8 ms·

As I noted in previous threads this is brazen lying: they are not dumping tap water into the ground they are dumping (boiling hot) water that has been processed

As I noted in previous threads this is brazen lying: they are not dumping tap water into the ground they are dumping (boiling hot) water that has been processed by blasting it with rocket fuel, which their own third-party analysis contains contaminants that are not present in "tap water". By SpaceX's logic any factory would be able to dump toxic water into the ground as long as they sourced the input water from the city's drinking water distribution system. This is probably the most basic environmental and health and safety law, namely to prevent businesses from dumping toxins into the water; trying to frame this as government overreach and knick-knack regulations is seriously depraved and it would be banana-republic-esque if he actually succeeds in ignoring or removing these rules.

sq_ 2y ago
Given that Starship and Super Heavy are both methalox fueled, wouldn’t the combustion products in the exhaust be carbon dioxide and water?
- verdverm 2y ago
  Combustion is imperfect and it is occurring over metal which will erode into the mix of air and water. Then there is also whatever chemicals and material are on the ground prior to launch activities that get washed away with the deluge system
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    > Then there is also whatever chemicals and material are on the ground prior to launch activities that get washed away Washed away after first being superheated by that water.
    - verdverm 2y ago
      I would imagine most of the wash away is not close to the exhaust, but down slope, mainly consisting of construction, maintenance, and vehicle activities.
      - vatueil 2y ago
        Though the area does receive many orders of magnitude more water from natural rainfall than the deluge system, so anything present in that water would have been washed away anyway.
- foobarqux 2y ago
  Not according to the tests SpaceX submitted themselves. But if it were you would first show that to the EPA and then they would give you a permit to go ahead.
matrix2003 2y ago
How is this different than launches at Canaveral or elsewhere? Don’t those pads also have water deluge systems and service a variety of liquid fueled rockets?
- foobarqux 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - matrix2003 2y ago
    Thanks for that explanation. I haven’t been able to keep up.
  - ToDougie 2y ago
    Except the press release outlines how they literally have their outflow water tested. Are you lying?
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      There are significant questions about how they do their testing. Apropos of anything else, the water is generally superheated which causes issues with microorganisms in the soil. Saying "hey, below level trace contaminants over here, later on" isn't conclusive. SpaceX IS being deliberately deceptive when they say (and emphasize in bold, in case we're dense): "Again, this is drinking water". Great. Let's do what they did in Flint, and have Musk and SpaceX take a drink from that "drinking water". Remember, according to Tesla, FSD is already dozens to hundreds of times safer than human drivers[1]. [1] On the subset of roads, in the subset of weather, in the subset of driving conditions where it may be activated, when compared to "all human drivers, on all roads, in all weather, in all conditions". And don't forget, if airbags don't deploy, it's not an accident, according to Tesla.[2] [2] This includes collisions at 20mph or more where the passenger restraint subsystem determines that it is safer not to deploy airbags (first gen airbags were dumb - impact above a certain force, deploy. Current airbags take into account angle of impact, deflections, etc., before deploying). Tesla amazingly also doesn't consider it to be an accident for their stats when the airbags didn't deploy because the vehicle was so damaged or destroyed by the accident that the system could not or did not deploy. So forgive some of us for taking any Musk venture condescending press release with a grain of salt.
damon_c 2y ago
Hello. I just want to start by saying I appreciate this post as every other post on this article is: "this is politically motivated because I think it is". That being said... on the linked page it says: > Outflow water has been sampled after every use of the system and consistently shows negligible traces of any contaminants, and specifically, that all levels have remained below standards for all state permits that would authorize discharge. TCEQ, the FAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated the use of the system prior to its initial use, and during tests and launch, and determined it would not cause environmental harm. Is this all lies?
- foobarqux 2y ago
  I wouldn't trust any analysis that SpaceX submits itself given Musk's long history of lying, including right now on this very subject. Others have pointed out problems in the way the water is being sampled (surface water vs ground water) but I'm not an expert. It is certainly possible that no serious contamination has already occurred. But the way it works is not that you dump stuff out of your factory and then, after getting caught, try to run some tests to show it's okay. It's almost impossible to remove contaminants out of the water after the fact so the way it works is that you go through a process with the government where you show that you are not going to dump contaminants into the ground, then they issue a permit, then you can discharge the water. Otherwise you would have people doing what Musk is doing now, which is to dump the water first and if there is any irreversible contamination say "oops, my bad".
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    You don't have to trust SpaceX. You have to trust " TCEQ, the FAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ". Some of those reports are public.
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      Contrary to what SpaceX has claimed USFWS does not regulate industrial waste water discharge (unsurprisingly). The TCEQ has said they are in violation. FAA has paused launches pending an investigation. Both should have done this many months ago. In any case with respect to existing contamination the only thing I would trust is an independent third party testing lab testing the water with the data made public. I don't know why you would want anything else.
fernandopj 2y ago
I think your second paragraph is spot on. I just don't understand why this seems to be an issue with this launch in particular, cause to me it just something that's done at every launch ever (throw water at a launching rocket). Isn't this a very well understood env impact anyway that Falcon 9 launches don't face those delays?
LeroyRaz 2y ago
You seem to be willfully misinterpretating SpaceX's post. They say that only potable water is used in the deluge process. That's all they are saying. They aren't saying that the post deluge water is potable.
- mr_toad 2y ago
  It’s probably still drinkable if you let it cool down and wait for the sediment to settle out.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  No-one cares about the water before deluge, that's why. Worst case scenario, a leak there floods some wetlands with "drinking water". People are only concerned about the post deluge water. Why does SpaceX repeatedly, and condescendingly, keep saying "Again, this is drinking water!" So no, I don't think he's willfully misinterpreting SpaceX's post. In fact, I think SpaceX's repeated references to drinking water, at a non-problematic stage of the complaints, is willfully misleading.

