Isn't there anything better to do with them than flirting with Kessler syndrome?
It's been really hard to send probes to the outer solar system, and they can't orbit or land when they get there.
Scientific missions generally produce neat photographs, but as far as I'm concerned not enough. Like with Pluto, they were unable to get closeups of one side.
If SpaceX could figure out in-orbit refueling, wouldn't it be possible to do things never done before? Maybe as a publicity stunt like the launching of the Tesla? Just send a lander someplace new with a good visible light camera.
The famous Apollo 17 picture of the earth is beautiful, but over the years, I got to almost hate it, because it was the only picture I saw reproduced, and a perennial reminder of the unfulfilled promise of spaceflight.
Al Gore had the idea of putting a satellite way out to just take pretty pictures and I think it's commendable even if NASA is not a fan of that sort of thing:
There's fixed costs for every launch. Even if you're reusing a rocket, you still gotta pay full price for fuel, personnel, etc. That said, launch costs are almost an order of magnitude lower than they were 20 years ago.
7 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 24.7 ms ] threadIt's been really hard to send probes to the outer solar system, and they can't orbit or land when they get there.
Scientific missions generally produce neat photographs, but as far as I'm concerned not enough. Like with Pluto, they were unable to get closeups of one side.
If SpaceX could figure out in-orbit refueling, wouldn't it be possible to do things never done before? Maybe as a publicity stunt like the launching of the Tesla? Just send a lander someplace new with a good visible light camera.
The famous Apollo 17 picture of the earth is beautiful, but over the years, I got to almost hate it, because it was the only picture I saw reproduced, and a perennial reminder of the unfulfilled promise of spaceflight.
Al Gore had the idea of putting a satellite way out to just take pretty pictures and I think it's commendable even if NASA is not a fan of that sort of thing:
https://www.npr.org/2015/02/06/383618359/satellite-set-to-st...
Science is important, but taxpayers deserve something that captures the imagination.
Starlink Sats that are defective will deorbit naturally in about 5 years. These are not Sats that are in GEO which will take 2000 years to deorbit.
SpaceX has now recovered officially 99 1st Stage boosters for reuse.
SpaceX is all in on Starship and has created the only full-flow staged combustion rocket that has ever flown.
If you want pretty pictures, YOU pay for it. SpaceX has already done amazing shit.
I pay taxes to support NASA, but NASA sometimes seems as though they are above catering to the public.
SpaceX can and has done frivolous things to show off. I have an opinion on what stunt they should do next.
If they are launching rockets ten times, shouldn't that mean a flight is at ~an order of magnitude cheaper than traditionally?
SpaceX does sell these rocket launches to scientific and space exploration projects too, if that's what your question is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...
Not applicable to Starlink, the orbital shells are so low that 5 years is the worst case scenario.