Access to orbit is a requirement for our current level of technological civilization.
SpaceX's launch capability is not only much greater than that of competitors (including states), they're using methane fuel and do not use solid fuel boosters.
For context, ESA's Ariane 5 uses solid fuel boosters (ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene) and a liquid fuel second stage (monomethylhydrazine, nitrogen tetroxide). NASA's SLS uses solid fuel boosters of the same composition and Ariane 5's. So does JAXA's H3.
If, as a species, we're going to be launching things into orbit, doing so using the SpaceX's tech is significantly cleaner than what we're using today. That's true even before considering reuse.
> When was it determined that access to orbit was a requirement?
I’d say for the general public, some time in the 90s. For states, as far back as the 60s or 70s I’d say.
> And a requirement to what?
Off the top of my head? Current uses would include communications, navigation/positioning, remote sensing, research, and exploration.
Future uses will almost certainly include access to the resources of the rest of the solar system. In the grand scheme of things, we’re not that far away from being able to capture, relocate, and mine asteroids. Many of those contain resources that are extremely rare or difficult to obtain on Earth.
For example - I think we can agree that moving automobiles from ICE to EV will be a good thing for our biosphere. Cobalt is one of the raw materials that is in short supply. There are two near-Earth asteroids that combined are believed to exceed the Earth’s reserves for cobalt:
Thanks for the reply. I didn't know we weren't near Kessler syndrome, I'll look into it!
EDIT: Looking at your name, are you ancap??
When do you think (ballpark) it would be realistic? I'm seeing so many problems with it - how do you get the stuff from asteroids to earth? (Mass drivers are a nice idea, but in practice I doubt the public would accept hurling tons of material towards earth). There are so many problems that we have a hard time expecting, like lunar dust[0], issues with the code used to run the equipement, as it is often to far away to be reliably controled remotely (The cassini mission is a good example if I remember correctly)
While I agree that for communications and the likes, sattelite coverage is a net benefit, you have to agree that the material benefits of exploration and research in space are undefined at best - it's entirely possible we'll find nothing useful for a bit.
I think it's important to keep things in perspective - how many order of magnitude is SpaceX better compared to the old tech? How many launches do we actually need to do yearly? Is there a point where the environemental cost starts to be equivalent?
I'd like to see how much the current space race is damaging to the environnement compared to using the old designs - imagine it's equivalent to 50 years of launches (not a real number), it then becomes much less excusable. Imagine if we stalled the current space race for 15-20 years and had everybody forced to only run simulations, I'm certain there wouldn't be as many botched tests and designs as we are seeing, other compagnies included.(For reference, since the nuclear bomb test ban all nuke design is made in simulators [1]
SpaceX's launch capability is not only much greater than that of competitors (including states), they're using methane fuel and do not use solid fuel boosters.
For context, ESA's Ariane 5 uses solid fuel boosters (ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene) and a liquid fuel second stage (monomethylhydrazine, nitrogen tetroxide). NASA's SLS uses solid fuel boosters of the same composition and Ariane 5's. So does JAXA's H3.
If, as a species, we're going to be launching things into orbit, doing so using the SpaceX's tech is significantly cleaner than what we're using today. That's true even before considering reuse.
reply