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

Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 66 posts

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#21

Post by bryanlarsen »

eblume wrote: post #19
uejfiweun wrote: post #14

Probably a stupid question but if rocket launches really became as commonplace as airplane flights, would we see some kind of increase in global temperatures?

Not stupid at all. Definitely yes. Don't have the numbers on hand but it's orders of magnitude more CO2-equivalent released per kg-mile, especially when you factor in the fact that they are using methane. Of course the reality is that this tech won't ever see adoption used that widely, but where is the break-even point?

Rocket launches emit less CO2 than a trans-pacific airline flight.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#22

Post by terminalshort »

uejfiweun wrote: post #14

Probably a stupid question but if rocket launches really became as commonplace as airplane flights, would we see some kind of increase in global temperatures?

The short answer is yes. Airplanes account for 2.5% of CO2 emissions and rockets use massively more fuel than airplanes per flight (falcon 9 is ~10x fuel capacity of a 737).

But this is an insane scenario because there are about 100,000 commercial flights per day in the world. In all of 2024 there were ~250 orbital launches. So to hit the same rate as airplanes it would require a ~150,000x increase in the launch rate (or a ~15,000x increase to equal the CO2 emissions of airplanes).

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#23

Post by bryanlarsen »

terminalshort wrote: post #22
uejfiweun wrote: post #14

Probably a stupid question but if rocket launches really became as commonplace as airplane flights, would we see some kind of increase in global temperatures?

The short answer is yes. Airplanes account for 2.5% of CO2 emissions and rockets use massively more fuel than airplanes per flight (falcon 9 is ~10x fuel capacity of a 737). But this is an insane scenario because there are about 100,000 commercial flights per day in the world. In all of 2024 there were ~250 orbital launches. So to hit the same rate as airplanes it would require a ~150,000x increase in the launch rate…

Most of the falcon9 fuel is liquid oxygen. A Falcon9 holds less kerosene than a 737 ER.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#24

Post by jauntywundrkind »

I imagine this is ateast in part trying to smooth over some local concerns, about SpaceX's stated desire to have ~44 Starship launches a year. Locals are significantly concerned about what that would mean for the area. https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2025/0...

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#25

Post by schiffern »

Osyris wrote: post #5

I'm a big SpaceX fan, but as far as I can tell, this doesn't contain any real updates. It's just aspirational thinking.

  >as far as I can tell, this doesn't contain any real updates
I don't think that's true? Pretty rare to see incorrect info boosted so high without any factual challenge. Just lucky timing, I guess.

Can anyone point out where they previously read about these methane blast experiments and SpaceX sharing the raw data with regulators? This was news to me, and I follow SpaceX news pretty closely.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#26

Post by barbazoo »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #21
eblume wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not stupid at all. Definitely yes. Don't have the numbers on hand but it's orders of magnitude more CO2-equivalent released per kg-mile, especially when you factor in the fact that they are using methane. Of course the reality is that this tech won't ever see adoption used that widely, but where is the break-even point?

Rocket launches emit less CO2 than a trans-pacific airline flight.

> CO2-equivalent

I think what they were trying to get at is GHG emissions in general which there are more of than just CO2.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#27

Post by ACCount37 »

Osyris wrote: post #5

I'm a big SpaceX fan, but as far as I can tell, this doesn't contain any real updates. It's just aspirational thinking.

Mostly, it's SpaceX detailing how increases in launch count and scale are necessitating infrastructural, operational and organizational changes at launch sites.

Oh how the times have changed. We went from waiting months from one Falcon 9 landing test to another and to the point where people are having to rethink how to run spaceports to be able to sustain SpaceX's insane "2.5 launches a week" cadence.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#28

Post by chilmers »

I think the context some may be missing here is that Blue Origin and ULA have been attempting to get the FAA to limit SpaceX's planned Starship operations in Florida on the basis that they will have too much environmental impact and impede theirs:

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/theres-not-enough-room...

So this is basically SpaceX arguing back about how these concerns aren't valid or can be mitigated through more informed safety margins and co-operation between launch providers.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#29

Post by modeless »

Osyris wrote: post #5

I'm a big SpaceX fan, but as far as I can tell, this doesn't contain any real updates. It's just aspirational thinking.

This is not an update for SpaceX fans. It's aimed squarely at people who have opposed SpaceX's expansion in Florida at Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral. These people have made arguments about safety and the environment as well as disruption to the operations of SpaceX competitors. Some of these arguments may be made in good faith but some are simply aimed at obstructing a competitor or political opponent. SpaceX is countering those arguments here.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#30

Post by bryanlarsen »

barbazoo wrote: post #26
bryanlarsen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rocket launches emit less CO2 than a trans-pacific airline flight.

> CO2-equivalent I think what they were trying to get at is GHG emissions in general which there are more of than just CO2.

Full flow staged combustion engines like Starships do not have significant un-burnt methane. They run slightly fuel-rich, but that results in extra CO emissions rather than CH4 due to the temperatures involve -- methane cracks at 1200C, Starship engine temperature is 3000C.

Starship's operations in Boca Chica do emit methane during ground operations. The mitigation for that is to use a pipeline rather than trucks for delivery.

Solid rocket motors emit all sorts of nasty stuff, like aluminum particles.

Post reply on HN