11 hours ago, goates said:

 

and they're producing one Raptor engine per day now.

 

For the offshore launches, I get the impression they were looking at doing much further offshore, possibly even in international waters. I imagine they would at the very least want to get far enough out to avoid sound or other complaints. There are something like 2,000 oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, with most being well out to sea. SpaceX having a couple platforms well offshore shouldn't be too hard to do.

 

 

Regarding the oil rigs purchased by SpaceX. Glen Shotwell confirmand a while back that the oil rigs were sold. They were purchased by SpaceX for just $7 million when the company that owned them went bankrupt. It was recognized that it wasn't the right solution so they were sold. The issue with such a system is that the oil rigs were floating platforms on pontoons. A launch would literally boil the ocean beneath the rig, impacting buoyancy and destabilizing the rig. In addition it would devastate ocean life beneath the launch. 

Raptor production has been slowed down, Musk said they have "more Raptors now than they know what to do with".

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Texas judges aren't going to want to take billions of dollars of business out of the state. Its speculated that the environmental groups wish to delay so long that Musk gives up and moves operations to Florida.

Of course money trumps all other considerations.  And Musk should move his operation to a place that doesn't further endanger endangered species or other wildlife who have no voice other than environmentalists.

I know I am probably in the minority but I think protecting what we have right here on earth, including wildlife and endangered species who have no voice of their own or care about Musk giving them money to move elsewhere, is more important than sending men to the Moon or to Mars.

Noel

28 minutes ago, birdguy said:

And Musk should move his operation to a place that doesn't further endanger endangered species or other wildlife who have no voice other than environmentalists.

"During 2011–2014, SpaceX considered as many as seven potential locations around the country for a new private launch facility for orbital flights, including Alaska, California, Florida, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, and Puerto Rico"

I don't know the exact locations but I expect they all involve environmentally sensitive land.

2 hours ago, dmwalker said:

I don't know the exact locations but I expect they all involve environmentally sensitive land.

I doubt Elon Musk ever considered environmental issues when selecting his sites.   I suspect he paraphrased Admiral Farragut, "(word not allowed) the environment, full speed ahead."

Noel

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

Of course money trumps all other considerations. 

 

It does in the context I mentioned, Texas politicians who are concerned with such financial matters.

 

Quote

And Musk should move his operation to a place that doesn't further endanger endangered species or other wildlife who have no voice other than environmentalists.

 

That may well happen.

 

Quote

I know I am probably in the minority but I think protecting what we have right here on earth, including wildlife and endangered species who have no voice of their own or care about Musk giving them money to move elsewhere, is more important than sending men to the Moon or to Mars.

 

Any reasonably intelligent person would regard protecting wildlife and the environment to be important. But sending human beings to the Moon isn't just for fun, its important. Important in terms of  national security, which we're restricted from talking about here, and also important for the very concept you are advocating, namely, protecting the environment.

Cheap, cleaner, easy access to the Moon and asteroids will be essential given the fact that vital mineral resources are finite and already in short supply. In addition, taking manufacturing off-world to protect the environment on Earth is something SpaceX's endeavors can realize. Not to mention Blue Origin who have specifically said this is their long term goal.

So in essence, you are criticizing SpaceX and other companies like Blue Origin and telling us you don't care about their endeavors, when their long term goals are in accordance with your desire to protect this planet and keep it pristine. Don't you think its better to have manufacturing off-world rather than polluting this planet? In order to do that, they need to develop the technology.

4 hours ago, birdguy said:

I doubt Elon Musk ever considered environmental issues when selecting his sites.   I suspect he paraphrased Admiral Farragut, "(word not allowed) the environment, full speed ahead."

That's why you have the FAA, the EPA and other agencies. I think there are those who feel they were not stringent enough in this case.

55 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

I think there are those who feel they were not stringent enough in this case.

Count me among those.