sq_ 2y ago

Given that Starship and Super Heavy are both methalox fueled, wouldn’t the combustion products in the exhaust be carbon dioxide and water?

verdverm 2y ago
Combustion is imperfect and it is occurring over metal which will erode into the mix of air and water. Then there is also whatever chemicals and material are on the ground prior to launch activities that get washed away with the deluge system
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > Then there is also whatever chemicals and material are on the ground prior to launch activities that get washed away Washed away after first being superheated by that water.
  - verdverm 2y ago
    I would imagine most of the wash away is not close to the exhaust, but down slope, mainly consisting of construction, maintenance, and vehicle activities.
    - vatueil 2y ago
      Though the area does receive many orders of magnitude more water from natural rainfall than the deluge system, so anything present in that water would have been washed away anyway.
foobarqux 2y ago
Not according to the tests SpaceX submitted themselves. But if it were you would first show that to the EPA and then they would give you a permit to go ahead.

matrix2003 2y ago

How is this different than launches at Canaveral or elsewhere? Don’t those pads also have water deluge systems and service a variety of liquid fueled rockets?

foobarqux 2y ago
[flagged]
- matrix2003 2y ago
  Thanks for that explanation. I haven’t been able to keep up.
- ToDougie 2y ago
  Except the press release outlines how they literally have their outflow water tested. Are you lying?
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    There are significant questions about how they do their testing. Apropos of anything else, the water is generally superheated which causes issues with microorganisms in the soil. Saying "hey, below level trace contaminants over here, later on" isn't conclusive. SpaceX IS being deliberately deceptive when they say (and emphasize in bold, in case we're dense): "Again, this is drinking water". Great. Let's do what they did in Flint, and have Musk and SpaceX take a drink from that "drinking water". Remember, according to Tesla, FSD is already dozens to hundreds of times safer than human drivers[1]. [1] On the subset of roads, in the subset of weather, in the subset of driving conditions where it may be activated, when compared to "all human drivers, on all roads, in all weather, in all conditions". And don't forget, if airbags don't deploy, it's not an accident, according to Tesla.[2] [2] This includes collisions at 20mph or more where the passenger restraint subsystem determines that it is safer not to deploy airbags (first gen airbags were dumb - impact above a certain force, deploy. Current airbags take into account angle of impact, deflections, etc., before deploying). Tesla amazingly also doesn't consider it to be an accident for their stats when the airbags didn't deploy because the vehicle was so damaged or destroyed by the accident that the system could not or did not deploy. So forgive some of us for taking any Musk venture condescending press release with a grain of salt.

damon_c 2y ago

Hello. I just want to start by saying I appreciate this post as every other post on this article is: "this is politically motivated because I think it is". That being said... on the linked page it says: > Outflow water has been sampled after every use of the system and consistently shows negligible traces of any contaminants, and specifically, that all levels have remained below standards for all state permits that would authorize discharge. TCEQ, the FAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated the use of the system prior to its initial use, and during tests and launch, and determined it would not cause environmental harm. Is this all lies?

foobarqux 2y ago
I wouldn't trust any analysis that SpaceX submits itself given Musk's long history of lying, including right now on this very subject. Others have pointed out problems in the way the water is being sampled (surface water vs ground water) but I'm not an expert. It is certainly possible that no serious contamination has already occurred. But the way it works is not that you dump stuff out of your factory and then, after getting caught, try to run some tests to show it's okay. It's almost impossible to remove contaminants out of the water after the fact so the way it works is that you go through a process with the government where you show that you are not going to dump contaminants into the ground, then they issue a permit, then you can discharge the water. Otherwise you would have people doing what Musk is doing now, which is to dump the water first and if there is any irreversible contamination say "oops, my bad".
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  You don't have to trust SpaceX. You have to trust " TCEQ, the FAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ". Some of those reports are public.
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    Contrary to what SpaceX has claimed USFWS does not regulate industrial waste water discharge (unsurprisingly). The TCEQ has said they are in violation. FAA has paused launches pending an investigation. Both should have done this many months ago. In any case with respect to existing contamination the only thing I would trust is an independent third party testing lab testing the water with the data made public. I don't know why you would want anything else.

fernandopj 2y ago

I think your second paragraph is spot on. I just don't understand why this seems to be an issue with this launch in particular, cause to me it just something that's done at every launch ever (throw water at a launching rocket). Isn't this a very well understood env impact anyway that Falcon 9 launches don't face those delays?

LeroyRaz 2y ago

You seem to be willfully misinterpretating SpaceX's post. They say that only potable water is used in the deluge process. That's all they are saying. They aren't saying that the post deluge water is potable.

mr_toad 2y ago
It’s probably still drinkable if you let it cool down and wait for the sediment to settle out.
FireBeyond 2y ago
No-one cares about the water before deluge, that's why. Worst case scenario, a leak there floods some wetlands with "drinking water". People are only concerned about the post deluge water. Why does SpaceX repeatedly, and condescendingly, keep saying "Again, this is drinking water!" So no, I don't think he's willfully misinterpreting SpaceX's post. In fact, I think SpaceX's repeated references to drinking water, at a non-problematic stage of the complaints, is willfully misleading.