10 ms·
Photos from the SpaceX Debris Field
- arpowers 3y agoA small price to pay for progress at the scale of SpaceX
- dmbche 3y agoWhat? What exactly is the benefit of SpaceX specifically? What was won here? Is there a point at which it starts being a large price? If we don't know the impact of it on the habitat, how is it a "small price"?
- myth_drannon 3y agoThe benefit is, when Earth is polluted beyond help, Musk and his progeny can escape our planet and live on Mars.
- skrowl 3y agoWe're one killer global war / pandemic / etc away from extinction Being on multiple planets (and eventually multiple solar systems) prevents a species from going extinct if something catastrophic happens to their home world
- vkou 3y ago> We're one killer global war / pandemic / etc away from extinction No, we're not. And whatever we end up doing to the Earth, it's still going to be vastly more suitable for human life than anywhere else in the solar system. If you care about preventing extinction, stop looking at the stars, and start digging bunkers. Or building undersea cities, or whatever.
- ben_w 3y agoAll true, but I say a backup plan is better than no backup plan, especially as this is one (admittedly rich) sci-fi nerd's hobby project. As even that specific nerd is also doing a big project to reduce environmental damage, this isn't an "either/or", it's an "and".
- jliptzin 3y agoThe sun is gonna blow up anyway and eat the whole solar system
- ben_w 3y agoYeah, but even the sun getting too hot for complex life on Earth in particular is something like 2 billion years before that.
- timeon 3y agoWhy is this important?
- apendleton 3y agoEven assuming an absolute worst-case scenario climate-wise (no mitigations whatsoever, massive sea-level rise, etc.), Earth will still be dramatically more hospitable to human life than Mars for the entirety of Musk's lifetime, and very likely his children's and grandchildren's lifetimes as well, barring some mass-extinction event like a nuclear war. Even if a colonization effort begins soon, living on Mars is likely to be extremely difficult for centuries -- we can't breathe the air or grow anything in the soil, our biology is likely ill-adapted to the gravity, there is no liquid surface water, etc. -- and the idea that there will come a point in the foreseeable future where it makes sense to escape there because it's easier than being here (because of pollution or whatever other reason) is difficult to fathom.
- ben_w 3y agoThe minimum level of pollution where Mars looks good on that basis is: 1. killed literally, not metaphorically, everything 2. and literally boiled off all the oceans, rivers, and lakes, top the bottom 3. and strip mined literally, not metaphorically, everywhere to a depth of 3,000 km 4. and removed almost everything from the atmosphere except the current level of CO2/m^3
- NoGravitas 3y agoYeah, I'll believe Mars colonization makes sense once the much closer and more hospitable environments of interior Antarctica and the ocean floor are settled.
- ben_w 3y agoOcean floor is a different kind of problem, and Antarctica (and Greenland) have settlements. But for similar reasons, I think we should aim for the Moon before Mars: closer, so when (and it is "when" not "if") something goes fatally wrong, it will be easier to get help. That said, if Starship delivers on Musk's vision, we'll probably get both.
- yamtaddle 3y agoYes, but if Earth suffers several unlikely global catastrophes at the same time, it might almost be harder to live here than on Mars!
- Litost 3y agoI guess it's always worth having a Plan B, but Nate Hagens and Kim Stanley Robinson (sci-fi writer of the Mars Trilogy) discuss this and don't necessarily agree, obviously depending on what definition of "polluted beyond help" you're using etc. [1] Nate Hagens (00:43:15): "And to me it's very smart and famous people, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk among them say, "We're screwing up Earth. Climate is going to be bad. We need to colonize outer space and head to Mars." And that makes just zero sense to me, because on the worst thermonuclear runaway-climate scenario, Earth is still going to be a paradise next to Mars. I mean-" Kim Stanley Robinson (00:43:43): "I agree with you completely. That is a case that has to be made. And the thing about people like Hawkings, the thing about people like Elon Musk is they're smart, they aren't that smart. They aren't wise, they aren't philosophers, and they're not ecologists. Very often physicists will assume that ecology is just physics in action, and that they've got it all sussed out because they know the rules of physics and they can do rocketry. But you can't do plant biology just knowing rocketry. It's more complex, it's more interconnected, it's a more-complex science. And many physicists will arrogantly say that, "Because I know the laws of physics, I know everything." But they don't know how a marsh works. They haven't studied biology enough to understand their own ignorance. So how smart are you if you don't know how ignorant you are?" [1] - https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/66-kim-stanley-robinson https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/66-kim-stanle...
