The original claim was that "SpaceX are not grounded at all." That is analogous to saying that "Boeing is not grounded at all" after the 737MAX was grounded. I would not consider either statement to be "100% correct". Part of Boeing's fleet was grounded, and part of SpaceX's fleet is grounded. It is true that only part and not all of either manufacturer's fleet was grounded, but to say that either one was "not grounded AT ALL" [emphasis added] is not accurate.
"Extensive environmental damage" lol. Dug a hole and threw some scraps around. Building the suburb I live in did much more extensive environmental damage than anything SpaceX has done.
Whoever manufactured that mini split system attached to the c-container should use that picture for advertising lol.
Seriously though, I think it’s a Mr. Slim or an LG, and it’s really the only recognizable object in that picture of the launchpad.
I’ve seen many Mr. Slims used for climate control in high heat situations before. They are pretty standard in big buildings for telecom rooms, small server rooms, and any rooms that control critical equipment with sensitive electronics. Pretty much all fire alarm control rooms and elevator control rooms use them for temp and humidity control.
I’ve never considered a mini split being used next to a rocket pad though!
I wonder what equipment was in that container that needed to be that close, but cool.
I too was confused. I believe the parent is referring to the air conditioner module in the bottom right of image #5 on the blue container. It looks to be facing away from the launch pad and protected from debris by the container though, so I'm not sure how that would support the claim of durability.
“Vegetation within a few hundred yards of the launch pad was singed. A little more than a quarter mile south of the launch pad, a fire burned about three acres, charring a quail’s nest.”
> The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) documented that the debris cloud deposited material as far as six-and-a-half miles north of the launch pad. The agency said in a statement that the debris cloud was made of pulverized concrete.
> Broken concrete — some pieces the size of golf balls, others the size of car engine blocks or larger — was spread out over nearly three-quarters of a mile in some directions.
> Craters from large pieces of concrete were as large as six feet across and a few feet deep. Some pieces hit the ground so hard they were submerged in the sand, leaving only an empty crater with rebar jutting from it.
> If SpaceX starts launching routinely — as it plans to — wildlife may leave the area around the launch site.
> "If these major disturbances, in addition to actual damage to the habitat, happen consistently every month, every week, birds and other other wildlife are not likely to use that habitat," LeClaire said.
> "It sure seemed like the decision to not do these very basic channels or flame protection or systems that you see everywhere else was a matter of convenience," Roesch said.
> SpaceX initially had plans to extend its launch pad facility another 17 acres into the wetlands surrounding Boca Chica Beach. But after the company gave conflicting and insufficient information, the Army Corps of Engineers pulled its permit application for the project.
I agree they should have done better, but I think the article's comparison of relatively minor localized damage, versus the completely ignored potential, makes the line of argument of the author quite unreasonable.
Most outages are caused by engineers shipping code. We still ship code. We try to minimize damage and we still fail. Most times the fail was obviously preventable in insight.
That’s true, but if you shipped code that caused ecological damage due to a failure to follow correct procedures, there would be corrective measures. For example:
- You might not be allowed to ship code without oversight
- You might have to complete a post mortem and analysis of what went wrong
- If you were negligent (e.g., you skipped protocol to ship on a 4/20 joke), you might be fired
The FAA is basically saying “Something went way outside parameters here and you caused a lot of damage. Take a pause and figure that out”, and the parent poster is mad about that
The launch pad wasn't supposed to disintegrate and shower the surrounding area with large quantities of all sizes of concrete debris. It's pretty reasonable for them to get push-back for their inadequate engineering when it causes unanticipated negative side-effects. Now they'll have to re-design their launch pad, but they were going to have to do that anyways. (Article says they planned to use a water-cooled steel plate under the launch pad but it wasn't ready in time. Maybe that's enough, or maybe they'll have to install a proper flame trench and water deluge system which they were trying to avoid for some reason.)
What's really too bad is how long we waited to notice all the brilliant old fuckers from the AtlasV project were turning into old dead fuckers who couldn't help anyone with anything.
It is completely understandable that the tech they developed and stupid shit they pulled (and learned from) were importantly held secrets at the time, but we just had to have a space shuttle.
The only thing that is stupid about this test are the number of times the very same problem has occurred for the other 3-dozen teams of (actual fucking) rocket scientists who've had to relearn these lessons over the last 50 years.
One funny bit of context is that I remember I enjoyed reading this story linked from HN and then came back to read the comments only to find it was flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35590279
So uh, us-a culpa.
But yeah I assume that they can't actually correctly isolate the protected wildlife lands from the rockets even with the added protections on the launch site itself, just fundamental physical limitations of how quiet a rocket that size can be... I don't know whether that will actually invalidate their permitting etc. or not though.
