4 ms·
Fun fact (for me, anyway): I live 35 miles from the launch complex, and the ground-shaking launch of the Vulcan Centaur rocket woke me up at 2:19 this morning.
by c-linkage 3y ago
Fun fact (for me, anyway): I live 35 miles from the launch complex, and the ground-shaking launch of the Vulcan Centaur rocket woke me up at 2:19 this morning.
I can't imagine how intense it was for people much nearer to Cape Canaveral.
That is one hell of a rocket!
- consumer451 3y agoOnce Starship is up and running, I am really curious how the noise will affect the surrounding areas. For example, the HLS version of Starship, for Artemis III, will require something like 16 Starship launches in short order. I am a huge SpaceX fan, but if SpaceX's vision of many Starship launches per day becomes reality, then that will certainly be interesting for anyone within 50 miles of the pad.
- euroderf 3y agoAre launches permitted when prevailing winds would send liftoff exhaust over populated areas ?
- consumer451 3y agoUp to this point, that's not been a factor considered by anyone in a position of authority. Starship uses Methane-Oxygen, which burns way cleaner than Kerosene-Oxygen, which is used by Falcon 9. The thing people should be concerned about are solid rocket boosters, which SpaceX does not use. Solid boosters have polluted every "untouched" alpine lake on the planet. Those have been used by the new Vulcan, Space Shuttle, and a lot of other rockets. Tim Dodd has an excellent video and write-up on this topic: https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/ https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- senectus1 3y agoprovided it burns yes. any accident that results in the releasing of that amount of methane unburnt would be horribly damaging. luckily, rockets rarely DONT go bang and burn when things go wrong.
- p1mrx 3y agoThe exhaust from Starship is just CO₂ and water (CO₂ causes climate change, but that's not a local effect.) Vulcan is dirtier because of the solid rocket boosters.
- avmich 3y agoI'm not sure about Raptors specifically, but usually liquid rocket engines run rich (or, as Russians say, "sweet", rather than "sour", or lean), which means that there's excess of methane in the exhaust. Methane is a powerful (comparing to CO2) greenhouse effect agent, which fortunately doesn't have as long atmospheric life as CO2.
- MPSimmons 3y agoThis is a closed cycle, so I would expect it to be cleaner, but I don't know for sure.
- p1mrx 3y agoRaptor (Starship) is closed cycle, and BE-4 (Vulcan) is oxygen rich, so neither should be dumping unburned methane during normal operation.
- mr_toad 3y agoBE-4 has oxygen rich pre-burners, while Raptor is full-flow. However both engines use a fuel rich mix in the main combustion chamber. But the pollution from either is far less than from a solid fuel engine.
- blowsand 3y agoIndeed. Although Texas is not a primary launch site long term. It’s a development site. The Cape is going to be a primary, with multiple Starship-capable pads.
- consumer451 3y agoYes, but even the Cape has lots of people living within sound range. I am not trying to stir the pot, it depends on the wind, etc. But, if we will see hundreds or even thousands of Starship launches per year, it's hard not imagine a system of methane and oxygen pipelines running out to offshore platforms being required. Ideally, those platforms would be located somewhere without much sea life. Though that's utter speculation, because I have no idea how well air pressure shock waves transfer to under the sea.
- TylerE 3y agoI think at thaT point they could probably afford to just build an offshore launch complex, or build out in the middle of nowhere Arizona or something.