

The carbon footprint of an astronaut going into space on eg a Falcon 9 is on the order of that of a couple average American families for a year. It's not a huge impact compared to how much they advance our understanding of how to live in space (back of the envelope, ~150 tons of kerosene yielding ~500 tons of CO2, 50 tons for the average American family for a year). I haven't run the numbers on Starship, but my impression is that it'll be significantly more efficient.

Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere

#220

Post by ericd »

serf wrote: post #216
ericd wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just stroking egos; if you read any accounts by astronauts, there’s a profound effect on people that get a chance to look back at earth, and see how it’s actually not infinite. I hope every powerful person gets the chance to do that, I think it’d go a long way in reducing the petty bullshit we engage in.

I mean, we have a precedent; did Bezos' trip substantiate radical pro-human changes in his businesses? The only thing I read about resulting from that trip was Shatner's induced depression over the sight.

My impression is that Bezos isn't involved in day-to-day operations anymore?
Post reply on HN