Debris creation and cleanup is fairly well defined in the Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) done by Spacex and signed off by the FAA and relevant agencies for the Boca site to be used for starship launches.
They probably thought it was more likely to be rocket pieces, rather than concrete pieces, but managing incidents affecting the surrounding area was not some unpredicted, program ending scenario.
Clearly Spacex will have to provide fixes and mitigations to the FAA for the mishap investigation to be closed and obtain the next launch license, but that process is pretty normal for any launch failure. (Not so much the throwing slabs of concrete around, that's not normal!)
> SpaceX convinced FAA to approve a site that would host launching the Largest Rocket in History under NEPA’s Environmental Assessment (EA) process, which is saved for projects that do not have a “significant impact” to the environment. This action was and is eyebrow-raising, as no major spaceport has ever been authorized under this process, always requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is the default multi-year approval process specified under NEPA. The FAA piggybacked on an existing 2015 authorization for SpaceX’s operation of 2-3 annual launches of the much smaller Falcon 9 rockets to forward this streamlined Starship “low impact” approval process through the system.
So the basic question I’d have would be, say, “Is the FAA going to say, ‘you need to actually cross your Ts and dot your Is’ because SpaceX comically underestimated everything about Starship in ways that contemporaries found obvious.” Your observation is kind of orthogonal to my question. It's not an uninteresting read, it's just that I was asking a metaquestion about the document you cited in the first place. Kinda like a Jehovah’s Witness tract I got last Monday that had a section “how can I know that the Bible is reliable” where the answer consisted entirely of Bible quotes, I think that's interesting internal discussion but it didn't really address the original question.
> An EA is a scaled-back, shorter, and less burdensome process. But the catch is that it can only be deployed if the Impacts described are below a level considered “Significant.” ...My argument when writing about “Starbase” from day one has been that the FAA and SpaceX didn’t seek to determine what the actual impacts from Starship development would be, but rather tailored the results of their studies in such a manner to demonstrate that the project would be “insignificant,” preventing years of further delays an EIS would require... I am certain that the Fish And Wildlife Service will, at minimum, ask these questions. FAA could say “we need an EIS now,” which would be a significant blow to SpaceX. I do not expect this to occur and instead they will reevaluate the EA and make changes to mitigate the debris field debacle we observed on 4/20. ... Litigants may seek to have the courts order FAA to complete a new EIS, or they may settle for FAA agreeing on even more mitigations, offsets or concessions. I’d be shocked if we don’t see a large, well-funded lawsuit filed in the coming weeks.
So it's a question phrased in the form of prospective answers, but yeah that's the gist, I am curious to see how the permitting situation will work out in the wake of this blunder.
>If SpaceX starts launching routinely — as it plans to — wildlife may leave the area around the launch site.
> “If these major disturbances, in addition to actual damage to the habitat, happen consistently every month, every week, birds and other other wildlife are not likely to use that habitat,” LeClaire said.
This quote in the article is a bit off base. SpaceX isn't going to be demolishing their launch pad like this every month. They are obviously going to have to fix the problem if they want to fly regularly. The concern is if they took unmerited risks that led to it happening to begin with, and if it might happen again the the process of finding a solution.
41 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 94.8 ms ] thread1. SpaceX are not grounded at all. They launched a Falcon 9 today, and have a Falcon Heavy about to launch.
2. All launch providers are "grounded" when there is an anomaly, this is nothing out of the ordinary.
[1] https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-faa-mishap-investigati...
Seriously though, I think it’s a Mr. Slim or an LG, and it’s really the only recognizable object in that picture of the launchpad.
I’ve seen many Mr. Slims used for climate control in high heat situations before. They are pretty standard in big buildings for telecom rooms, small server rooms, and any rooms that control critical equipment with sensitive electronics. Pretty much all fire alarm control rooms and elevator control rooms use them for temp and humidity control.
I’ve never considered a mini split being used next to a rocket pad though!
I wonder what equipment was in that container that needed to be that close, but cool.
I'll contemplate the moral dilemma as I head to the grocery store to buy some quail eggs.
> Broken concrete — some pieces the size of golf balls, others the size of car engine blocks or larger — was spread out over nearly three-quarters of a mile in some directions.
> Craters from large pieces of concrete were as large as six feet across and a few feet deep. Some pieces hit the ground so hard they were submerged in the sand, leaving only an empty crater with rebar jutting from it.
> If SpaceX starts launching routinely — as it plans to — wildlife may leave the area around the launch site.
> "If these major disturbances, in addition to actual damage to the habitat, happen consistently every month, every week, birds and other other wildlife are not likely to use that habitat," LeClaire said.
