5 ms·

There 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 e

There 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 ago
Perhaps 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 ago
  While 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 ago
    Actually 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 ago
      Oh 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!
      - btilly 3y ago
        Believe it or not, the boosters are just built out of stainless steel so that they can survive the heat. Not toxic. Starship itself uses a silicon-based ceramic for insulation. You wouldn't want to be hit in the head by one of those tiles, but it's unlikely to poison you.
        dmbche 3y ago
        How interesting! I'll definitely look further into it! Thanks!
        dmbche 3y ago
        https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/spacex-starship-explosion-spread-particulate-matter-for-miles.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/spacex-starship-explosion-sp... Just stumbled upon this - it does seem that the particulate matter scattered for miles is being investigated as being a major health risk to nearby residents and endangered species.
        btilly 3y ago
        Ah, yes. This is a real issue. Breathing in non-toxic particles can be bad for you due to the effects of mechanical injury. The classic example is asbestos, completely non-toxic, but the result of how your body attempts to repair damaged cells in your lungs can cause an increased chance of cancer. This is one of the top concerns of nanotechnology. It could potentially create a lot of grit that we really don't want to breathe...
        dmbche 3y ago
        You remind me that I heard brake pad particulate was horrible for our health, and highly present in the air in LA as well - another thing to lose sleep to! Thanks for the chat, have a nice one
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    The exhaust was pretty clean. It might have been a bit engine-rich though, so a bit of copper was probably emitted, but otherwise it was just H2O and CO2.
cryptonector 3y ago
It's not remotely clear yet that the "environmental consequences are enormous". I agree with everything else you said. SpaceX already is paying a steep price for not waiting, since they have to spend a ton of effort and money on fixing up stage zero (and probably ground zero too). Perhaps they felt pressured by investors to show progress?
couchdive 3y ago
needed that 420 launch date bro. Seriously, it comes down to that.
- dmbche 3y ago
  Oh jesus christ I hadn't caught that it was on 4/20 The booster spelled 4/20 Jesus christ it was just a bit And now people are beathing in particulate matter for a bit
- machdiamonds 3y ago
  This makes no sense considering the original launch date was on 4/17.
  - couchdive 3y ago
    everything doesn't have to make sense. Like 12 day old accounts that signed up to jock elon musk.
robocat 3y ago
The less common "Move slow, and break things" engineering. > The environmental consequences are enormous The consequences are not enormous. Should SpaceX do things better? Yes.

rio517 3y ago

Perhaps 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 ago
While 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 ago
  Actually 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 ago
    Oh 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!
    - btilly 3y ago
      Believe it or not, the boosters are just built out of stainless steel so that they can survive the heat. Not toxic. Starship itself uses a silicon-based ceramic for insulation. You wouldn't want to be hit in the head by one of those tiles, but it's unlikely to poison you.
      - dmbche 3y ago
        How interesting! I'll definitely look further into it! Thanks!
      - dmbche 3y ago
        https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/spacex-starship-explosion-spread-particulate-matter-for-miles.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/spacex-starship-explosion-sp... Just stumbled upon this - it does seem that the particulate matter scattered for miles is being investigated as being a major health risk to nearby residents and endangered species.
        btilly 3y ago
        Ah, yes. This is a real issue. Breathing in non-toxic particles can be bad for you due to the effects of mechanical injury. The classic example is asbestos, completely non-toxic, but the result of how your body attempts to repair damaged cells in your lungs can cause an increased chance of cancer. This is one of the top concerns of nanotechnology. It could potentially create a lot of grit that we really don't want to breathe...
        dmbche 3y ago
        You remind me that I heard brake pad particulate was horrible for our health, and highly present in the air in LA as well - another thing to lose sleep to! Thanks for the chat, have a nice one
- cryptonector 3y ago
  The exhaust was pretty clean. It might have been a bit engine-rich though, so a bit of copper was probably emitted, but otherwise it was just H2O and CO2.

cryptonector 3y ago

It's not remotely clear yet that the "environmental consequences are enormous". I agree with everything else you said. SpaceX already is paying a steep price for not waiting, since they have to spend a ton of effort and money on fixing up stage zero (and probably ground zero too). Perhaps they felt pressured by investors to show progress?

couchdive 3y ago

needed that 420 launch date bro. Seriously, it comes down to that.

dmbche 3y ago
Oh jesus christ I hadn't caught that it was on 4/20 The booster spelled 4/20 Jesus christ it was just a bit And now people are beathing in particulate matter for a bit
machdiamonds 3y ago
This makes no sense considering the original launch date was on 4/17.
- couchdive 3y ago
  everything doesn't have to make sense. Like 12 day old accounts that signed up to jock elon musk.

robocat 3y ago

The less common "Move slow, and break things" engineering. > The environmental consequences are enormous The consequences are not enormous. Should SpaceX do things better? Yes.