- pjscott 3y agoEven a "polluted beyond help" Earth would be easier to live on than Mars. We have liquid water, a nice thick atmosphere that isn't 95% carbon dioxide, a better ionosphere, easy access to nitrogen as a synthetic fertilizer feedstock, and various other advantages. Musk knows this; he's not an idiot, nor is he a cartoon villain motivated by a desire to be Evil. It bothers me when people just make up outlandish accusations.
- NoGravitas 3y agoActually, the available evidence does suggest that Musk is an idiot.
- taejavu 3y agoWhat was won is a small but vital step toward humans becoming a multiplanetary species. From this angle, the impact of this launch is obviously a small price.
- dmbche 3y agoWhat was the step? In this specific explosion?
- taejavu 3y agoOne less explosion before they figure out how to fly and reuse the rocket. You understand how learning works, right?
- dmbche 3y agoThanks for the snark You understand that this test was too early, proved nothing and had little to no way to mitigate the likely explosion that they expected? And that the impact on the nearby residents, the wildlife were not taken in consideration? But it's fine because "surely they learned something"?
- taejavu 3y agoYou're welcome. That's correct, it's a worthwhile tradeoff.
- dmbche 3y agoYou'd be great at the head of a totalitarian regime! You should move next to the test site, I'm sure you'll be glad to be one of the people affected.
- taejavu 3y agoI tried, but turns out they won't let people live too close to a rocket launch site. Something about safety concerns. Who knew?!
- B4CKlash 3y agoThere's something deeply ironic about a person commenting from a highly-engineered device, operating on a highly-engineered network, sitting inside of a highly-engineered building, in a highly-engineered city debating the merits of progress.
- dmbche 3y agoI'd love for you to make a link between the "progress" here and what you mentionned!
- Clamchop 3y agoI read their comment as underlining the uncertainty about what the cost or the reward is. Maybe we can't flippantly declare that it's "a small price" if we don't know what we're paying or what we're going to get in return. (I have no position on that.) Didn't spot any ludditism.
- rio517 3y agoNo everyone is aware, but SpaceX mass to orbit is close to the rest of the world put together. Hey are massively reducing costs to access space. The point of the starship is to continue to reduce costs.
- dmbche 3y agoBut why? When costs are low... What then? Tourism?
- couchdive 3y agohonestly, this is all to plunder the solar system further. Mining asteroids, etc. Of course the R&D is tax payer publicly funded and the future profits privatized. This is the way it has always been.
- dmbche 3y agoI guess I just don't see the point. We're not leaving earth, no one wants to life in orbital stations or habitats - nonobstant all the issues with making that happen, so why plunder the solar system? There is more matter to plunder on earth than we would need to cover the whole globe with people, what's the point of trying get our great-great-great-great-grandkids to mine asteroids? Even more questionable if it makes our own and the life of the people coming next to be measurably worse
- Ancapistani 3y agoAccess 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.
- dmbche 3y agoWhen was it determined that access to orbit was a requirement? And a requirement to what? I feel like many are living in a world of sci fi. Our orbit is already littered with orbital trash, we are worried we wont be able to leave orbit if it keeps going. I don't see how this is justifiable in any way. There are very few worthwile things to do in space.
- Ancapistani 3y ago> 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: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2021/10/19/the-age-of-space-mining-just-got-closer-as-scientists-discover-two-asteroids-whose-precious-metals-would-exceed-global-reserves/?sh=32649b18713b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2021/10/19/th... If SpaceX does succeed in driving down the cost to orbit, mining those (and others like them) will be much more practical. > Our orbit is already littered with orbital trash, we are worried we wont be able to leave orbit if it keeps going. We’re a long way from risking Kessler Syndrome, and have the technology and experience to prevent it from occurring.
- vkou 3y agoBut maybe a large price to pay for cutting corners and saving pennies by not installing a flame trench, or whatever it is they should have done to prevent the launch pad from being aerosolized.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- brtkdotse 3y agoExcept Starship is Elons vanity project with very few actual use cases.
