10 ms·

>That massive hole in the ground should not have happed, and I suspect that was not an expected possibility. Interestingly, this post predicting exactly this k

>That massive hole in the ground should not have happed, and I suspect that was not an expected possibility. Interestingly, this post predicting exactly this kind of damage was flagged on HN just days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35590279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35590279 I think it's unlikely that SpaceX wasn't aware of the damage that would be caused. They have a pretty good engineering team, and that aspect didn't involve an anomaly, it was the vehicle operating as planned at launch. But admitting the inadequacy of the launch facility would've undoubtedly led to significant delays. Fortunately for SpaceX, the rocket blew up, which will draw media attention away from the damage on and around the launchpad.

almost_usual 4y ago
I still don’t understand why that post was flagged so quickly.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  > SpaceX's Texas Rocket Is Going to Cause a Lot More Damage Than Anyone Thinks It might be the over-the-top title didn't do it any favors. It's in a gray zone between truth and click bait.
  - brookst 4y ago
    And yet here we are in a thread discussion how the rocket did more damage than anyone thought. That article was always going to be flagged, strictly because of its content. Maybe it could have snuck in with a headline like "Great news, SpaceX wisely found ways to launch rocket 20% more powerful than they planned for", but I doubt it.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - baq 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - nickpp 4y ago
      Considering one of the possible outcomes was for the whole thing to blow up on launch pad, the crater and debris storm were nothing.
      - baq 4y ago
        Maybe… the tower is still standing but one has to wonder if the foundations are in good shape after this amazing rock throwing performance.
  - dfxm12 4y ago
    This is disingenuous when you consider that it's not really over the top, and less subjectively, mods have other tools available to them, like renaming submission titles.
    - striking 4y ago
      When a post is flagged enough by users, it's hidden without interventions from mods. They can bring it back, though.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      With hindsight, we can now actually conclue that it was in fact, over the top. They claimed that buildingds would be destroyed and neighboring communites would be scarred for life.
  - _ea1k 4y ago
    Fair point, there's definitely some hyperbole there. "More than anyone thinks" would mean the author doesn't think it will damage as much as he's saying either. Sort of implies the article was hyperbole, which it was.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    The title is a completely reasonable and accurate reflection of the opinions that the author presents. If there’s disagreement about the opinions, that’s what discussion is for. I think this kind of thing is indicative of hn being on a bit of a downward slide.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    A 10x-100x increase in sound beyond approved levels, intentionally skipping or lobbying to skip approvals, ignoring environmental impact, and using designs as if they were approved when it was really earlier, much different versions are not examples of gray areas.
- dr-detroit 4y ago
  [dead]
wkat4242 4y ago
Interesting article. He doesn't really speak of a large hole in the ground and huge chunks of debris flying around though. More of the effects of the heat and sound energy on wildlife which is not quite as obvious. He raises some good points indeed, not sure why it was flagged at all.
- j16sdiz 4y ago
  Given what have happened in the past few years, we (as a whole) are less tolerant to alternative ideas. IMO, we (as a whole) should spend less time spreading ANY information online, use more time to think before speak
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    > we (as a whole) are less tolerant to alternative ideas. It’s not just that though, certain topics are lightning rods, and Musk is particularly devisive.
    - Regnore 4y ago
      [flagged]
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    > IMO, we (as a whole) should spend less time spreading ANY information online, use more time to think before speak When it comes to insensitive tweets vomited out over the internet I totally agree. Though even those of us more considerate can contribute to this by simply not following people who do that. I'm personally not even using Twitter at all and I never did even before Musk took it over. I find the signal/noise ratio way too low there and anything really interesting there makes Hacker News anyway. But anyway that's a tangent. So, if you read something that really makes you think: "Wow that's really an insensitive hot take", just block the person from your feeds, no matter who they are. Especially if it's not the first time. Makes your life a lot more relaxing. And it's more effective than wishing that haters are gonna stop hating. However this particular article was thoughtful and came with a lot of explanations, diagrams and source links. It was pretty hard criticism of SpaceX and the FAA but it was not agressive or flaming. To me it seems pretty well thought out and it gives balance to a complex story by showing a side to it I wasn't aware of yet. Not saying the story itself is balanced, but it gives balance to the other media which are overwhelmingly positive and don't cover the ecological side at all. In other words, this is not the thing that should be cut from being spread online, in my opinion. The author has clearly written about this before but that doesn't necessarily invalidate them or make them biased. They can also simply be right and been ignored so they keep writing about it. When you 'go fast and break things' it's important to consider the things you are breaking, even if they are not very obvious. One of the questions that comes to my mind is: "Why is this thing even in the middle of protected habitats?"
bryanlarsen 4y ago
It was expected. They have moved deluge equipment from Canaveral and have partially installed it, which they wouldn't have done if it wasn't expected to be needed.
lm28469 4y ago
I don't follow space stuff nor space x but I was quite surprised not to see the usual water flooding system
- mmmm2 4y ago