And Martin, I'm not totally against space projects as long as they don't  endanger local citizens, towns, refuges, and wildlife without buying them off.  The entire country including Alaska is not made up of wildlife sanctuaries and refuges.  Musk's super duper launching pads surely can be built in areas where none are to be found.

Where I live we have miles and miles of open space where it is tens of miles up to a hundred miles between towns with no wildlife refuges in between.  Just coyotes, prairies dogs and rattlesnakes.  I'm sure you would find the same in Nevada and Wyoming and Alaska.  

And as has been mentioned before offshore sites.  And if it cost more to build in those locations well, Musk has all the money in the world.

And furthermore you people talk about mining asteroids and the moon and mars as if it would happen tomorrow.  It will take a century or more.  Our endangered wildlife and other ecological and environmental problems can't wait that long.  We need to do things that protect our own earth in the interim.  

Of course watching otters playing on the banks of a creek or watching beavers dam up a stream or sea turtles laying eggs on beach during the night isn't as exciting as watching a SpaceX launch but certainly more important in both the short and long term

Noel

54 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Where I live we have miles and miles of open space where it is tens of miles up to a hundred miles between towns with no wildlife refuges in between

You have to consider how far downrange the spaceship would crash if it has a malfunction just before reaching orbit, and how far left or right of its trajectory. Russia's Baikonur Cosmodrome looks as if it has more than 500 miles of essentially uninhabited land to work with. China has something similar in the Gobi Desert.

8 hours ago, martin-w said:

So in essence, you are criticizing SpaceX and other companies like Blue Origin and telling us you don't care about their endeavors, when their long term goals are in accordance with your desire to protect this planet and keep it pristine. Don't you think its better to have manufacturing off-world rather than polluting this planet? In order to do that, they need to develop the technology.

It's not either or.  Of course what you mentioned are long term goals.  But there are re short term environoment and ecological goals right here on earth you space groupies seem to be ignoring.  You tell me we can do both at the same time.  Saving the endangered ocelot in Texas has a much lower priority than SpaceX in your minds.  Let the ocelot die out so we can mine asteroids 100 years from now.

Don't tell me we can do both at the same time because we are NOT doing both at the same time.  There doesn't seem to be a willingness to fund both at the same time which is why we let Musk's rockets destroy a National Wildlife Refuge while you cheer him on.

Noel

2 hours ago, dmwalker said:

You have to consider how far downrange the spaceship would crash if it has a malfunction just before reaching orbit, and how far left or right of its trajectory. Russia's Baikonur Cosmodrome looks as if it has more than 500 miles of essentially uninhabited land to work with. China has something similar in the Gobi Desert.

How about the Aleutian Islands?

Noel

10 hours ago, birdguy said:

Count me among those.

And Martin, I'm not totally against space projects as long as they don't  endanger local citizens, towns, refuges, and wildlife without buying them off.  The entire country including Alaska is not made up of wildlife sanctuaries and refuges.  Musk's super duper launching pads surely can be built in areas where none are to be found.

 

Well, as I said earlier, I don't believe the current Starbase location was the right one, as its surrounded by wildlife refugees and there are numerous environmental organizations in that neck of the woods, some of them very well funded. 

 

Quote

 

Where I live we have miles and miles of open space where it is tens of miles up to a hundred miles between towns with no wildlife refuges in between.  Just coyotes, prairies dogs and rattlesnakes.  I'm sure you would find the same in Nevada and Wyoming and Alaska.  

And as has been mentioned before offshore sites.  And if it cost more to build in those locations well, Musk has all the money in the world.

 

 

Like I said earlier, its not that easy, as wherever you go you'll be impacting the environment  to some degree. In the example you give there would no doubt be opposition to impacting the environment, there are bound to be creatures in that locality that some would wish to protect. And there may be other factors, like the optimum location for a launch in terms of the orbit required. Then we have the lack of water in the barren desert landscape you mention, so no water for cooling to protect launch towers and infrastructure and to protect any rockets from acoustic pressure waves. 