- justrealist 3y agouh
- trothamel 3y agoStarship was selected by NASA as the Human Landing System that will bring people to the surface of the moon. It will also be necessary to launch the full size Starlink 2 satellites, which have been increasing competition in Internet access around the world, including in places that have had wars and natural disasters. So, it has use cases.
- bonzini 3y agoAnd going back to the surface of the moon is the NASA vanity project.
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoAnd? The greatest achievements humanity has ever completed are almost universally vanity projects. Nobody needs a Pyramid of Giza, or a Statue of Liberty, or to irrigate the desert using a massive dam. No one needs to go to space, or probe the workings of the cosmos. Hell, 99.99% of all software ever developed is utterly pointless, yet it employs every last person on this site. Humanity does stuff because we think we can do cooler stuff than the people who came before us. And that's a perfectly noble goal, unto itself.
- bonzini 3y agoI think space exploration with probes and space telescopes is more interesting. We've been to the moon and have taken back samples, and it was frickin' awesome, but there are cooler things to do now.
- deleted 3y ago
- nevatiaritika 3y agoI disagree. No price is small if it affects the environment.
- mlyle 3y agoEverything affects the environment. And saying "all prices are large" isn't helpful. I think the Starship failure was a comical own-goal. But, in the end, we have to figure out what the cost of externalities like this actually are instead of hand-wringing.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- m463 3y agoCars damage the environment. We should prevent recreational use and limit use to the purchase of food, shelter and clothing. Also, cars hit animals and insects. We should lower car speed limits to 5mph.
- MikusR 3y agoYou existing affects the environment.
- ars 3y agoAn unnecessary price. It's one thing if this is unavoidable. But it's not - they were warned, even Musk himself said a blast shield might be needed, but they didn't install one. Clearly they will next time!
- inamberclad 3y agoThey aerosolized their own launch pad and delayed all their future missions. This was a waste all around. Edit: I mean that the launchpad's design and subsequent destruction was a waste, and it possibly had negative effects on the flight (engines out at launch and further failures later on). They knew that this was going to happen and responded to this risk apathetically. The rest of test (launch, attempted stage separation, etc) was amazing and had my jaw on the floor. I'm very excited for future Starship missions and I believe in the concept. But this is obvious corner-cutting and has no place in an effort this monumental.
- mef 3y agomaybe if it was unpreventable - but this seems like it could be easily prevented.
- 1shooner 3y agoMaybe what is documented here is small (maybe), but what does this look like 10x, 1000x? Do we have any reason to expect this negative impact to decrease with scale?
- verdverm 3y agoThis is how we created the 6th mass extinction. Progress is fine, they could be more careful and thoughtful. We made it illegal to dump industrial waste in water. Blowing up exotic concrete to the point it becomes a fine dust and spreads over a large area is unacceptable. They should be allowed to continue operations as long as they make the proper adjustments.
- yamtaddle 3y agoIf this were necessary? Sure. But instead, it's because they got really cheap and lazy.
- anorphirith 3y agothat bobcat is unrelated & discredits the article https://spacenews.com/fish-and-wildlife-service-documents-damage-from-starship-launch/ https://spacenews.com/fish-and-wildlife-service-documents-da...
- bryanlarsen 3y agoNo dead animals or birds were found: https://spacenews.com/fish-and-wildlife-service-documents-damage-from-starship-launch/ https://spacenews.com/fish-and-wildlife-service-documents-da...
- hammyhavoc 3y agoBeing honored to die for a corp is weird. Pretty sure if you were a bobcat, you'd have no concept of honour and have survival as the number one concern. How about as one of the 1500 animals killed thus far in the Neuralink project? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/05/neuralink-animal-testing-elon-musk-investigation https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/05/neuralink...
- scottyah 3y agoAt least it's a novel way to go and they weren't killed just to be shat out 24hrs later. Here are the 2021 numbers for those same animals: Pigs: 11.8 million, Sheep: 4.2 million, Monkeys: 100,000
- dd36 3y agoI saw blast barriers but only on one side. Why not all the way around?
