5 ms·

Useful for anything? Starlink useful to its 2.7 million subscribers. And it's already profitable. As of last year, SpaceX makes more in subscription fees than i

by ggreer 2y ago

Useful for anything? Starlink useful to its 2.7 million subscribers. And it's already profitable. As of last year, SpaceX makes more in subscription fees than it costs to build and launch the satellites. The economics will only become more favorable when SpaceX improves their launch capabilities with Starship.

palata 2y ago
> The economics will only become more favorable when SpaceX improves their launch capabilities with Starship. Until we start making them pay for the environmental impact, that is.
- ggreer 2y ago
  What environmental impact? So far there have been 162 Starlink launches. Each launch uses around 200 tons of RP-1, which is equivalent to the fuel capacity of a Boeing 747. In other words: A single 747 burns more fuel in a year than all the Starlink launches in the past five years.
  - bmitc 2y ago
    Rocket launches are far more environmentally non-friendly than planes. You can't just look at fuel capacity. It's the composition and where the waste product gets dumped. Rockets dump their waste much higher up in parts of the atmosphere much more sensitive to it. Comparing a rocket and plane isn't an effective comparison in terms of environment impact. So this: > A single 747 burns more fuel in a year than all the Starlink launches in the past five years. is not an accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches. Also, rocket launches are incredibly disruptive to the local ecosystems of the launch sites.
    - jryle70 2y ago
      > is not an accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches. So what is the accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches? 10 times more than B747? 100 times? How would it look compared to aviation? > rocket launches are incredibly disruptive to the local ecosystems of the launch sites. Not according to FAA when they issued license for SpaceX's launches at KSC - [0] [0] - https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/...
      - bmitc 2y ago
        You can just search for it. The general answer is that it is not good, and it's getting worse. The comparison to aviation, once again, is not really needed. Aviation is extremely polluting and damaging to the environment (not just poluttants but also disease and invasive seed spreading). There's nonquestion about that. But it isn't related to rocket launches anymore than other pollution. Here's a couple of articles. https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-space-travel-may-damage-ozone-layer/ https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-s... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/science/rocket-pollution-spacex-satellites.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/science/rocket-pollution-... What's more, and this is touched some in the articles, deorbiting satellites so routinely is dumping toxic metals and plastics into the upper atmosphere at increasing rates. We're literally turning the atmosphere into a burn skyfill. > Not according to FAA when they issued license for SpaceX's launches at KSC The FAA is not an environmental or even scientific agency. Additionally, the FAA has revealed itself to be a captured regulator in several instances. There's no question that it is susceptible to political and monetary pressures.
        heavenlyblue 2y ago
        Are you trying to say there's more sattelites falling from the sky than meteorites burning in the atmosphere? That's almost certinly not true.
        bmitc 2y ago
        How are meteorites remotely relevant to what's being discussed?
      - palata 2y ago
        > How would it look compared to aviation? Well the goal of SpaceX is to launch as many rockets as technically possible. Even if SpaceX could only reach the same impact as the rest of the aviation sector, that would be infinitely too much. The aviation sector is already a problem.
    - ggreer 2y ago
      Falcon 9's exhaust is almost entirely carbon dioxide and water vapor. If anything the exhaust is less polluting than aircraft or combustion vehicles, as air-breathing engines create nitrogen oxides.
      - bmitc 2y ago
        And yet, that's not true. One of the primary impacts from rocket launches are the heights they reach and the particles they produce, as mentioned in the articles I posted elsewhere.
bmitc 2y ago
I'm not sure how the existence of subscribers and profit negates the point. Their are plenty of things that have those that aren't useful beyond a capitalistic sense.
- ggreer 2y ago
  SpaceX provides internet access. Millions of customers pay for it. The revenue from the customers is more than enough to cover the business costs. The negative externalities are much smaller than say... aircraft or cargo shipping. If a sustainable business like that isn't enough to justify usefulness, then what is?

by ggreer 2y ago

palata 2y ago

> The economics will only become more favorable when SpaceX improves their launch capabilities with Starship. Until we start making them pay for the environmental impact, that is.

ggreer 2y ago
What environmental impact? So far there have been 162 Starlink launches. Each launch uses around 200 tons of RP-1, which is equivalent to the fuel capacity of a Boeing 747. In other words: A single 747 burns more fuel in a year than all the Starlink launches in the past five years.
- bmitc 2y ago
  Rocket launches are far more environmentally non-friendly than planes. You can't just look at fuel capacity. It's the composition and where the waste product gets dumped. Rockets dump their waste much higher up in parts of the atmosphere much more sensitive to it. Comparing a rocket and plane isn't an effective comparison in terms of environment impact. So this: > A single 747 burns more fuel in a year than all the Starlink launches in the past five years. is not an accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches. Also, rocket launches are incredibly disruptive to the local ecosystems of the launch sites.
  - jryle70 2y ago
    > is not an accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches. So what is the accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches? 10 times more than B747? 100 times? How would it look compared to aviation? > rocket launches are incredibly disruptive to the local ecosystems of the launch sites. Not according to FAA when they issued license for SpaceX's launches at KSC - [0] [0] - https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/...
    - bmitc 2y ago
      You can just search for it. The general answer is that it is not good, and it's getting worse. The comparison to aviation, once again, is not really needed. Aviation is extremely polluting and damaging to the environment (not just poluttants but also disease and invasive seed spreading). There's nonquestion about that. But it isn't related to rocket launches anymore than other pollution. Here's a couple of articles. https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-space-travel-may-damage-ozone-layer/ https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-s... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/science/rocket-pollution-spacex-satellites.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/science/rocket-pollution-... What's more, and this is touched some in the articles, deorbiting satellites so routinely is dumping toxic metals and plastics into the upper atmosphere at increasing rates. We're literally turning the atmosphere into a burn skyfill. > Not according to FAA when they issued license for SpaceX's launches at KSC The FAA is not an environmental or even scientific agency. Additionally, the FAA has revealed itself to be a captured regulator in several instances. There's no question that it is susceptible to political and monetary pressures.
      - heavenlyblue 2y ago
        Are you trying to say there's more sattelites falling from the sky than meteorites burning in the atmosphere? That's almost certinly not true.
        bmitc 2y ago
        How are meteorites remotely relevant to what's being discussed?
    - palata 2y ago
      > How would it look compared to aviation? Well the goal of SpaceX is to launch as many rockets as technically possible. Even if SpaceX could only reach the same impact as the rest of the aviation sector, that would be infinitely too much. The aviation sector is already a problem.
  - ggreer 2y ago
    Falcon 9's exhaust is almost entirely carbon dioxide and water vapor. If anything the exhaust is less polluting than aircraft or combustion vehicles, as air-breathing engines create nitrogen oxides.
    - bmitc 2y ago
      And yet, that's not true. One of the primary impacts from rocket launches are the heights they reach and the particles they produce, as mentioned in the articles I posted elsewhere.

bmitc 2y ago

I'm not sure how the existence of subscribers and profit negates the point. Their are plenty of things that have those that aren't useful beyond a capitalistic sense.

ggreer 2y ago
SpaceX provides internet access. Millions of customers pay for it. The revenue from the customers is more than enough to cover the business costs. The negative externalities are much smaller than say... aircraft or cargo shipping. If a sustainable business like that isn't enough to justify usefulness, then what is?