There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

SpaceX accused of dumping mercury into Texas waters for years

SpaceX’s Starship launches at the company’s Starbase facility near Boca Chica, Texas, have allegedly been contaminating local bodies of water with mercury for years. The news arrives in an exclusive https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/12/spacex-repeatedly-polluted-waters-in-texas-tceq-epa-found.html on August 12, which cites internal documents and communications between local Texas regulators and the Environmental Protection Agency.

SpaceX’s fourth Starship test launch in June was its most successful so far—but the world’s largest and most powerful rocket ever built continues to wreak havoc on nearby Texas communities, wildlife, and ecosystems. But after repeated admonishments, reviews, and ignored requests, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) have had enough.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Maybe people will finally stop praising SpaceX?

masterspace , (edited )

Edit: and it looks like this entire story may have been based on a typo.

I mean, it depends how egregious / serious this violation is and how crucial it is to the rest of their overall successes.

Elon sucks, but for the same amount of money, NASA can either launch 150 tons of science missions 1 per year on SLS, or they can launch 170 tons of science missions every 2 weeks on Starship.

Quite frankly I don’t understand why they’ve gotten the level of hate they’ve gotten (and why some people seem so intent on finding ways to hate them), other than their association with their dumbass ceo.

pennomi ,

SpaceX is cool, Elon is the world’s most colossal asshole. Some people won’t separate the two because they rightfully don’t want to enable him.

Shotwell could run the whole thing herself, I wish the government would step in and cut Musk out of it entirely.

masterspace ,

People who blame the thousands of hard working engineers at SpaceX for Elon’s follies are committing the exact same logical fallacies as the people who hero worship him and praise him for what is the hard work of all those engineers.

It’s very easy to say in one sentence that Elon sucks and what SpaceX is doing is pretty wild and revolutionary, yet people like the OP I’m responding to seem bothered by even that.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Elon sucks, but for the same amount of money, NASA can either launch 150 tons of science missions 1 per year on SLS, or they can launch 170 tons of science missions every 2 weeks on Starship.

Maybe the latter is like, bad for the planet?

www.statesman.com/story/news/…/74171065007/

masterspace ,

Hmm, did you read that article before posting it?

Because Im struggling to see how Starship, a fully reusable spaceship made out of stainless steel, is going to deplete the ozone the way that aluminum satellites do when they are deorbited and burned up…

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

What exactly do you think SpaceX is regularly launching into space? Because it isn’t Starship.

masterspace ,

You literally quoted me talking about Starship, and the article OP linked is about Starship.

SpaceX is going to launch the ~4000 satellites it has permits for, starship doesn’t change that in any way shape or form.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

or they can launch 170 tons of science missions every 2 weeks on Starship.

Your words? Because, again, it’s not Starship they’re launching every two weeks.

masterspace ,

Yes, it is. That is using their projected budget and the launch cadence that’s possible with both SLS and Starship. SLS can at most launch twice a year, Starship will be able to launch every two weeks, and costs orders of magnitude less.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

And meanwhile, SpaceX will destroy the ozone layer with endless Starlink launches, so maybe let’s not praise them, like I initially said?

masterspace , (edited )

My god. What do you do for a living? Does it have no effect on the environment in any way shape or form?

They literally just discovered that Starlink satellites are having that effect, and you have given them precisely zero time to even try and address and fix it. And in the meantime I literally just came back from a remote first Nations community that only has high quality internet because of it, amongst virtually every rural community in the world.

Honestly, disconnect yourself from the internet before you spend any time looking into the environmental impact of your phone, the servers you use, and the billions of miles of fibre optic cables that connect everything. Because if that’s the kind of blood that prevents you from praising a company that is literally revolutionizing space launch, then literally nothing any of us ever do is worth praising because it’s all built on a giant foundation of blood.

Hell, those solar thermal power plants that use mirrors to reflect light onto molten salts originally killed a whole bunch of birds. Are they bastards for trying to build out a new technology, realizing there’s environmental consequences, and then finding ways of addressing it?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

My god. What do you do for a living?

I don’t. But even if I did, working for a company is not the same as being the company. I don’t blame an Exxon oil rig worker for global warming.

