I 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.
I 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/).
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).
To be fair it's now clear that Elon and friends now also agree that they need something like a flame diverter, though for different reasons.
Well, to be even more fair Elon doesn't seem interested in a diverter or trench but in a [thick] steel plate cooled by water. That would still allow the exhaust to run along the ground far beyond the OLM. He could erect some berms covered in concrete at a some distance from the OLM to avoid damage from that.
I 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.
> 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.
There 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.
If 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.
> If 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_.
>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.
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.
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.
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?
For 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.
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.
I 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.
I 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.
To 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.
I 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.
The slow flight termination system was especially terrifying: What should have been an unzip-boom was more like a slowly deflating balloon that took 50 seconds to go boom. If the rocket went out of control at low altitude, someone or something would have been bombed with the largest human created non-nuclear explosion (a fast FTS reduces damage by at least an order of magnitude). At least this will get resolved by the next flight.
They 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.
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.
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.
Updated: 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.
SpaceX 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.
HN 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.
I think you're flat-out wrong in general - and on a personal level, I'm rooting for SpaceX despite their founder's shenanigans.
If someone can back up a claim with reasonable evidence I'll hear it.
For example, I'm not sure I even care about the level of damage documented here, but I applaud the author for doing the research and presenting facts (other than the extraneous dead cat in the first photo).
Nope. The problem is that Elan, recently, has very much been leaning to Delusional Management PHBism. HN very much leans to the sorts of competent workers who have to suffer under that kind of management, while busting our asses to make it look like their screw-loose "pedal-powered supersonic time machine cars will start shipping soon!" promises have some basis in reality.
Is 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?
No 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.
[+] [-] fabian2k|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elil17|2 years ago|reply
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/).
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).
[+] [-] cryptonector|2 years ago|reply
Well, to be even more fair Elon doesn't seem interested in a diverter or trench but in a [thick] steel plate cooled by water. That would still allow the exhaust to run along the ground far beyond the OLM. He could erect some berms covered in concrete at a some distance from the OLM to avoid damage from that.
[+] [-] c54|2 years ago|reply
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|2 years ago|reply
We're a hell of a long ways towards the opposite extreme right now.
[+] [-] timeon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pg_bot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] briffle|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exabrial|2 years ago|reply
/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.
[+] [-] timeon|2 years ago|reply
Are you shifting attention from the topic here?
[+] [-] nonethewiser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattmoose21|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] huslage|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rio517|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryptonector|2 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] robocat|2 years ago|reply
> The environmental consequences are enormous
The consequences are not enormous. Should SpaceX do things better? Yes.
[+] [-] couchdive|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walrus01|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] trothamel|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nawgz|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hanoz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonethewiser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reso|2 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] btilly|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rio517|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kersplody|2 years ago|reply
RULE 1: DON'T REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST
RULE 2: DON'T FAIL IN UNEXPECTED WAYS
The slow flight termination system was especially terrifying: What should have been an unzip-boom was more like a slowly deflating balloon that took 50 seconds to go boom. If the rocket went out of control at low altitude, someone or something would have been bombed with the largest human created non-nuclear explosion (a fast FTS reduces damage by at least an order of magnitude). At least this will get resolved by the next flight.
[+] [-] low_tech_punk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arpowers|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmbche|2 years ago|reply
If we don't know the impact of it on the habitat, how is it a "small price"?
[+] [-] inamberclad|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] verdverm|2 years ago|reply
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|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nevatiaritika|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mef|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|2 years ago|reply
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!
[+] [-] aresant|2 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] justrealist|2 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] dd36|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WestCoastJustin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryptonector|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|2 years ago|reply
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|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] clint|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unethical_ban|2 years ago|reply
If someone can back up a claim with reasonable evidence I'll hear it.
For example, I'm not sure I even care about the level of damage documented here, but I applaud the author for doing the research and presenting facts (other than the extraneous dead cat in the first photo).
[+] [-] bell-cot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nawgz|2 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] 1shooner|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gffrd|2 years ago|reply
How did the fire-cooked eggs taste??
[+] [-] anorphirith|2 years ago|reply