7 ms·

I’m not disputing SpaceX had the advantage of learning from peoples mistakes. And I’m not arguing that they didn’t physically get the engines and boosters back

I’m not disputing SpaceX had the advantage of learning from peoples mistakes. And I’m not arguing that they didn’t physically get the engines and boosters back I’m just saying that calling the space shuttle and F9 both reusable may be semantically true but is really not giving an accurate representation.

dylan604 4y ago
SpaceX is also contributing to the increasing amounts of space junk. How long is the second stage just floating around after delivering payloads? Once the shuttle delivered payloads, it just left nothing but space.
- ktpecot 4y ago
  Lol are you just making stuff up now? The second stage re enters the atmosphere and burns up.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    No, it was a legit question. It depends on the payload though right? For StarLink deployments at LEO, I'm sure it re-enters soon-ish. But what about for higher altitude launches of other types of satellites? How long does the second stage float around?
    - mlindner 4y ago
      If you have questions I'd suggest asking them as a question. Your post read as a statement of fact with a rhetorical question attached.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        "How long is the second stage just floating around after delivering payloads?" How much more of a interrogative statement does it need to be made to be considered asking a non-rhetorical question?
        geocrasher 4y ago
        If you take it out of context of your post, yes, it looks like a well posed question. When read in context it looks rhetorical and that's how I took it, too. Perhaps you didn't intend that. But that is how it came out.
        mlindner 4y ago
        As a standalone question that's fine, but in context it's a rhetorical question as you already state your assumed answer.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  Almost Immediately after the payload is deployed, the second stage does a deorbit burn. So maybe an hour? Each Shuttle launch ended with ditching the enormous external tank into like the Indian Ocean, far more dry mass in the atmosphere/ocean than a Falcon 9 upper stage. (Also, the ET was about $100-150 million apiece.)
  - dylan604 4y ago
    I was not aware of the second stage doing a de-orbit burn. TIL
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mlindner 4y ago
  A brief look would have you find that for most (but not all) launches the second stage de-orbits after one or two orbits and isn't even left in orbit for a day. (For some launches it's impossible to de-orbit the stage and no matter which provider you launch with will leave a second stage as junk in orbit.) Also, this isn't just SpaceX, every launching country/company leaves second stages in orbit, some, unlike SpaceX, don't even try to dispose of their second stages and leave all second stages in orbit. I'd recommend reading up more on the topic as I think you read something at some point and think that SpaceX is an especially bad actor in the space when in fact they are one of the most responsible actors, if not _the_ most responsible actor, in the space launch sector at the moment.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    SpaceX is launching stuff at an incredible rate. That's the great thing, but it also means that as they continue to launch, the amount of 2nd stages left behind will only increase. I didn't read anything one time in weird corner of the internet like seem to want to insinuate. There are plenty of sites where you can see the items being tracked. There is a large number of second stages in orbit that are not coming back any time soon. It might have been some coincidental bit of luck that on one particular perusal of one of these sites I just happened to click on 2 such items. Again, as they continue to increase the rate of launches, this will become an issue. And obviously, I don't believe SpaceX is the only such party doing this. That's just an unintelligent comment to have made.
    - mlindner 4y ago
      > SpaceX is launching stuff at an incredible rate. That's the great thing, but it also means that as they continue to launch, the amount of 2nd stages left behind will only increase. You seem to be saying that all entities globally should as a whole launch less objects into space, as you imply that putting more objects into space is a net negative. That's fine to think but I strongly disagree that we as a planet should launch less objects into space. > There is a large number of second stages in orbit that are not coming back any time soon. I agree, which is why we should push for regulations that require satellite operators to have plans to de-orbit their satellites at end of life and/or not launch to orbits where the launching stage cannot quickly de-orbit within a set number of years. However simply pushing for all countries to launch less things into space, as you seem to be saying, is not a good idea.

dylan604 4y ago

SpaceX is also contributing to the increasing amounts of space junk. How long is the second stage just floating around after delivering payloads? Once the shuttle delivered payloads, it just left nothing but space.

ktpecot 4y ago
Lol are you just making stuff up now? The second stage re enters the atmosphere and burns up.
- dylan604 4y ago
  No, it was a legit question. It depends on the payload though right? For StarLink deployments at LEO, I'm sure it re-enters soon-ish. But what about for higher altitude launches of other types of satellites? How long does the second stage float around?
  - mlindner 4y ago
    If you have questions I'd suggest asking them as a question. Your post read as a statement of fact with a rhetorical question attached.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      "How long is the second stage just floating around after delivering payloads?" How much more of a interrogative statement does it need to be made to be considered asking a non-rhetorical question?
      - geocrasher 4y ago
        If you take it out of context of your post, yes, it looks like a well posed question. When read in context it looks rhetorical and that's how I took it, too. Perhaps you didn't intend that. But that is how it came out.
      - mlindner 4y ago
        As a standalone question that's fine, but in context it's a rhetorical question as you already state your assumed answer.
Robotbeat 4y ago
Almost Immediately after the payload is deployed, the second stage does a deorbit burn. So maybe an hour? Each Shuttle launch ended with ditching the enormous external tank into like the Indian Ocean, far more dry mass in the atmosphere/ocean than a Falcon 9 upper stage. (Also, the ET was about $100-150 million apiece.)
- dylan604 4y ago
  I was not aware of the second stage doing a de-orbit burn. TIL
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mlindner 4y ago
A brief look would have you find that for most (but not all) launches the second stage de-orbits after one or two orbits and isn't even left in orbit for a day. (For some launches it's impossible to de-orbit the stage and no matter which provider you launch with will leave a second stage as junk in orbit.) Also, this isn't just SpaceX, every launching country/company leaves second stages in orbit, some, unlike SpaceX, don't even try to dispose of their second stages and leave all second stages in orbit. I'd recommend reading up more on the topic as I think you read something at some point and think that SpaceX is an especially bad actor in the space when in fact they are one of the most responsible actors, if not _the_ most responsible actor, in the space launch sector at the moment.
- dylan604 4y ago
  SpaceX is launching stuff at an incredible rate. That's the great thing, but it also means that as they continue to launch, the amount of 2nd stages left behind will only increase. I didn't read anything one time in weird corner of the internet like seem to want to insinuate. There are plenty of sites where you can see the items being tracked. There is a large number of second stages in orbit that are not coming back any time soon. It might have been some coincidental bit of luck that on one particular perusal of one of these sites I just happened to click on 2 such items. Again, as they continue to increase the rate of launches, this will become an issue. And obviously, I don't believe SpaceX is the only such party doing this. That's just an unintelligent comment to have made.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    > SpaceX is launching stuff at an incredible rate. That's the great thing, but it also means that as they continue to launch, the amount of 2nd stages left behind will only increase. You seem to be saying that all entities globally should as a whole launch less objects into space, as you imply that putting more objects into space is a net negative. That's fine to think but I strongly disagree that we as a planet should launch less objects into space. > There is a large number of second stages in orbit that are not coming back any time soon. I agree, which is why we should push for regulations that require satellite operators to have plans to de-orbit their satellites at end of life and/or not launch to orbits where the launching stage cannot quickly de-orbit within a set number of years. However simply pushing for all countries to launch less things into space, as you seem to be saying, is not a good idea.