  Yeah, I think it's been surprising to a lot of people. There have been a lot of questions among people who follow space as to why they didn't start with a flame diverter and water deluge system. I guess they felt the delay to install one would be too long, and they really wanted to get this launched? Or maybe they had reason to believe they'd get away with it... seems implausible given the forces involved.
  - HarryHirsch 4y ago
    A month in the lab will save you an hour in the library, as the saying goes.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> it's unlikely that SpaceX wasn't aware of the damage that would be caused If there is a material chance you won’t clear the tower, building an elaborate pad is overkill. I disagree that a new mount means months of delays—SpaceX has been building these faster than legacy operators.
- dividedbyzero 4y ago
  They'll need one that won't turn to a hail of debris and a crater though, that may be somewhat more work.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > need one that won't turn to a hail of debris and a crater They have these. At their permanent launch sites. This is a test site. That the rocket reached max Q suggests this isn’t a problem needing solving right now.
    - baq 4y ago
      It most certainly didn’t reach its planned max q, not with 6 motors out and the rest with nozzles dented by rocks at ground escape velocity.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > most certainly didn’t reach its planned max q One usually throttles down around max Q, so it's unclear from outside. > rest with nozzles dented by rocks at ground escape velocity Now we're speculating beyond the data. (Actually, we have counterfactual data: it reached max Q. That doesn't happen if you have mis-shaped nozzles causing flow separation.)
        bandyaboot 4y ago
        Earlier you seemed to imply that you could achieve max Q with six engines out by not throttling down as much. Why does the same not apply to overcoming possibly dented engine nozzles?
mrandish 4y ago
There were multiple unexpected "energetic events" seen by observers apparently due to some of the engines failing around liftoff. These "energetic events" could have contributed to greater than expected downward force under the launchpad. If correct, it seems positive that the excess energy was directed downward still permitting the liftoff. That the ship was able to continue the flight through Max-Q and up to MECO and starting the separation spin maneuver seems like a very positive sign. I believe they've already started construction of upgraded launch facilities which include fire trenches and water deluge systems. This first launch facility was basically a V 0.1 test and it appears to have done its job of getting a Starship test article in the air. It's important to remember their development strategy is pipelined and intentionally test-to-failure with multiple improving prototypes in simultaneous parallel construction. Today's test ship was already several versions old. Also, the rocket didn't exactly "blow up", it apparently lost attitude control during the separation spin maneuver and couldn't achieve the parameters necessary for stage separation. The subsequent rotations appeared to be attempts at automated attitude recovery. The eventual termination was a controlled FTS initiated when SpaceX determined the flight was unrecoverable. I found it incredible that a supersonic rocket about twice as big as anything humans have ever launched was able to rotate several times at around 1300 Mph and over 100,000 ft altitude while maintaining structural integrity. Fortunately, it appears they were able to delay detonating the controlled demolition charges long enough to receive the vital telemetry data that was the entire reason for today's test. That this early prototype managed to load fuel, pressurize, ignite engines, clear the tower, reach MaxQ, MECO, start the separation turn and then down link all the data makes it a massive success from SpaceX's perspective. Everything after MaxQ was pure bonus territory. The engineers at SpaceX must be thrilled to be ingesting all that sweet data from hundreds of internal sensors and start comparing real-world performance against their simulation models.
- double0jimb0 4y ago
  From the launch commentary, the rocket is designed to do a 180 at that altitude for the separation event. So a couple extra rotations isn’t going to hurt anything. Additionally, air density at 100k ft is ~1/80th of sea level, which helps.
cratermoon 4y ago
Seems like the author was closer to the truth that HN gave him credit for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thA8jlgcJ-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thA8jlgcJ-8
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I dont think it was close to the truth at all. They predict shattered glass,damaged foundations of beachside homes, and people scarred for life by the launch. This was hyperbolic fearmongering. The actual launch was very close to baseline expectations. The lack of launch pad flame channels was common knowlegle, and no great insight. This entire blog is dedicated to environmental complants about SpaceX operations. If there had been flame channels, the author would instead be writing about how they are pointed at sensitive environmental habitat.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Would strongly disagree. Reading the article it doesn't sound like fear-mongering at all. In fact their concerns about FAA cutting corners in allowing SpaceX to build such a facility seem quite legitimate. Especially if they are passionate about protecting sensitive environment habitat which is a voice that we need more of in this world.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Is there evidence for widespread property damage in neighborring communities and are the individuals scarred for life, as the author predicted? I think we need fewer such passionate voices who place such a high value on a handful of birds and am glad they are largely ignored.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      So this needs to be stressed: the only reason the area around Starbase is protected habitat is because SpaceX built Starbase there. Because space launches fall under FAA and thus Federal regulation, the area around them becomes Federal land and subject to Federal environmental review and protection. This is the same reason Cape Canaveral is surrounded by protected wetlands - it's because the Cape Canaveral launch complex is there. But that's predicated on the facility existing. If SpaceX hadn't bought that land - and they did buy it - it was for sale - then those wetlands would not be protected habitat at all.