In terms of sea launches, the rigs SpaceX bought were subsequently sold, as they turned out not to be suitable. The rigs were floating on pontoons, so any launch would have boiled the sea beneath, reduced the buoyancy and destabilized the rig. And of course, anyone concerned about protecting the marine environment would surely complain about boiling the seas and any creatures below the rig. 

 

Quote

 

And furthermore you people talk about mining asteroids and the moon and mars as if it would happen tomorrow.  It will take a century or more.  Our endangered wildlife and other ecological and environmental problems can't wait that long.  We need to do things that protect our own earth in the interim.  

Of course watching otters playing on the banks of a creek or watching beavers dam up a stream or sea turtles laying eggs on beach during the night isn't as exciting as watching a SpaceX launch but certainly more important in both the short and long term

 

 

Nope, certainly not a century or more. NASA are planning a permanent base on the Moon and that will require making use of the resources on the Moon, thus space mining will need to be developed pretty quickly. And here's the thing... Its a pain in the bum to launch from Earth due to our strong gravity, hence the huge amount of thrust from the recent launch that has generated our current debate, the Moon however, has only 16.6% of the gravity of Earth. The Moon's low gravity means its relatively trivial to launch large payloads into space from that location, rendering visits to asteroids and other bodies much easier. Couple that with the nuclear thermal engines currently in development and nuclear electric technology too, not to mention companies working on fusion rockets (much easier than energy generation) and it will be a lot sooner than you think. 

I think SpaceX will ensure that the dust cloud and rock tornado issue of the last launch won't be repeated. And I would think that the pad, water cooled flame deflector and next launch vehicle will be ready relatively quickly. The question, is whether the powerful environmental groups manage to delay the next launch so long that Musk decides they have no option but to vacate. That will mean a 6 - 8 months delay while they switch operations to Florida, thus, delaying NASA's ambitions to land on the Moon and begin establishing a permanent presence. 

The other variable of course is Dynetics. I mentioned earlier in this thread how my favored lander would be the Dynetics Alpaca rather than Starship. Alpaca is launched on a ULA Vulcan Centaur rocket. I guess its feasible that Nasa may go that route. That would be a good thing in my opinion, as I have more confidence in landing Alpaca on the Moon in a stable fashion rather than balancing a super tall SpaceX Starship on its bum, on a rocky Moon. Not to mention the fact that Starship would need to be equipped with a lift system to hoist astronauts and equipment to a scary height. In that scenario, how the hell do you get injured astronauts back inside quickly? Alpaca just has a short ladder.

The Dynetics scenario above would enable more time for Starship's development and more time for SapceX to perfect its launch system. Not to mention more time to satisfy the environmental groups. 

7 hours ago, birdguy said:

Saving the endangered ocelot in Texas has a much lower priority than SpaceX in your minds.  Let the ocelot die out so we can mine asteroids 100 years from now.

 

No it doesn't!    🙄  I'm the guy that picks up ants in the kitchen and takes them outside and currently has a humane mouse trap behind the kitchen cupboard to trap a little friend that's arrived. This conversation is not about insulting me.

No ocelots have been killed and its sooner than 100 years. As far as I know, no endangered animals were killed by the recent launch. And measures are taking place to make sure such an occurrence doesn't happen again. 

 

Quote

There doesn't seem to be a willingness to fund both at the same time which is why we let Musk's rockets destroy a National Wildlife Refuge while you cheer him on.

 

I've no idea what you are talking about. SpaceX are a private company developing a Moon lander for Nasa. Artemis is a joint mission between Nasa and the said private company. SpaceX was the cheapest option for Nasa, hence why Nasa chose SpaceX, thus saving the tax payer money.  Funding to protect wildlife refuges isn't impacted by what SpaceX and NASA are doing. And no, nobody is "letting Musk destroy" anything. Did you not notice that the authorities are investigating the  mishap? The authorities will put measures in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. 

