10 ms·
SpaceX Blast Left Officials in Disbelief over Environmental Damage
- gary_0 3y agohttps://archive.li/Yeazz https://archive.li/Yeazz
- gary_0 3y agoRelated: https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/spacex-conducts-a-mostly-successful-test-of-its-super-heavy-booster/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/spacex-conducts-a-most... > the company's radically rebuilt ground systems, with an enhanced water suppression system, appeared to function well in protecting the rocket and the launch pad.
- housemusicfan 3y ago[flagged]
- centmot 3y agoThe writers better be vegan if they're worried about wildlife impact from the launch.
- Conscat 3y agoThey launch rockets at a scale they are not legally allowed to, adjacent to multiple wild life reserves home to many critically endangered species, and this is not close to the first time they've burned down the wildlife. Turtles and cats are a bigger concern to than the crabs imho. Side note, and not that it matters much to this topic, but whether someone thinks Martian colonization is plausible or not seems to be a decent litmus test to their reasonability in general.
- cwalv 3y ago> but whether someone thinks Martian colonization is plausible or not seems to be a decent litmus test to their reasonability in general Agree! to be pedantic, you should probably add a "within the next X years" qualifier
- martianist 3y agoIt's obviously not possible with existing technology but future developments in biotechnology might lead to breakthroughs in terraforming planets like Mars for human habitation. In any event, fewer rockets is not going to prevent the 6th mass extinction. The biosphere is degrading and fossil fuel consumption is still going up because the economists have decided that higher GDP is better than a habitable planet. Musk is a favorite scapegoat but he is not the problem. Modern civilization is toxic and will continue to generate toxic byproducts as long as the human population is increasing.
- boeingUH60 3y agoFrequent satellite launches helping usher in affordable broadband across the globe > turtles and cats.
- Conscat 3y agoWe can live without wifi on the ocean, but we basically can't live without sea turtles.
- p_j_w 3y ago> let's abandon Mars The idea that Musk’s plan with SpaceX is to help humanity colonize Mars is nothing but PR hogwash. The sole purpose of that messaging is to get ordinary members of the public to defend them when they break the rules for their own financial gain. It appears, at least in your case, to have worked.
- dgrin91 3y agoCan you explain why you believe it is "PR hogwash"? It seems like they are putting a lot of capital and effort into making their stated vision a reality. I'm not denying that SpaceX, like any other company, pulls PR strings and does greedy corporate things, but that doesn't mean they are flat out lying about Mars.
- kranke155 3y agoIf they don’t intend to fly to Mars why they are spending immense capital on the Super Heavy? The Falcon 9 (+Heavy) is an immensity profitable rocket good enough for almost anything we want to place on Earth orbit AFAIK. If they do not intend to do anything else but be a profitable business, I don’t understand why the heck they would bother with the Super Heavy and Starship.
- p_j_w 3y ago> If they don’t intend to fly to Mars why they are spending immense capital on the Super Heavy? Because they think it’ll be more profitable than what they have now.
- onion2k 3y agoThe choice isn't between crabs and Mars. It's between doing things badly without considering the externalities and doing things slightly better. The fact you think Musk has to do things badly, that he can't do better, speaks volumes. Maybe you're right.
- rewmie 3y ago> Oh no, we lost a few crabs? Yeah let's abandon Mars it just doesn't seem worth it. Do you think a private for-profit company should get a free pass for the damage they cause to the environment just because you like their business?
- housemusicfan 3y agoLosing a few crabs is part of the opportunity cost for space exploration. Do you not eat seafood? Crab legs are delicious! I'm surprised they didn't count the number of anthills that were knocked over during the launch and include that in the article too.
- p_j_w 3y agoThe opportunity cost isn’t space exploration, it’s SpaceX’s bottom line.
- standardly 3y agoIdk dude. To me crabs are vastly more precious and interesting than Mars. It's a rock. They are life. Weird devils advocate argument, I know, but just saying. Lots of rocks out there.
- housemusicfan 3y agoNo one said they eradicated every crab on planet Earth. They lost a few crabs. There's plenty more of them. And there are many restaurants in SF that serve them up every which way. Is it an environmental disaster every time you step on an insect?
- standardly 3y agoLol, good point. I concede.
- wilg 3y agoGood thing they've already fixed the problem!
- pnpnp 3y agoWhat exactly did the officials think would happen when it was approved in the first place? The rocket is mind bogglingly huge with a mind boggling amount of thrust. I did want to comment I’m aware of concrete chunks being thrown in the first test, but they were obviously okay with it exploding on the pad (a reasonable assumption for rocket development).