AceJohnny2 4y ago
> I think it's unlikely that SpaceX wasn't aware of the damage that would be caused. "SpaceX" isn't a unified mind. It's not even a hivemind, no company is. We keep saying "company knew about X", but it's a such a mischaracterization of how companies, or any group of humans, work. Yes, some people in the company might have known it, but for various reasons, be it poor communication, mistaken assumptions, willful ignorance, or what have you, that information wasn't acted upon. Companies have complicated and chaotic dynamics. We Do Not Have An Algorithm For Truth. In effect, "Company knew about X" is practically a meaningless oxymoron. Yes, the "company" may be the "responsible entity", but as a century of corporate history demonstrates, that doesn't mean very much in practice, as the individual people within the company who might theoretically be tagged can weasel out of consequences.
- rob74 4y ago
  Or maybe they estimated the chances of the launch pad being entirely obliterated during the launch attempt as pretty high and didn't want to invest more money into it than absolutely necessary?
  - baq 4y ago
    Turns out they were indeed right! The hole is Boring Company-worthy. Joking aside, the test was successful, but the missing concrete and what seems to be 50 meters of sand below it is a problem for the next test launch schedule. The pad they’ll need for reusability will be as impressive as the rocket itself.
- bmitc 4y ago
  My issue with this take is that companies have used leverage and lobbying to get to define when a company isn't a single entity and when it is not, always in their advantage. For example, a company is involved in a human death: the company is suddenly not a single entity and is instead simply part of this complex system of moving parts out of which emerged a human death. As another example, a corporation wants to donate to politicians (for "reasons"): the company is suddenly a single entity and even individual (!) who has constitutional rights to political donations. Companies flip flop back and forth between them being a collective and individual at will and to their singular benefit.
bluescrn 4y ago
I wonder whether all that debris was a factor in the engine failures?
- robryan 4y ago
  Hopefully the data will work that out. Raptor 1 seemed to have quality control issues in that some percentage of engines would fail, hopefully this isn't also the case for Raptor 2 or at least can be worked out.
rurounijones 4y ago
Come to think of it; I never saw the water deluge system come to life... did it?
- ragebol 4y ago
  There is no deluge system, yet. But the aftermath of the launch today shows it really is needed
  - andrewinardeer 4y ago
    I think this non deluge system was 100% intentional as a cost saving measure to just see if the asset acquired clearance from launch tower. The next iteration of launch will have one.
tibbydudeza 4y ago
Surely considering what the Saturn V launchpad used - a rather huge hole in the ground lined with concrete and an insane amount of water being released to dampen sound and damage ???.
ericcumbee 4y ago
no one thats been following the test campaign for Super Heavy is surprised by the damage. the damage to the pad has been documented after the 3, 14, and 33 engine Static fires in the run up to launch. I believe they said SpaceX has been experimenting with different concrete formulations in the repairs after each static fire. There has also been photos of what appears to be flame diverters on site at Starbase, and I think they have even done a crude test fit of them under the OLM at some point recently.
wunderland 4y ago
Why do things like this get flagged? Who decides which topics aren’t allowed for discussion on HB
Robotbeat 4y ago
This is kind of dumb. SpaceX not only was aware of the damage that would likely be caused, but there are already steel pieces of a flame diverter that arrived a couple of weeks ago at Starbase: https://twitter.com/CosmicalChief/status/1644405156132290560?s=20 https://twitter.com/CosmicalChief/status/1644405156132290560... They intentionally chose not to install it yet to accelerate the launch (it has been two years without flight testing, they need more data and this booster needed to be gone). It's a perfectly fine decision, it just means more repair after this inaugural flight than normal. If the cost of the repair is less than the cost of delay (and delay impacts Starlink, various payload customers, and especially NASA's Artemis program), then you're a poor manager if you choose delay. The media have largely been completely ignorant about this kind of testing. Exception being those who have space as their main beat, like Space News, etc. Everyone in the space industry pretty much understands the concept of a test regime that has a high probability of failure. They understand that it's about an order of magnitude cheaper and about 3 times faster than the usual defense contractor "failure is not an option" approach. That's why you had such supportive comments from the NASA Administrator and anyone else who is actually in this industry.
- aeternum 4y ago
  It sounded like Elon also put a decent probability on the rocket exploding on the pad. In that case, the flame diverter would likely have been destroyed anyway.
moralestapia 4y ago
Came here to point this out. The dark ages still lure within us. I thought that article raised some valid points, but fanbois gonna fanboi and don't dare you speak wrong of their master.
hermitdev 4y ago
If nothing else, Musk has a lot more entertaining method of boring tunnels now than those slow tunnel boring machines.
bmitc 4y ago
Thanks for posting that link. I found the article informative and actually well-written and driven by evidence and examples. It is really striking to me how people are willing to throw the environment under the proverbial bus and literal rocket in order to further some false idea of improving humanity. We're actively killing a live planet, currently the only planet known to be able to house human and life in general for that matter, to reach a dead planet on the whims and wishes of paper billionaires.
- ikekkdcjkfke 4y ago
  Maybe we could get minerals and stuff from space instead of digging up nature
  - bmitc 4y ago
    Ignoring the complexity of accomplishing that, such an enterprise would cost an immense amount of material and pollution. Also, it would not stabilize or decrease mining on Earth.