Does it have no effect on the environment in any way shape or form?

Not to the extent SpaceX will since it’s destroying the ozone layer. Not sure why you seem to think that’s trivial.

masterspace ,

I don’t. But even if I did, working for a company is not the same as being the company. I don’t blame an Exxon oil rig worker for global warming.

You have literally said that nothing anyone does at SpaceX is worthy of praise and complained that people praise SpaceX’s genuine accomplishments.

Not to the extent SpaceX will since it’s destroying the ozone layer. Not sure why you seem to think that’s trivial.

But they’re not, they’re slightly slowing it’s rate of recovery. This is not a problem on the scale of CFCs that actually destroyed the ozone layer, both in terms of damage being done and potential scale it can grow to (4000 satellites vs millions and millions of refrigerators and freezers), and it’s one that we literally just discovered now and have literally only started trying to address now.

Doing new things will have unexpected results and won’t be perfect the first try. News at 11. You wanna demonize the engineers who try and build new things for not having them 100% perfect the first time, then you’re free to be a Mennonite and separate yourself from all of t chbogy and modern society’s benefits too.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You have literally said that nothing anyone does at SpaceX is worthy of praise and complained that people praise SpaceX’s genuine accomplishments.

Literally? Please quote me.

But they’re not, they’re slightly slowing it’s rate of recovery.

Please do show a study that rivals the University of Southern California which claims the exact opposite.

masterspace ,

Maybe people will finally stop praising SpaceX?

Scroll up.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

So I didn’t literally say what you claimed I literally said, or even close.

If I had said, “maybe people will finally stop praising Starbucks,” would you tell me that I was literally saying that baristas are bad at their jobs?

masterspace ,

K, so when people praise SpaceX’s engineers for designing unprecedented machines that do things that no one has ever seen before, that doesn’t bother you?

You were referring specifically to all those times that people are praising SpaceX’s environmental regulation compliance?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

When people praise SpaceX, the company, it bothers me.

When people praise an engineer at SpaceX that does something cool, I am happy for the engineer.

Again- saying I hate Starbucks doesn’t mean I hate the baristas who work there. Saying I hate Exxon doesn’t mean I hate an oil rig worker who’s just trying to make money to feed their family.

And sticking just with Musk-owned companies, saying I hate Tesla doesn’t mean I hate some random Tesla employee I’ve never heard of.

I’m really not sure why I have to explain this to you.

masterspace , (edited )

When people praise SpaceX, the company, it bothers me.

When people praise an engineer at SpaceX that does something cool, I am happy for the engineer.

I’m really not sure why I have to explain this to you.

You don’t have to explain either of those things to me, you can just answer the question I asked:

K, so when people praise SpaceX’s engineers for designing unprecedented machines that do things that no one has ever seen before, that doesn’t bother you?

i.e. when people praise SpaceX’s rockets and launches, does that bother you? Is that praising the company or praising the engineer in your mind?

At the end of the day what the company does is an output of the workers. When people praise what SpaceX does they are praising the workers, unless you view the company as just the CEO, in which case you’re falling into the folly of hero worship.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

This is some real “corporations are people” bullshit.

masterspace ,

No, that is referring to the idea of a corporation having legal rights the way that a person does. That is not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the output of a corporation. Is the output of a corporation the result of the CEO or of a bunch of workers?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

See, the fun thing here is that I’ve answered the question you keep rephrasing multiple times the same way. You just don’t like my answer because it goes against your whole claim that this has something to do with Elon Musk.

And you are doing everything you can to defend a company which is destroying the ozone layer.

masterspace ,

You literally have not answered the question.

When people praise what SpaceX does, does that bother you?

Simple question, answer it, not questions that you insert.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I, once again, have no idea why this has to be spelled out for you, but of course it bothers me when people praise a corporation that is destroying the ozone layer.

Similarly, it would bother me if someone praised Shell Oil or Nestle.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that SpaceX is destroying the ozone layer and that is a bad thing?

masterspace , (edited )

I, once again, have no idea why this has to be spelled out for you, but of course it bothers me when people praise a corporation that is destroying the ozone layer.

