Earlier this week, SpaceX launched for the 75th time this year, continuing a flight cadence that should see the company come close to 100 missions by the end of December.

"With our 2 million users, (we) need that constellation refreshed," the SpaceX official told Ars on background.

SpaceX's success in recovering and reusing Falcon 9 boosters and payload fairings has been vital to making this possible.

Technicians can swap out parts like engines, fins, landing legs, and valves that malfunction in flight or show signs of wear.

Engineers have shortened the time needed to reconfigure SpaceX's busiest launch pad in Florida to less than four days.

Supply chain management isn't as eye-popping as landing rockets on a floating platform in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, but it's still important.

The original article contains 399 words, the summary contains 130 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer Letters	More Letters
RP-1	Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene)
SRB	Solid Rocket Booster

Jargon	Definition
Starlink	SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation

3 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 4 acronyms.

[Thread #13 for this sub, first seen 21st Oct 2023, 10:50] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And this has NO effect on the environment right?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Of course it has an effect on the environment. Everything does. Tim Dodd did a nice analysis: How much do rockets pollute?

TL;DR: Falcon 9 is better than most rockets, as it doesn't use SRBs, and the first stage and fairings can be reused many times. Starship will be better still, as it uses methane instead of RP-1 (reducing soot), and the entire vehicle is designed with reuse in mind.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Ah, methane. That's the safe greenhouse gas. Why so many launches? What is being left in space?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

Once burnt, yes, safe greenhouse gas. At least, no worse than any other combustion products. I mean, it would be nice if hydrogen wasn't such a pain, but we have to work with the universe we are given.

Methane leaks need to be contained to the amount practical, but they are doing that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If by "left in space" you mean the payload, then mostly Starlink satellites. A considerable number of other people's satellites as well. Those stick around until the end of their service life, then they re-enter the atmosphere and burn up.

If you're asking if any part of the rocket gets left up there, then the answer is no

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There was a recent lemmy post and discussion where "burn up" wasn't making stuff magically disappear out of our atmosphere.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago

Right. It’s more like the molecules come apart from one another but still exist. Kinda like when bread turns into toast in the toaster: matter transforming as energy flows though it.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago

Nah, I'm asking about why so many trips, and what is being left. You won't find a list of it anywhere.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

muskyboi has to keep replacing his starlink satellites burning up

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

As someone who lives near enough that it rumbles my apartment when they launch - I can tell

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In fifth years there will be a hundred launches per day

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago

fifty