almost_usual 4y ago

I still don’t understand why that post was flagged so quickly.

ASalazarMX 4y ago
> SpaceX's Texas Rocket Is Going to Cause a Lot More Damage Than Anyone Thinks It might be the over-the-top title didn't do it any favors. It's in a gray zone between truth and click bait.
- brookst 4y ago
  And yet here we are in a thread discussion how the rocket did more damage than anyone thought. That article was always going to be flagged, strictly because of its content. Maybe it could have snuck in with a headline like "Great news, SpaceX wisely found ways to launch rocket 20% more powerful than they planned for", but I doubt it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- baq 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - nickpp 4y ago
    Considering one of the possible outcomes was for the whole thing to blow up on launch pad, the crater and debris storm were nothing.
    - baq 4y ago
      Maybe… the tower is still standing but one has to wonder if the foundations are in good shape after this amazing rock throwing performance.
- dfxm12 4y ago
  This is disingenuous when you consider that it's not really over the top, and less subjectively, mods have other tools available to them, like renaming submission titles.
  - striking 4y ago
    When a post is flagged enough by users, it's hidden without interventions from mods. They can bring it back, though.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    With hindsight, we can now actually conclue that it was in fact, over the top. They claimed that buildingds would be destroyed and neighboring communites would be scarred for life.
- _ea1k 4y ago
  Fair point, there's definitely some hyperbole there. "More than anyone thinks" would mean the author doesn't think it will damage as much as he's saying either. Sort of implies the article was hyperbole, which it was.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  The title is a completely reasonable and accurate reflection of the opinions that the author presents. If there’s disagreement about the opinions, that’s what discussion is for. I think this kind of thing is indicative of hn being on a bit of a downward slide.
- bmitc 4y ago
  A 10x-100x increase in sound beyond approved levels, intentionally skipping or lobbying to skip approvals, ignoring environmental impact, and using designs as if they were approved when it was really earlier, much different versions are not examples of gray areas.
dr-detroit 4y ago
[dead]

wkat4242 4y ago

Interesting article. He doesn't really speak of a large hole in the ground and huge chunks of debris flying around though. More of the effects of the heat and sound energy on wildlife which is not quite as obvious. He raises some good points indeed, not sure why it was flagged at all.