- dotnet00 3y agoThey couldn't make a more blatant hit piece. The only damage they actually cite despite claiming to have access to a 1100 page report is someone's trail camera seeing birds getting scared off and their eggs being eaten by another animal... The rest is all whining about not being allowed on site after the self-admitted dangerous explosion for 48 hours and a bunch of "but the experts (specifically the ones we prefer) say they definitely need a flame diverter". Then they wonder why SpaceX's protocol is to ignore media rags. The design decisions that led up to the decision to not have a flame trench weren't exactly secret either. They wanted to avoid it because they would have to build up the area to be able to have a trench, which would take many years and would end up being a high cost for every launch site they might want to build, and so they tried to come up with a design that could get by without one. By the time came for the orbital test, they knew the concrete would not be sufficient and the water deluge system was already in development, but they expected that the concrete would be ablated. Instead it unexpectedly shattered due to interactions with the sand underneath. However, saying that isn't convenient for the narrative. Many of the "experts" they're citing likely also made claims about how reusable rocketry isn't economical or that pin point landings on a barge in the middle of the ocean would not be reliable every time there was a failed attempt during the early days of that.
- rewmie 3y ago> The only damage they actually cite despite claiming to have access to a 1100 page report is someone's trail camera seeing birds getting scared off and their eggs being eaten by another animal... The article you're supposedly commenting on starts off by referring that "almost four acres of state park were burned" and animals being incinerated. The pay wall stops me from reading the rest, but that much is clear.
- dotnet00 3y ago"seven bobwhite quail eggs and a collection of blue land crabs" Damn what a massive unprecedented disaster, clearly this deserves outsized attention.
- 3y ago
- bryanlarsen 3y agoThere was a very real possibility that the rocket would have exploded on the launch pad. This possibility was acknowledged and accepted in the environmental assessment. An explosion on the launch pad would have done far more damage than occurred due to insufficient pad protection.
- bandyaboot 3y agoI don't think that that's a given. The damage that was done was the result of a massive amount of energy being directed into disintegrating the concrete pad. An uncontrolled explosion would have spread that out in all directions more or less. I think it's clear the result would have been far different, though I can't pretend to be an expert on whether it would have led to more or less environmental damage.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoYou're right. An explosion could result in about 100X as much energy, but that would require thorough mixing of the methane and oxygen, which is unlikely to occur. However, the point is that the theoretical worst case scenario in the environmental assessment was a lot worse than what did occur, and that worst case scenario was deemed an acceptable risk.
- WillPostForFood 3y agoSeven quail eggs lost. Let them inspect the local sushi joint next...
- mieses 3y agoooooh look. a fire not set by environmentalist activists from academia!
- readthenotes1 3y agoWhat the world needs is a bunch of Letzte Generation volunteers gluing themselves to the launch pad to show their commitment.
- bandyaboot 3y agoSeriously, another negative Spacex story that's going to get flagged into oblivion? I agree with much of the criticism here, but this is pathetic.
- housemusicfan 3y agoPeople on this website struggle with having mature discussions about difficult or controversial topics. Insisting no one engage is frankly bizarre. It's like hiding under the bed during a thunderstorm, which is something dogs do because they don't know any better.
- botanical 3y agoThis website has a problem with criticism of certain subjects being flagged down to oblivion. Any criticism against Musk's endeavours, Apartheid Israel, and sometimes even environmental topics like global warming gets flagged, so that discussion of the topic is minimised. It's an affront to the supposed values of the civilised Western world.
- kcplate 3y agoIt’s not just in a single ideological direction. Any post or comment even mildly considered controversial or verboten to discuss by a specific side gets it on here. I tend to still see them all because I read HN with a RSS feed reader and don’t see the flagged indicator until after I open the story. Generally I know either from the link url, or the topic that when I open the story the story will be flagged, or will have a # of comments flagged. It’s really not disappointing to see supposedly smart people do this.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago> It's an affront to the supposed values of the civilised Western world. HN is not intended to be the discussion site for every topic. It deliberately tries to avoid topics that are going to produce more flame than light. The values of western civilization do not depend on whether HN allows discussion of every topic. There are plenty of other places for those discussions to happen, free and unhindered by HN's site guidelines.
- botanical 3y agoIt's obvious I meant the people on the website, not HN itself.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoBut it's still the same answer. The people on this website may discuss politics, may even do flamewars, but not here. And there's nothing wrong with that. There's no disgrace to western civilization in being a fully-involved citizen, but not taking all of your partisan politics into a mostly-technical forum.