- walrus01 3y agoFor comparison, look at the overhead photos of the N1 launch mount and its three MASSIVE angled concrete blast trench/blast deflectors. The N1 is the closest thing that's ever been built in engine count and size to the booster, not counting the saturn V of course. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-soviet-s-moon-rocket-s-rollout-to-pad-affects-apollo-plans/ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-soviet-s-moon-rock... The N1 itself was obviously a disaster for other engineering reasons not related to its launch mount. The launch mount, on the other hand, looks great, and did its job admirably. THe soviet union was not bad at building massive ugly reinforced concrete structures.
- low_tech_punk 3y agoConsider the difference between "leaving earth" vs. "leaving earth in dust"
- justrealist 3y agoMaybe I'm missing something but I was expecting far worse from an unexpected launch pad liftoff. Small beach fire (3.5 acre is truly tiny... for context Louisiana permanently loses an acre of marshlands every two hours). Few chunks of concrete. Obviously there's room for improvement here, but is this really a catastrophe compared to the normal sub/urban sprawl happening everywhere else?
- Brusco_RF 3y agoNo, its not. This blog post reads like a smear piece. Complete with a leading picture of a dead bobcat that was obviously killed by a car and not a rocket
- dmbche 3y agoThe launch pad was vaporised, a lot of particulate matter was thrown in the air and affected residents of two nearby town, as well as nearby endangered wildlife. Also, think about what goes into making a rocket, bring all that up in the sky, and blow it up. While hard to find all health and environnemenntal risks related, I'm sure you can understand that this isn't like a 3.5 acre fire at all. It's not the end of the world either - but accountability has to start somewhere.
- nawgz 3y agoI find it very hard to understand why they didn't build the most heavy duty launchpad of all time when it was the largest / most powerful launch of all time. Debate about "value" aside, does this not indicate some bad engineering choices? The entire failure sequence seems to have been caused by this choice, if I understand correctly.
- apendleton 3y agoThe typical approach (a deep flame trench) is likely impossible due to the high water table so close to the beach. Some other novel approaches are likely possible, and I'm sure they'll now pursue one, but coming up with and building a design would probably have taken awhile, and they apparently did some testing that suggested they could get away with not doing it, at least for a bit. It's now obvious that they were wrong, but if they had been right, they would have acquired a bunch of data that would have unblocked a bunch of additional development on the vehicle itself that could have proceeded in parallel with improvements to the launch facilities (the one they're already building in Florida has a conventional flame trench) that they otherwise would have had to wait months for while more-extensive launch facilities were built, so it wasn't necessarily irrational, knowing what they knew at the time.
- cryptonector 3y agoThey could have made the tower taller and the launch mount correspondingly higher to allow room for a diverter below the launch mount.
- scottyah 3y agoThey thought it'd blow up on the launchpad. The effort to protect against that kind of explosion isn't worth it
- fabian2k 3y agoI don't think you can launch rockets without impact on the environment. But you probably can put a bit more effort into mitigating the impact than SpaceX did here. And I think it is fair to ask for the kind of measures that are used on essentially every other launch facility like flame trenches/diverters and deluge systems.
- elil17 3y agoI think, in this specific case, SpaceX should be held to a higher standard than one normally would be. Normally you don't claim that you intend for your rocket to blow up when you launch it. If they're going to go around saying this wasn't an accident, then they should have had a much, much better plan for cleaning up the mess they made. I think litter laws should apply in this case. I'm afraid it would never get enforced because the US justice system tends to let the rich get away with anything, but dumping 200 pounds or more of commercial waste in Texas carries a minimum 180 day sentence under Texas state law (https://www.ennistx.gov/Illegal-Dumping-Violations/ https://www.ennistx.gov/Illegal-Dumping-Violations/). Not something I think should apply in the case of a true accident, or if you had a good plan to really go above and beyond in terms of mitigating the damage (not necessarily perfect, but very good).
- drcongo 3y agoIt's a shame this isn't a top level comment, it's the best response in the thread.
- apendleton 3y agoI think it blowing up or otherwise failing was probably the most likely case and they didn't really hide that fact, but I get the sense that they expected that it would make it a little further along, and not destroy the pad, such that the mess would end up in the ocean instead of on land. This is also littering of a sort, but it's also how every rocket stage pre-SpaceX has met its demise anyway, by design (except for the Chinese ones that seem to have a tendency to come down on land, often in populated areas). Dropping rocket parts in the ocean is just an accepted part of doing business, for better or worse.
