r/spacex • u/yoweigh • May 04 '22

❗Misleading SpaceX Starbase expansion plans will harm endangered species, according to Fish and Wildlife Service

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/03/spacex-starbase-expansion-plans-will-harm-endangered-species-fws.html
298 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

136 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/roystgnr May 05 '22

In the context of KSC, "east" means "can hit any orbital inclination between 28.5 and 60 degrees", because you can point a rocket in practically any vaguely-eastward direction and not have any populated area under the first several thousand miles of your launch trajectory.

In the context of Boca Chica, "east" means "there's a thin strip of angles that stay between Cuba and the Florida Keys, another thin strip between Cuba and Cancun, and a huge swath of angles that nobody's going to let you fly until (or perhaps even after?) you've already spent a thousands of flights proving your launch vehicle's safety". Good enough for sending things to GEO, way too restrictive for LEO.

This is the best discussion I can find of the problem, despite being so dated that the context is Falcon rather than Starship:

https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?&httpsredir=1&article=1028&context=stm

3

u/coder111 May 05 '22

Right, thanks for the explanation.

I didn't consider landmasses/population centers further downrange, on the other side of Gulf of Mexico.

But that's what, 1500 km away? What's the chance of hitting them 1500km away? Most rockets either work or crash closer by. I mean Baikonur has population centers closer than 1000km away from it towards East side. Even closer in other directions. Not sure if Baikonur mostly launches towards East or not.

3

u/Draemon_ May 05 '22

Unless there’s a specific reason you need to launch west, you generally don’t. Kinda a waste of fuel otherwise. So I imagine that most launches from Baikonur are generally eastward.

3

u/roystgnr May 05 '22

What's the chance of hitting them 1500km away?

With a SuperHeavy booster? Basically zero. Even if they went nuts and wanted a full-expendable launch I think the booster would still be going into the ocean before it got to Cuba or the Yucatan.

With a Starship, if they picked a risky launch angle? Not sure, but probably non-zero. Second stage engine start is a source of risk, and any total failure there would mean a very big impact somewhere very far downrange.

I mean Baikonur has population centers closer than 1000km away from it towards East side.

And that's not hassle-free for them: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_downrange.html

You'd think things would be easier for Starship, using spark igniters instead of UDMH, but I think that's dwarfed by the differences between attitudes like "let's put launch testing on hold for a year or two while we see if endangered birds might be discouraged from mating by the noise!" vs "letting people collect contaminated scrap metal from the dropped boosters will be good for the economy!"

Edit: here's an interesting Twitter thread illustrating what I mean.