j16sdiz 4y ago
Given what have happened in the past few years, we (as a whole) are less tolerant to alternative ideas. IMO, we (as a whole) should spend less time spreading ANY information online, use more time to think before speak
- lostlogin 4y ago
  > we (as a whole) are less tolerant to alternative ideas. It’s not just that though, certain topics are lightning rods, and Musk is particularly devisive.
  - Regnore 4y ago
    [flagged]
- wkat4242 4y ago
  > IMO, we (as a whole) should spend less time spreading ANY information online, use more time to think before speak When it comes to insensitive tweets vomited out over the internet I totally agree. Though even those of us more considerate can contribute to this by simply not following people who do that. I'm personally not even using Twitter at all and I never did even before Musk took it over. I find the signal/noise ratio way too low there and anything really interesting there makes Hacker News anyway. But anyway that's a tangent. So, if you read something that really makes you think: "Wow that's really an insensitive hot take", just block the person from your feeds, no matter who they are. Especially if it's not the first time. Makes your life a lot more relaxing. And it's more effective than wishing that haters are gonna stop hating. However this particular article was thoughtful and came with a lot of explanations, diagrams and source links. It was pretty hard criticism of SpaceX and the FAA but it was not agressive or flaming. To me it seems pretty well thought out and it gives balance to a complex story by showing a side to it I wasn't aware of yet. Not saying the story itself is balanced, but it gives balance to the other media which are overwhelmingly positive and don't cover the ecological side at all. In other words, this is not the thing that should be cut from being spread online, in my opinion. The author has clearly written about this before but that doesn't necessarily invalidate them or make them biased. They can also simply be right and been ignored so they keep writing about it. When you 'go fast and break things' it's important to consider the things you are breaking, even if they are not very obvious. One of the questions that comes to my mind is: "Why is this thing even in the middle of protected habitats?"

bryanlarsen 4y ago

It was expected. They have moved deluge equipment from Canaveral and have partially installed it, which they wouldn't have done if it wasn't expected to be needed.

lm28469 4y ago

I don't follow space stuff nor space x but I was quite surprised not to see the usual water flooding system

mmmm2 4y ago
Yeah, I think it's been surprising to a lot of people. There have been a lot of questions among people who follow space as to why they didn't start with a flame diverter and water deluge system. I guess they felt the delay to install one would be too long, and they really wanted to get this launched? Or maybe they had reason to believe they'd get away with it... seems implausible given the forces involved.
- HarryHirsch 4y ago
  A month in the lab will save you an hour in the library, as the saying goes.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> it's unlikely that SpaceX wasn't aware of the damage that would be caused If there is a material chance you won’t clear the tower, building an elaborate pad is overkill. I disagree that a new mount means months of delays—SpaceX has been building these faster than legacy operators.

dividedbyzero 4y ago
They'll need one that won't turn to a hail of debris and a crater though, that may be somewhat more work.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > need one that won't turn to a hail of debris and a crater They have these. At their permanent launch sites. This is a test site. That the rocket reached max Q suggests this isn’t a problem needing solving right now.
  - baq 4y ago
    It most certainly didn’t reach its planned max q, not with 6 motors out and the rest with nozzles dented by rocks at ground escape velocity.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > most certainly didn’t reach its planned max q One usually throttles down around max Q, so it's unclear from outside. > rest with nozzles dented by rocks at ground escape velocity Now we're speculating beyond the data. (Actually, we have counterfactual data: it reached max Q. That doesn't happen if you have mis-shaped nozzles causing flow separation.)
      - bandyaboot 4y ago
        Earlier you seemed to imply that you could achieve max Q with six engines out by not throttling down as much. Why does the same not apply to overcoming possibly dented engine nozzles?

