4 ms·
Almost like regulatory capture is a real thing. East facing also isn't even remotely a requirement for a launch, Israel launches westward on a regular basis
by sidewndr46 3y ago
Almost like regulatory capture is a real thing.
East facing also isn't even remotely a requirement for a launch, Israel launches westward on a regular basis
- bell-cot 3y agoLaunching westward - on the Earth, from a non-polar site, to non-polar orbits - carries a large delta-v penalty, which translates into a huge payload penalty.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoAnd they lose about 20% of their cargo capacity because they're fighting the Earth's spin rather than taking advantage of it. It's not like the west coast has large stretches of undeveloped unprotected land either. The only real alternative is Alaska, and that's suboptimal for other reasons.
- elteto 3y agoThey aren't launching West because they want to, but because they _have_ to. A quick peek at the map will tell you why.
- nine_k 3y agoLaunching westwards is working against the rotation of Earth, not the cheapest approach. Israel just does not have a large body of water, or a,large desert, to let the spent booster descend (or crash) into. I bet their launches all turn eastwards after reaching sufficient altitude.
- RecycledEle 3y agoBeing able to launch from somewhere does not make that place an optimal location.
- sidewndr46 3y agoCorporations aren't entitled to optimality at the expense of the environment
- pixl97 3y agoYou're telling me your giving up your car, and your computers, and everything else you use that comes with an environmental cost. What's worse is non-optimal launches will have far more environmental impact because you have to do more of them or use more fuel. Talk about cutting off your own nose.
- justrealist 3y agoWhat SpaceX is doing in Boca Chica is completely irrelevant compared to other environmental damage being done completely legally ex, in Louisiana by shipping and the oil industry, simply because it is grandfathered in. Like, literally dredging thousands of acres of wetlands into the gulf as regular business. Everything that happens affects the environment somehow, but the scrutiny here is wildly disproportionate to the actual impact, of disrupting a couple acres of beach. The "corporation" of SpaceX is a unique national asset that no other nation currently has, and it provides incredible value to US citizens to maintain that edge (Starlink alone, and Starship would give us a launch capacity that dwarfs Russia or China). That matters! That's important! This isn't a "corporations vs the people" issue. Industrial policy requires thoughtful tradeoffs, and this FAA/EPA action isn't one.
- snovv_crash 3y agoThis. SpaceX gives the US unique advantages that the wildlife on this beach doesn't. I'm surprised the DoD hasn't already overridden the EPA on this for matters of national security.