- 3y ago
- exabrial 3y agoIf you think is is bad, you ought to see what cars, airplanes, and wind power does to wildlife. Or construction of that high speed California Railway. Or just _mowing the fricken lawn beside the highway_. /s off. This is pretty nit picky. Come on folks. Also, that's not a Bobcat. Probably best if you're going to write a sensationalized article, at least spend 5 mins to try to get your facts straight.
- mattmoose21 3y ago>Also, that's not a Bobcat. Probably best if you're going to write a sensationalized article, at least spend 5 mins to try to get your facts straight. How can you tell? Some quick google searches of Texas bobcats show similar looking cats. They do look a bit different from what I am used to in the upper midwest.
- mattmoose21 3y agoLooking into a bit more, the only cats that would be likely candidates that I can find would be a margay (likely too small) or an ocelot. If either were the case, I would think it would be a bigger story considering how few live in Texas.
- exabrial 3y agoI'm a midwesterner and I've seen my a share of cats while outdoors... but I actually don't know what those photo is, but I'm fairly certain it's not "an endangered Bobcat". Something is off about the color and dot print, I've never seen it that prominent. Nearly every bobcat I've seen or had appear on a trailcam has much more subdued features and they're not as "orangey". They're unbelievably hard to spot with your eyes. FYI also in the midwest, anything that is wild and meows is generally referred to as "a bobcat", save the mountain lion.
- gusgus01 3y agoThe article actually specifically calls it out as not endangered, so not sure where your quote is from.
- api 3y agoSpaceX isn't cool anymore around here because HN leans left and Elon backed the right-wing horse. If Elon had gone "woke" then all the right-leaning sites would be overflowing with SpaceX and Tesla haters. It's just political tribalism. If you take a side then the other side must vilify you and anything you touch becomes contaminated to them. If a left-winger says the Earth is round right-wingers must insist it's flat, and vice versa. I personally believe SpaceX to be the most important venture on Earth of any kind, and it's vastly more important than Elon Musk himself or his politics. Thousands and thousands of people work for SpaceX. It's not like it's a one man show. In a hundred thousand years whatever sentient life descended from Earth life that has populated our region of the galaxy will have no memory of Elon, Twitter, Donald Trump, or the culture war fight of the week in 2023.
- walrus01 3y agoHN leans left? If anything in my view it leans hardcore free market libertarian/"move fast and break things". Individual people may hold common "liberal" political views like supporting gay rights, the right to abortion but on economics issues and things like government regulation of huge tech, HN is basically indistinguishable from Peter Thiel. Note that actual leftism is not the same thing as modern liberalism. By the economics textbook definition of the term Ronald Reagan was a modern Liberal.
- api 3y agoIt's heterodox but it probably leans left numerically speaking, which reflects the industry and the regions where the industry is concentrated.
- clint 3y agoYou're completely delusional if you consider HN to be "left leaning", this place is the text-book definition of conservative libertarian echo chamber
- nawgz 3y agoIs it not you that is the most entrenched in the culture wars here? I see language about celebrities; politics; toxic modern discourse; corporate value. In other comments, I see discussions about the event; its impacts; how to weigh those relative impacts - positive or negative; questions about why the engineering choices that were made, as they appear quite sloppy in hindsight. Indeed, I might say someone who wishes to detach from the political side of things could easily comment that SpaceX might not be treated as a "cool" entity in this situation because they have made a failure, which might not be bad in itself, but a failure from quite a disappointing mistake. This will naturally color the discussion, don't you think? The emotional state of the audience isn't "interested in what went wrong", because that's obvious! Instead the tone is more related to the nature of mistakes - incredibly though, I don't even see a suggestion that mistakes are the new culture of Elon companies. So why are you whining?
- gffrd 3y agoThe article didn’t answer the question we all now need an answer to: How did the fire-cooked eggs taste??