mrandish 4y ago

There were multiple unexpected "energetic events" seen by observers apparently due to some of the engines failing around liftoff. These "energetic events" could have contributed to greater than expected downward force under the launchpad. If correct, it seems positive that the excess energy was directed downward still permitting the liftoff. That the ship was able to continue the flight through Max-Q and up to MECO and starting the separation spin maneuver seems like a very positive sign. I believe they've already started construction of upgraded launch facilities which include fire trenches and water deluge systems. This first launch facility was basically a V 0.1 test and it appears to have done its job of getting a Starship test article in the air. It's important to remember their development strategy is pipelined and intentionally test-to-failure with multiple improving prototypes in simultaneous parallel construction. Today's test ship was already several versions old. Also, the rocket didn't exactly "blow up", it apparently lost attitude control during the separation spin maneuver and couldn't achieve the parameters necessary for stage separation. The subsequent rotations appeared to be attempts at automated attitude recovery. The eventual termination was a controlled FTS initiated when SpaceX determined the flight was unrecoverable. I found it incredible that a supersonic rocket about twice as big as anything humans have ever launched was able to rotate several times at around 1300 Mph and over 100,000 ft altitude while maintaining structural integrity. Fortunately, it appears they were able to delay detonating the controlled demolition charges long enough to receive the vital telemetry data that was the entire reason for today's test. That this early prototype managed to load fuel, pressurize, ignite engines, clear the tower, reach MaxQ, MECO, start the separation turn and then down link all the data makes it a massive success from SpaceX's perspective. Everything after MaxQ was pure bonus territory. The engineers at SpaceX must be thrilled to be ingesting all that sweet data from hundreds of internal sensors and start comparing real-world performance against their simulation models.

double0jimb0 4y ago
From the launch commentary, the rocket is designed to do a 180 at that altitude for the separation event. So a couple extra rotations isn’t going to hurt anything. Additionally, air density at 100k ft is ~1/80th of sea level, which helps.

cratermoon 4y ago

Seems like the author was closer to the truth that HN gave him credit for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thA8jlgcJ-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thA8jlgcJ-8

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I dont think it was close to the truth at all. They predict shattered glass,damaged foundations of beachside homes, and people scarred for life by the launch. This was hyperbolic fearmongering. The actual launch was very close to baseline expectations. The lack of launch pad flame channels was common knowlegle, and no great insight. This entire blog is dedicated to environmental complants about SpaceX operations. If there had been flame channels, the author would instead be writing about how they are pointed at sensitive environmental habitat.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Would strongly disagree. Reading the article it doesn't sound like fear-mongering at all. In fact their concerns about FAA cutting corners in allowing SpaceX to build such a facility seem quite legitimate. Especially if they are passionate about protecting sensitive environment habitat which is a voice that we need more of in this world.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Is there evidence for widespread property damage in neighborring communities and are the individuals scarred for life, as the author predicted? I think we need fewer such passionate voices who place such a high value on a handful of birds and am glad they are largely ignored.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    So this needs to be stressed: the only reason the area around Starbase is protected habitat is because SpaceX built Starbase there. Because space launches fall under FAA and thus Federal regulation, the area around them becomes Federal land and subject to Federal environmental review and protection. This is the same reason Cape Canaveral is surrounded by protected wetlands - it's because the Cape Canaveral launch complex is there. But that's predicated on the facility existing. If SpaceX hadn't bought that land - and they did buy it - it was for sale - then those wetlands would not be protected habitat at all.

AceJohnny2 4y ago

> I think it's unlikely that SpaceX wasn't aware of the damage that would be caused. "SpaceX" isn't a unified mind. It's not even a hivemind, no company is. We keep saying "company knew about X", but it's a such a mischaracterization of how companies, or any group of humans, work. Yes, some people in the company might have known it, but for various reasons, be it poor communication, mistaken assumptions, willful ignorance, or what have you, that information wasn't acted upon. Companies have complicated and chaotic dynamics. We Do Not Have An Algorithm For Truth. In effect, "Company knew about X" is practically a meaningless oxymoron. Yes, the "company" may be the "responsible entity", but as a century of corporate history demonstrates, that doesn't mean very much in practice, as the individual people within the company who might theoretically be tagged can weasel out of consequences.