As for "cheering him" I cheer the endeavor because I think its important for humanity. I have not "cheered" the recent mishap. And making this about me is becoming irritating. 

Edited May 4, 20233 yr by martin-w

12 hours ago, birdguy said:

How about the Aleutian Islands?

These are excerpts from Wikipedia. I would also add that we probably wouldn't want these space launch sites to be so far from public scrutiny:

"The islands are considered to be among the most geographically isolated areas in the North Pacific."

"The great majority of the islands bear evident marks of volcanic origin, and there are numerous volcanic cones on the north side of the chain, some of them active; many of the islands, however, are not wholly volcanic, but contain crystalline or sedimentary rocks, and also amber and beds of lignite. The coasts are rocky and surf-worn, and the approaches are exceedingly dangerous, the land rising immediately from the coasts to steep, bold mountains."

"In 1906, a new volcanic cone rose between the islets of Bogoslof and Grewingk, near Unalaska, followed by another in 1907. These cones were nearly demolished by an explosive eruption on September 1, 1907. In 2017, the volcanic cone erupted sending ash and ice particles 30,000 feet (9000 m) into the air."

"The climate of the islands is oceanic, with moderate and fairly uniform temperatures and heavy rainfall. Fogs are almost constant. The average annual rainfall is about 80 inches (2,000 mm), and Unalaska, with about 250 rainy days per year, is said to be one of the rainiest places within the U.S."

 "Nearly all of the Aleutians are protected as part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and the Aleutian Islands Wilderness."

Edited May 4, 20233 yr by dmwalker

1 hour ago, dmwalker said:

These are excerpts from Wikipedia. I would also add that we probably wouldn't want these space programmes to be so far from public scrutiny:

"The islands are considered to be among the most geographically isolated areas in the North Pacific."

"The great majority of the islands bear evident marks of volcanic origin, and there are numerous volcanic cones on the north side of the chain, some of them active; many of the islands, however, are not wholly volcanic, but contain crystalline or sedimentary rocks, and also amber and beds of lignite. The coasts are rocky and surf-worn, and the approaches are exceedingly dangerous, the land rising immediately from the coasts to steep, bold mountains."

"In 1906, a new volcanic cone rose between the islets of Bogoslof and Grewingk, near Unalaska, followed by another in 1907. These cones were nearly demolished by an explosive eruption on September 1, 1907. In 2017, the volcanic cone erupted sending ash and ice particles 30,000 feet (9000 m) into the air."

"The climate of the islands is oceanic, with moderate and fairly uniform temperatures and heavy rainfall. Fogs are almost constant. The average annual rainfall is about 80 inches (2,000 mm), and Unalaska, with about 250 rainy days per year, is said to be one of the rainiest places within the U.S."

 "Nearly all of the Aleutians are protected as part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and the Aleutian Islands Wilderness."

And a big factor when it comes to launching rockets is that you want to be as close to the equator as possible to benefit from the Earth's rotation. There have been a few small rockets launches from Alaska, but nothing the size of Falcon 9, let alone larger.

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

In terms of sea launches, the rigs SpaceX bought were subsequently sold, as they turned out not to be suitable. The rigs were floating on pontoons, so any launch would have boiled the sea beneath, reduced the buoyancy and destabilized the rig. And of course, anyone concerned about protecting the marine environment would surely complain about boiling the seas and any creatures below the rig. 

Those rigs may not have worked, but they don't seem to have given up on the idea. Fixed platforms probably are the better way to go for something large enough to support, and survive, a Starship launch. And I'm sure they could do something like mount their steel plate, if it works, below the rocket to prevent it boiling the ocean beneath the platform (though I think the idea they would be boiling dolphins as one video mentioned is a bit over dramatic).

Edited May 4, 20233 yr by goates
Missed a word