- aresant 3y agoThe photo of the ruined shorebird's nest is a literal manifestation of the "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" quote I appreciate seeing visualizations of the "cost of progress" to ground me for a moment But images like this are also challenging to put into context given the sheer entropy cost of being a modern human being Take any moment or activity from the day of a First World citizen - driving ours cars, consuming overpackaged foods, turning on the HVAC system All casual activities with direct, immediate costs to the natural world At least SpaceX can frame their activities towards an interplanetary mission and the survival of the human race Where my consumption of a good steak for a fleeting moment of personal pleasure doesn't even have a reconcilable PR angle beyond individualized greed
- jacquesm 3y ago> At least SpaceX can frame their activities towards an interplanetary mission and the survival of the human race Only for the gullible.
- yamtaddle 3y agoIn this case, though, a lot of this is because SpaceX didn't take some pretty basic precautions, and because they were evidently lazy as shit at estimating the effects of the launch (they tore up their own pad, because they got the forces and effects involved way wrong—that's why they blasted chunks of concrete everywhere), and because they decided they just had to launch before getting a metal plate put in on the pad to mitigate some of this. I wanna say they also violated some of the rules around their flight plan, resulting in more damage and debris on the shore. This isn't "the cost of progress", this is misconduct.
- remarkEon 3y ago>because they were evidently lazy as shit at estimating the effects of the launch (they tore up their own pad, because they got the forces and effects involved way wrong—that's why they blasted chunks of concrete everywhere Is there an interview or a blog post or something that says this? My understanding (don't have a link or anything) was that outfitting the launch pad to be to the standard of 39A would've taken years, and getting flight data from the vehicle was more important than likely blowing up the hastily designed/built launch pad.
- anorphirith 3y agoNo matter how incredible and forward your endeavors are, it's fascinating how many haters there will be. Unfortunately most of this hate is precipitated by for profit news.
- reso 3y agoI loved watching the iterative development of the Starship upper stage, and it felt like they were doing it the right way. The full-stack superheavy feels like a different situation. Seeing how little control they have over the enormous blast from that rocket is shocking. It feels irresponsible. One youtube channel [1] showed that a piece of concrete the size of a bus was thrown 50 meters in the air straight upwards during ignition. It almost hit the side of the rocket. This stuff is insane. [1] https://youtu.be/omouxjzI17U?t=3111 https://youtu.be/omouxjzI17U?t=3111
- rio517 3y agoI don't know.... I would imagine they have a lot of control. After all, the engines nozzels rotate. The entire areas was empty of people and they were aware of the high probability of an explosion - potentially before lift off. There was a ton of assumed/acknowledged risk, all of which was eventually signed off on by Nasa(?) and the FAA.
- reso 3y agoThey did not have control of the blast in the way that all other commercial launches do: with flame trenches, water deluge systems, etc. If the FAA knew that SpaceX could be throwing bus-sized pieces of concrete in the air that could potentially hit the rocket's fuel tanks, I guarantee they would not have approved the launch.
- btilly 3y agoTo be fair, you're asking them to have solved a problem in advance that nobody knew that they would have. Nobody had ever fired a rocket that strong. Their test firings were on par with the strongest previous rockets ever launched, and neither the test firings or those previous launches suggested that something like this was possible. And it wasn't just them. They went through over a year of environmental review and mitigation efforts. To the best of my knowledge, the issue of how to handle the launch pad being blown over the local environment didn't come up even once. Engineering is full of things like this. You learn that a problem is possible because it happens. Then you figure out how to mitigate it. That first time really sucks. But when it happens, you have to ask, "Was this something that should have been predicted?" And in this case I'm pretty sure that the answer is no.
- huslage 3y agoThere was no existential reason for SpaceX to launch before they had the infrastructure to support it. They knew they would blow stuff up, had already started engineering a solution to the problem, and still went ahead with the launch anyway. The environmental consequences are enormous. I am a fan of space, but I also want it to be done responsibly.
- rio517 3y agoPerhaps I'm missing something, what are the enormous environmental consequences? Are you referring to just those from the photo? I feel like a fishing trawler does more damage every day than I see in these photos.
- dmbche 3y agoWhile I'm not an expert - the article does mention that the cement dust has an impact on soil, and I can imagine that the rocket itself was filled with multiple dangerous and toxic chemicals which were scattered to the wind. It's probably not Exxon Valdez, but I doubt it's a small deal.
