3 ms·
> And we can't just assume there are harmful additives in meaningful quantities. No one's assuming there are, but the onus is to prove that there aren't. > Ok
by jjk166 3y ago
> And we can't just assume there are harmful additives in meaningful quantities.
No one's assuming there are, but the onus is to prove that there aren't.
> Okay, technically it spontaneously decomposes upon contact with a catalyst. That's so close to the definition of hypergolic.
But that's not WHY it is toxic. A substance can be not only non-hypergolic, it could be completely non-flammable and still be toxic, like say Carbon Tetrachloride, which is why the parent comment that I was replying to saying "since it's not hypergolic, it's therefore not toxic" is wrong, which was the thing I was trying to correct. SpaceX isn't using toxic fuels, but not because they are not using hypergolic fuels.
- Dylan16807 3y ago> No one's assuming there are, but the onus is to prove that there aren't. For an environmental assessment, yes. For someone casually arguing against the area becoming "extremely toxic" then we should need a reason to suspect large amounts of very bad additives. > But that's not WHY it is toxic. Yeah but nobody said that. The post was giving reasons the area isn't being made toxic, and one of those reasons is because out of the list of normal rocket fuels only the hypergolic ones are terrible, and they're not using those fuels. It's fine to point out that it's not directly because of hypergolic or not (though there are strong correlations based on how reactive things are), but it doesn't affect the actual point they were making. You made it sound like a rebuttal when it's not a rebuttal. At worst they worded it badly.