121–130 of 508 posts
I have a genuine question, are we handing SpaceX a monopoly by allowing them to launch these satellites, or will competing companies be able to launch similar services? Will space be too cluttered for competition? (I'm guessing space is really big and that we can have _a lot_ of small satellites up there.)
So…we have the Space Weather Prediction Center [0] and raw data from NOAA for this exact purpose. Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch? There was a G1 warning posted until 21:00 UTC on the launch date: Space Weather Message Code: WARK05 Serial Number: 1635 Issue Time: 2022 Feb 03 1428 UTC EXTENDED WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 5 expected Extension to Serial Number: 1634 Valid From: 2022 Feb 03 0…
So…we have the Space Weather Prediction Center [0] and raw data from NOAA for this exact purpose. Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch? There was a G1 warning posted until 21:00 UTC on the launch date: Space Weather Message Code: WARK05 Serial Number: 1635 Issue Time: 2022 Feb 03 1428 UTC EXTENDED WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 5 expected Extension to Serial Number: 1634 Valid From: 2022 Feb 03 0…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's cool is, it doesn't even feel futuristic anymore.
Someday potentially we could buy/lease/rent our own satelites over satelites.com use it for personal research, photography etc.,
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And we inhale it all. (Yes, I know it's insignificant; all things start insignificantly.)
When you consider the century-long global effort burning 2-3 billion gallons of oil every day to raise CO2 from 320ppm to 420ppm, you get a sense of the scale involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TFA says space junk shouldn't be a problem with the launch method they used >SpaceX deploys its satellites into these lower obits so that in the very rare case any satellite does not pass initial system checkouts it will quickly be deorbited by atmospheric drag. While the low deployment altitude requires more capable satellites at a considerable cost to us, it’s the right thing to do to maintain a sustainable space e…
Need third party analysis of that, personally
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the correct comparison is losing one launch. Most companies could handle that fine. That's what insurance is for.
Huh, I've never thought about insurance for stuff like this. Do you think this was covered?
> However, a failure of the Blok DM-2M fourth stage left it stranded in a highly inclined (51.6°) and elliptical orbit, although still fully functional. It was declared a total loss by its insurers.
> The satellite was transferred to Hughes Global Services Inc., which was then a subsidiary of Hughes Space and Communications, with an agreement to share any profits with the consortium of 27 insurers.
> Edward Belbruno and Rex Ridenoure heard about the problem and proposed a 3–5 month low-energy transfer trajectory that would swing past the Moon and leave the satellite in geostationary orbit around the Earth. Hughes had no ability to track the satellite at such a distance and considered this trajectory concept unworkable. Instead, Hughes used an Apollo-style free-return trajectory that required only a few days to complete, a trajectory designed and subsequently patented by Hughes Chief Technologist Jerry Salvatore. This maneuver removed only 40° of orbital inclination and left the satellite in a geosynchronous orbit, whereas the Belbruno maneuver would have removed all 51° of inclination and left it in geostationary orbit.
> ...
> These operations consumed most of the satellite's propellant, but still much less than it would take to remove the inclination without the Moon-assist manoeuvres. With the remaining fuel, the satellite could be controlled as a geosynchronous satellite, with half the life of a normal satellite – a huge gain, considering that it had been declared a total loss. The satellite was then maneuvered to geosynchronous orbit at 158° West.
This ended up being the first lunar mission involving a communications satellite and the first lunar mission from a non-government entity.
Watching the orbit on the wikipedia page is wild.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Falcon 9 caries just a bit more fuel than a fully loaded 777. Which is big, to be sure, but still a drop in the bucket just in terms of transportation.
This isn't quite a fair comparison, though, because it doesn't consider the energy requirements to refine lox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, spacex stuff is all LEO. Without input it all crashes into the atmosphere in a few years (3 I believe)
And we inhale it all. (Yes, I know it's insignificant; all things start insignificantly.)
Also, leaded gasoline
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would spacex be liable if one of their satellites hits your car or house?
Small satellites like Starlink burn up in athmosphere. But if you're curious about liability laws for falling satellites, here's the relevant UN convention: http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf