Hacker News Reader

> i just don't like that the said company test their stuff in a middle of a natural reservation

I guess you must really hate NASA then.

> Visitors to Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex are often surprised to discover that they are just as likely to be greeted by an alligator or dolphin. This is because Kennedy Space Center sits in the middle of the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge adjacent to Canaveral National Seashore, one of the largest and most diverse wildlife preserves in Florida. In fact, the refuge supports one of the highest numbers of threatened and endangered species anywhere in the nation.

https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/blog/07/the-wild-side-of-...

You don't have to hate NASA to lament their riding roughshod over threatened species' habitats on a routine basis.

Do you have sources for them doing that on a routine basis?

I see a very large amount of launch infrastructure. You don't build that much without disregarding the needs of what lived there first.

Much of it was built before the EPA existed, so routine was routine. But, it is still being expanded, lately on behalf of SpaceX. Scheduling in lots of studies and meetings just amount to delaying, if they can't actually affect whether the paving happens. No amount of public hand-wringing gives a turtle back the nesting site its ancestors have returned to for a million years, or a hundred million.

95% of the land isn't used by any launch infrastructure, only 5% of the land is used, so please, how is this routinely abusing the area?

They have paved all they wanted to, so far. When they want to pave more, they will. Then it will be "only 10%", "only 15%", "only 20%", and on up.

So, you still can't tell us how this is routine abuse? Come on.

If they've built on 5% of the land in 50 years, then we should have another 950 years of expansion, at that extrapolation.

You are aware there is a conservation programme running too?

5% of what? They paved over 100% of what they paved over. That number will not change, however much they pave over.

If the supposed conservation programme doesn't actually block paving, then it is what they call a formality. Business-as-usual is routine.

The US space program was practically moribund for those 50 years. The paving was done quickly at the start. With space activity ramping up, paving will too, as we see starting already. What are you demanding as a definition of "routine" beyond paving where they like, when they like?

The US Space programme was moribund? No Space Shuttle launches then?

You say they are routinely abusing the area and all I'm getting from that is that they've paved over areas, 5% of the area. How is this routinely abusing the area?

Could you post an journal article explaining how this has routinely abused the area and put the ecosystem at risk?

Could you post a journal article identifying what percentage of an already radically reduced habitat of numerous threatened and endangered species can be paved over without driving any of them closer to extinction?

You may as well condemn all of south Florida. How dare they.

OK. But who is "condemning" here? Floridians, looks like.

There's not just SpaceX creating large rockets. Neutron, New Glenn etc. I'd hope some of those would be running in 20 years time or even better. FH can have a larger fairing but it's not 9m, not by a long shot. Also we'll see 3 this year, there was supposed to be one a couple of months ago but the payload wasn't ready.

Also, sure you can have more complex methods to get to the stage where it's analogous to a single large mirror, but that's why it took 25 years to make JWST (amongst policical reasons too, but still).

If constellations are so bad to astronomy, why do ESA want one?

Finally, I think you'll find KSC in Florida is slap bang in the middle of a huge nature reserve, as it has been for the past 50+ years

Those all have a fraction of the chances of success that SpaceX has.

Really? RocketLab are going great guns. There's nothing outlandishly novel with their Neutron design (bar the 007 style fairing). If you've not seen the recent interviews with Peter Beck, I'd highly recommend you to do so.

Their payload masses are a joke, and they are more than a decade behind SpaceX at this point in terms of development and experience. Falcon 1 was retired more than a decade ago, and they are still flying the equivalent today.

I don't think they realistically stand a chance to outcompete SpaceX within the next ten years on any dimension, after all, SpaceX is a fast moving target itself. But that's just my opinion, so we'll have to wait to see how it plays out.

It would be great to have a real competitor to SpaceX, that can't come soon enough, I do give them better chances than Bezos and his toy factory.

For space telescopes (which this topic is about) doesn't need super heavy lift capability, just larger diameter. Neutron is planned to be 7m diameter.

Please, just watch the interview. It might change your opinion by listening to the plan, I know I felt much more optimistic about more serious players in the field.

I agree in principle, I think they are the #5 player right now in the commercial lift arena, SpaceX first, ArianeSpace second, ULA third, the Russians fourth and then Neutron. Which is quite an achievement. There are other players but those are not commercially available. So they are in excellent company but they still have a very long way to go, which given their funding is only to be expected. Once they start to fly heavier payloads and more complex engine configurations they will be a player to be reckoned with.

I'd be interested to see what the Arianne 6 turns out like given A5 is now sold out, but it still won't be reusable so high cost despite half an A5, but that doesn't matter as their main customer is ESA and they're pretty wedded to them politically.

I'm not aware of any reusable vehicles by ULA and all the current flights are fully booked, they're sold out of their current block. There were only a handful of launches last year, I think Electron actually flew more. For the new, they're waiting for engines from Blue Origin but they'll probably end up using RS as it doesn't look like BO will deliver.

The Russians (and Chinese) are basically copying anything SpaceX in terms of reusable heavy lift, which might be a good plan in the long-term but it's not that innovative.

Better a good copy than a bad original. Copying the leader is smart. Innovation is expensive and risky, something the Chinese are not very well equipped to do (yet) and the Russians can't afford.

I think long term if Ariane Space and ULA don't adapt that they'll die unless they keep being subsidized. But if SpaceX manages to reduce cost even further then that will make no sense, it is already very hard to justify.

> has been said to possibly make that particular company bankrupt if they don't manage to ramp up their engine production soon. and the market for heavy launch vehicle is tiny.

I read Musk's statements regarding this towards his workforce as a pure power play to put pressure on them working even harder on ongoing issues like you mentioned.

So is there any indication his statements aren't true?

I don't have any insights into this but that wasn't my point. I simply pointed out my opinion, that the message was so intense, that it was looking to me as a pressure play.

That being said - if you can produce n amount of engines per time frame, I am positive that they manage to achieve n*x amount of engines per the same time frame as well.

I see, I was wondering why an intense message would indicate a pressure play rather than a grim reality.

> i know i know, i'll get heavily downvoted for the above, i just don't like that the said company test their stuff in a middle of a natural reservation.

Wasn't that a bit of over-inflation from dodgily-backed NIMBYs, especially in a state where petrochemical industries have abused a lot more natural environments?