- btilly 3y agoActually this is the second cleanest type of fuel possible. (The best being hydrogen.) When they blew it up they released a ton of methane, which is bad for global warming, but otherwise isn't toxic. Most other rockets have much worse stuff inside. See https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/ https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/ if you want to learn more about this topic.
- dmbche 3y agoOh I was more thinking of coolants and oils, as well as the insulation, and I'm sure there were a lot of heavy metals in there as well. But thanks for the link!
- 3y ago
- WestCoastJustin 3y agoUpdated: This used to be a long thread about two people arguing about nothing over the internet and wasting an hour and nothing gained. Very productive.
- operatingthetan 3y ago>is that it totally overlooks all the other companies just dropping all their stuff in the ocean. You're criticizing the article for not participating in whataboutism?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- WestCoastJustin 3y ago.
- operatingthetan 3y agoSame difference, I saw your deleted comment where you said "yes" as well, and your sentiment is the same. Accountability has to start somewhere. For clarity they edited that line after I quoted it.
- WestCoastJustin 3y ago.
- operatingthetan 3y ago> How about the war happening and all the people getting killed and all the environmental and social impact happening there. Wow, you are literally doing it again. It's a fallacy because the topic of the article *is* space x, you're just interested in dismissing it for whatever reason. If you want to talk about the impact of the war, find an article about the war to do it on. For clarity here: what·a·bout·ism noun the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue. We should hold commenters here to a higher standard than this.
- c54 3y agoI think everyone agrees that SpaceX launched too early and messed up in terms of unsafe destruction to their pad, rocket, and surroundings (above pics included). However I think we should keep some context & perspective on exactly where we're more and less OK with certain kinds of environmental destruction. I think when you look closely at any part of this planet, every action you take causes disruption. This is part of the miracle of life on earth, it's everywhere. Paving a square yard of road causes destruction to the soil habitat, surface and deeper insects and bacteria, the birds and other animals eating those insects, plant and fungal life in the are, etc. Does that mean we shouldn't make roads at all? Probably not. Does that mean we should make fewer roads? Probably! Does that mean we should rely on trains instead of highways where possible? Absolutely! But we can do this same exercise for a rail! The same soil is under the bits of rail and railroad ties too. Railways also divide up landscapes, causing the deaths of various grazing animals. Should we not make railways...? I think the extreme is the Jainist perspective of sweeping the ground ahead of your feet before taking a single step. I don't think that view is a reasonable idea for all of us.
- lamontcg 3y ago> I think the extreme is the Jainist perspective of sweeping the ground ahead of your feet before taking a single step. I don't think that view is a reasonable idea for all of us. We're a hell of a long ways towards the opposite extreme right now.
- timeon 3y agoIs this rocket really necessary?
- senectus1 3y agoyes
- hanoz 3y agoWhat exactly is supposed to have happened to that cat? Leading with that photo with no explanation is completely ridiculous.
- nonethewiser 3y agoWe are reporting that a peice of concrete was flung 600ft. After landing it drew an AR-15 and murdered this bobcat.
- trothamel 3y agoThe bobcat photo seems to be a bit misleading here, as there don't seem to be any power lines like that anywhere near the launch site.
- Ancapistani 3y agoThe impression I got was that the cat's death was a consequence of the use of the road, which was required for SpaceX's launch facility. I don't think they were implying that it was directly caused by the launch itself.
- cryptonector 3y agoBut TFA's title is about the debris field, not about damage to the environment by other things not related to the launch of Starship.
- pg_bot 3y agoThere are a few local activists who have been staunchly opposed to spacex expanding into the Boca Chica area. I find it perfectly reasonable that someone would not want a rocket company in their backyard, however if you are going to be launching things into space you are somewhat geographically limited. You want to be as close to the equator as possible to take advantage of the faster rotational speed of the Earth and you want to have an ocean to the east in case there is an accident so that debris doesn't hit anything on land. The area should ideally be relatively remote so that testing doesn't cause too much of a disturbance, but populated enough so that you can get supplies and workers. This leaves you with two options if you want to launch spacecraft in the united states, south Florida and south Texas. There really aren't any other options if you want to be as efficient as possible.
- cryptonector 3y agoWhat's the story at Cape Canaveral?