rob74 4y ago
Or maybe they estimated the chances of the launch pad being entirely obliterated during the launch attempt as pretty high and didn't want to invest more money into it than absolutely necessary?
- baq 4y ago
  Turns out they were indeed right! The hole is Boring Company-worthy. Joking aside, the test was successful, but the missing concrete and what seems to be 50 meters of sand below it is a problem for the next test launch schedule. The pad they’ll need for reusability will be as impressive as the rocket itself.
bmitc 4y ago
My issue with this take is that companies have used leverage and lobbying to get to define when a company isn't a single entity and when it is not, always in their advantage. For example, a company is involved in a human death: the company is suddenly not a single entity and is instead simply part of this complex system of moving parts out of which emerged a human death. As another example, a corporation wants to donate to politicians (for "reasons"): the company is suddenly a single entity and even individual (!) who has constitutional rights to political donations. Companies flip flop back and forth between them being a collective and individual at will and to their singular benefit.

bluescrn 4y ago

I wonder whether all that debris was a factor in the engine failures?

robryan 4y ago
Hopefully the data will work that out. Raptor 1 seemed to have quality control issues in that some percentage of engines would fail, hopefully this isn't also the case for Raptor 2 or at least can be worked out.

rurounijones 4y ago

Come to think of it; I never saw the water deluge system come to life... did it?

ragebol 4y ago
There is no deluge system, yet. But the aftermath of the launch today shows it really is needed
- andrewinardeer 4y ago
  I think this non deluge system was 100% intentional as a cost saving measure to just see if the asset acquired clearance from launch tower. The next iteration of launch will have one.

tibbydudeza 4y ago

Surely considering what the Saturn V launchpad used - a rather huge hole in the ground lined with concrete and an insane amount of water being released to dampen sound and damage ???.

ericcumbee 4y ago

no one thats been following the test campaign for Super Heavy is surprised by the damage. the damage to the pad has been documented after the 3, 14, and 33 engine Static fires in the run up to launch. I believe they said SpaceX has been experimenting with different concrete formulations in the repairs after each static fire. There has also been photos of what appears to be flame diverters on site at Starbase, and I think they have even done a crude test fit of them under the OLM at some point recently.

wunderland 4y ago

Why do things like this get flagged? Who decides which topics aren’t allowed for discussion on HB

Robotbeat 4y ago

This is kind of dumb. SpaceX not only was aware of the damage that would likely be caused, but there are already steel pieces of a flame diverter that arrived a couple of weeks ago at Starbase: https://twitter.com/CosmicalChief/status/1644405156132290560?s=20 https://twitter.com/CosmicalChief/status/1644405156132290560... They intentionally chose not to install it yet to accelerate the launch (it has been two years without flight testing, they need more data and this booster needed to be gone). It's a perfectly fine decision, it just means more repair after this inaugural flight than normal. If the cost of the repair is less than the cost of delay (and delay impacts Starlink, various payload customers, and especially NASA's Artemis program), then you're a poor manager if you choose delay. The media have largely been completely ignorant about this kind of testing. Exception being those who have space as their main beat, like Space News, etc. Everyone in the space industry pretty much understands the concept of a test regime that has a high probability of failure. They understand that it's about an order of magnitude cheaper and about 3 times faster than the usual defense contractor "failure is not an option" approach. That's why you had such supportive comments from the NASA Administrator and anyone else who is actually in this industry.

aeternum 4y ago
It sounded like Elon also put a decent probability on the rocket exploding on the pad. In that case, the flame diverter would likely have been destroyed anyway.

moralestapia 4y ago

Came here to point this out. The dark ages still lure within us. I thought that article raised some valid points, but fanbois gonna fanboi and don't dare you speak wrong of their master.

hermitdev 4y ago

If nothing else, Musk has a lot more entertaining method of boring tunnels now than those slow tunnel boring machines.

bmitc 4y ago

Thanks for posting that link. I found the article informative and actually well-written and driven by evidence and examples. It is really striking to me how people are willing to throw the environment under the proverbial bus and literal rocket in order to further some false idea of improving humanity. We're actively killing a live planet, currently the only planet known to be able to house human and life in general for that matter, to reach a dead planet on the whims and wishes of paper billionaires.

ikekkdcjkfke 4y ago
Maybe we could get minerals and stuff from space instead of digging up nature
- bmitc 4y ago
  Ignoring the complexity of accomplishing that, such an enterprise would cost an immense amount of material and pollution. Also, it would not stabilize or decrease mining on Earth.