I think the context some may be missing here is that Blue Origin and ULA have been attempting to get the FAA to limit SpaceX's planned Starship operations in Florida on the basis that they will have too much environmental impact and impede theirs:
So this is basically SpaceX arguing back about how these concerns aren't valid or can be mitigated through more informed safety margins and co-operation between launch providers.
There's a lot of underhanded competition going around there.
Previously, there were a few rather suspicious "environmental groups" hounding SpaceX - the understanding was that someone was funding them to try to throw a wrench in SpaceX's plans. This here looks like more of the same.
This is not an update for SpaceX fans. It's aimed squarely at people who have opposed SpaceX's expansion in Florida at Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral. These people have made arguments about safety and the environment as well as disruption to the operations of SpaceX competitors. Some of these arguments may be made in good faith but some are simply aimed at obstructing a competitor or political opponent. SpaceX is countering those arguments here.
To be fair, when a company's infrastructure construction, and planned operational activities have a significant impact on the local environment, it makes sense to explain and signal these up front. You can bet environmental groups and SpaceX's competitors are already lining up their objections.
Mostly, it's SpaceX detailing how increases in launch count and scale are necessitating infrastructural, operational and organizational changes at launch sites.
Oh how the times have changed. We went from waiting months from one Falcon 9 landing test to another and to the point where people are having to rethink how to run spaceports to be able to sustain SpaceX's insane "2.5 launches a week" cadence.
>as far as I can tell, this doesn't contain any real updates
I don't think that's true? Pretty rare to see incorrect info boosted so high without any factual challenge. Just lucky timing, I guess.
Can anyone point out where they previously read about these methane blast experiments and SpaceX sharing the raw data with regulators? This was news to me, and I follow SpaceX news pretty closely.
I think its not really aspirational so much as it is long term planning. If you 20 years ago had told people the launch rates SpaceX is achieving now people would have laughed you out of the room. And this is not from SpaceX private launch site, but a government owned launch site. SpaceX has really been the driving force behind advancing the nations launch infrastructure and launch practices.
I don't see any reason why SpaceX should not continue to plan in such an agressive fashion, as there isn't really a clear reason that anybody can point out to about how its fundamentally impossible.
Its mostly competitors and activists trying to slow down SpaceX and post like this are trying to tell people 'look these are what we are planning and it will benefit everybody'.
The USSR averaged >1.5 launches/week from 1967 to 1989. SpaceX has exceeded that, but not by a huge margin. Once they start doing daily launches, it will be something people would not have believed 20 years ago. But we are not there yet.
Yeah it's a bunch of aspirational nonesense, their rocket is nowhere safe enough yet (or even in the near future), SpaceX is a proud member of the aspirational club alongside (the much loved by Hackernews members) intel foundry!
Why so? Falcons have reliably so many launches, they are undeniably the most battle tested rocket ever made. I genuinely have no idea, why are they not safe?
Yes, Boeing rockets have a much better track record on uptime, availability, and cost, like when that Boeing rocket famously saved the stranded astronauts after SpaceX demonstrated extended incompetence in getting a rocket up to space /s
I imagine this is ateast in part trying to smooth over some local concerns, about SpaceX's stated desire to have ~44 Starship launches a year. Locals are significantly concerned about what that would mean for the area. https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2025/0...
Whenas in silks my Julia goes,
Then, then (methinks) how sweetly flows
That liquefaction of her clothes.
Next, when I cast mine eyes, and see
That brave vibration each way free,
O how that glittering taketh me!
Probably a stupid question but if rocket launches really became as commonplace as airplane flights, would we see some kind of increase in global temperatures?
The short answer is yes. Airplanes account for 2.5% of CO2 emissions and rockets use massively more fuel than airplanes per flight (falcon 9 is ~10x fuel capacity of a 737).
But this is an insane scenario because there are about 100,000 commercial flights per day in the world. In all of 2024 there were ~250 orbital launches. So to hit the same rate as airplanes it would require a ~150,000x increase in the launch rate (or a ~15,000x increase to equal the CO2 emissions of airplanes).
I can’t see that happening for centuries, if ever. And if we haven’t figured out a way to deal with global warming in a few centuries the number of space launches and airline flights will probably both be zero.
They also disrupt ozone layers and leave combustion byproducts in the trail. CO2 raises temperature but dusts reduce temperature, idk which of those effects are dominant or if it makes sense to mandate an additive or something.
Not stupid at all. Definitely yes. Don't have the numbers on hand but it's orders of magnitude more CO2-equivalent released per kg-mile, especially when you factor in the fact that they are using methane.
Of course the reality is that this tech won't ever see adoption used that widely, but where is the break-even point?
They seem to like to iterate. The Falcon 9s flying now are essentially version 5. I can imagine they’ll keep experimenting with Starship designs for a while.
Readit News
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/theres-not-enough-room...
So this is basically SpaceX arguing back about how these concerns aren't valid or can be mitigated through more informed safety margins and co-operation between launch providers.
Previously, there were a few rather suspicious "environmental groups" hounding SpaceX - the understanding was that someone was funding them to try to throw a wrench in SpaceX's plans. This here looks like more of the same.
Oh how the times have changed. We went from waiting months from one Falcon 9 landing test to another and to the point where people are having to rethink how to run spaceports to be able to sustain SpaceX's insane "2.5 launches a week" cadence.
Can anyone point out where they previously read about these methane blast experiments and SpaceX sharing the raw data with regulators? This was news to me, and I follow SpaceX news pretty closely.
Because in this context, your question would squarly land around the time before STS-1 was launched in '81
For this to be about space x, you'd have to add some qualifiers - like "privately owned"
I don't see any reason why SpaceX should not continue to plan in such an agressive fashion, as there isn't really a clear reason that anybody can point out to about how its fundamentally impossible.
Its mostly competitors and activists trying to slow down SpaceX and post like this are trying to tell people 'look these are what we are planning and it will benefit everybody'.
Deleted Comment
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45294806
That would be quite an environmental impact!
But this is an insane scenario because there are about 100,000 commercial flights per day in the world. In all of 2024 there were ~250 orbital launches. So to hit the same rate as airplanes it would require a ~150,000x increase in the launch rate (or a ~15,000x increase to equal the CO2 emissions of airplanes).
Of course the reality is that this tech won't ever see adoption used that widely, but where is the break-even point?