> "It sure seemed like the decision to not do these very basic channels or flame protection or systems that you see everywhere else was a matter of convenience," Roesch said.
> SpaceX initially had plans to extend its launch pad facility another 17 acres into the wetlands surrounding Boca Chica Beach. But after the company gave conflicting and insufficient information, the Army Corps of Engineers pulled its permit application for the project.
This is preventable, and should be prevented. I don't care if it's Elon Musk or anyone else. Engineers should not be reckless in their endeavors.
It's even possible that the rocker exploded because they failed to follow those practices
Most outages are caused by engineers shipping code. We still ship code. We try to minimize damage and we still fail. Most times the fail was obviously preventable in insight.
- You might not be allowed to ship code without oversight
- You might have to complete a post mortem and analysis of what went wrong
- If you were negligent (e.g., you skipped protocol to ship on a 4/20 joke), you might be fired
The FAA is basically saying “Something went way outside parameters here and you caused a lot of damage. Take a pause and figure that out”, and the parent poster is mad about that
It is completely understandable that the tech they developed and stupid shit they pulled (and learned from) were importantly held secrets at the time, but we just had to have a space shuttle.
The only thing that is stupid about this test are the number of times the very same problem has occurred for the other 3-dozen teams of (actual fucking) rocket scientists who've had to relearn these lessons over the last 50 years.
Oh, well. (shuffles off to watch TNG reruns)
So uh, us-a culpa.
But yeah I assume that they can't actually correctly isolate the protected wildlife lands from the rockets even with the added protections on the launch site itself, just fundamental physical limitations of how quiet a rocket that size can be... I don't know whether that will actually invalidate their permitting etc. or not though.
They probably thought it was more likely to be rocket pieces, rather than concrete pieces, but managing incidents affecting the surrounding area was not some unpredicted, program ending scenario.
Clearly Spacex will have to provide fixes and mitigations to the FAA for the mishap investigation to be closed and obtain the next launch license, but that process is pretty normal for any launch failure. (Not so much the throwing slabs of concrete around, that's not normal!)
PEA - https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-06/Final_PEA_Ex...
> SpaceX convinced FAA to approve a site that would host launching the Largest Rocket in History under NEPA’s Environmental Assessment (EA) process, which is saved for projects that do not have a “significant impact” to the environment. This action was and is eyebrow-raising, as no major spaceport has ever been authorized under this process, always requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is the default multi-year approval process specified under NEPA. The FAA piggybacked on an existing 2015 authorization for SpaceX’s operation of 2-3 annual launches of the much smaller Falcon 9 rockets to forward this streamlined Starship “low impact” approval process through the system.
So the basic question I’d have would be, say, “Is the FAA going to say, ‘you need to actually cross your Ts and dot your Is’ because SpaceX comically underestimated everything about Starship in ways that contemporaries found obvious.” Your observation is kind of orthogonal to my question. It's not an uninteresting read, it's just that I was asking a metaquestion about the document you cited in the first place. Kinda like a Jehovah’s Witness tract I got last Monday that had a section “how can I know that the Bible is reliable” where the answer consisted entirely of Bible quotes, I think that's interesting internal discussion but it didn't really address the original question.
A follow up article from the author, https://blog.esghound.com/p/spacexs-texas-rocket-caused-a-bi... , puts the metaquestion this way:
> An EA is a scaled-back, shorter, and less burdensome process. But the catch is that it can only be deployed if the Impacts described are below a level considered “Significant.” ...My argument when writing about “Starbase” from day one has been that the FAA and SpaceX didn’t seek to determine what the actual impacts from Starship development would be, but rather tailored the results of their studies in such a manner to demonstrate that the project would be “insignificant,” preventing years of further delays an EIS would require... I am certain that the Fish And Wildlife Service will, at minimum, ask these questions. FAA could say “we need an EIS now,” which would be a significant blow to SpaceX. I do not expect this to occur and instead they will reevaluate the EA and make changes to mitigate the debris field debacle we observed on 4/20. ... Litigants may seek to have the courts order FAA to complete a new EIS, or they may settle for FAA agreeing on even more mitigations, offsets or concessions. I’d be shocked if we don’t see a large, well-funded lawsuit filed in the coming weeks.
So it's a question phrased in the form of prospective answers, but yeah that's the gist, I am curious to see how the permitting situation will work out in the wake of this blunder.
> “If these major disturbances, in addition to actual damage to the habitat, happen consistently every month, every week, birds and other other wildlife are not likely to use that habitat,” LeClaire said.
This quote in the article is a bit off base. SpaceX isn't going to be demolishing their launch pad like this every month. They are obviously going to have to fix the problem if they want to fly regularly. The concern is if they took unmerited risks that led to it happening to begin with, and if it might happen again the the process of finding a solution.