OK so when people praise SpaceX for destroying the ozone layer, which is totally a real thing that people praise them for, that bothers you.

But you’re ok with it when people praise SpaceX for creating reusable rockets that are more environmentally friendly than single use rockets?

Or no, people should shit on them for creating reusable rockets because something something musk makes you angry?

End of the day you think that because SpaceX is a Musk owned company, praise for what SpaceX does is praise for Musk, whereas people who don’t engage in hero worship view it as praise for the hardworking engineers who actually did those things.

And stop bringing up the ozone issue, we’ve been over this. Yes, it’s an issue that was literally just discovered and reported on, usually once you discover an issue you give people time to address it. That’s what happens when people try to do new things that have never been done before. If they ignore the issue and keep destroying the ozone layer then they will be the world destroying villains that you want them so badly to be.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Got it. And when Exxon ends up heating the world beyond 2 degrees C, then we can criticize them. Until then, criticizing Exxon means criticizing every secretary in their branch office in Des Moines.

masterspace , (edited )

I’ve never once said you can’t criticize them. This started because you said people can’t praise them.

And Exxon isn’t the bad guy for producing a product people want, they’re the bad guy for knowing the dangers of that product and not only ignoring them for decades, but also gas lighting the public about it.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

This started because you said people can’t praise them.

That is a lie.

This is what I said:

Maybe people will finally stop praising SpaceX?

Why you think you can get away with lying to me about what I said is beyond me.

masterspace ,

Precisely, as in, you are bothered by the fact that people currently praise SpaceX, and are hoping that this revelation about mercury levels (which seems to be based on a typo), would make them stop.

You clearly are unwilling or incapable of acknowledging that you’re committing the folly of hero worship when you’re bothered by people praising SpaceX’s accomplishment because of their CEO.

I’m not going to block you in case you eventually come to your senses and post something worthwhile, but I am done with this conversation.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

This is what you said:

This started because you said people can’t praise them.

I did not say people can’t praise them. People can praise anyone they want. I am unable to tell anyone else what to do apart from my child.

You lied. You’re done with this conversation because you know you lied and you refuse to admit it.

masterspace ,

I said I was done, but I’ll just leave this here since you’re apparently unfamiliar with the concept:

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paraphrase

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

It wasn’t a paraphrase, it was a lie. I never said anything about what anyone can’t do. In fact, I asked a question about whether or not people will stop doing it.

It’s such an obvious lie that I’m not sure why you’re even trying to attempt this ‘paraphrase’ nonsense.

Peppycito ,

Do you know what the clouds coming out of the engines at shut down and start up are? Methane and oxygen. Do you think injecting methane into the upper atmosphere does the earth any favours?

masterspace ,

Huh, if only NASA Earth’s science budget could stretch farther somehow so they could better monitor and tell us… now I wonder how they could reduce their mission costs by orders of magnitude…

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

They are literally monitoring it and telling us. You just don’t like what you’re being told.

masterspace ,

No they’re not. You’re sitting here asking open ended questions like “do you think that will be good for the upper atmosphere”.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

It was a rhetorical question.

masterspace ,

No, you said that NASA is monitoring methane emissions in the upper atmosphere and that it’s harming us.

Please provide your source for that claim.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

The article I showed you about SpaceX destroying the ozone layer was not talking about methane:

Researchers at the University of Southern California released a study saying that satellites are significantly damaging Earth’s ozone layer. As their materials burn up upon reentry, leaving behind particle pollutants made up of aluminum oxides, which are “known catalysts for chlorine activation that depletes ozone in the stratosphere.”

Since 2016, the ozone layer has seen eight times as many of those pollutants, with an estimated 17 metric tons in 2022

I guess you didn’t read it.

But yes, NASA does monitor methane emissions.

nasa.gov/…/methane-super-emitters-mapped-by-nasas…

masterspace ,

Lol I know. Then you brought up their methane missions.

Your ‘bashing everything remotely associated with a villain’ is just as flawed as people’s hero worship. You see company’s as their CEO, I see them as a large collection of workers.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Good thing that’s not what I’m doing then.

johker216 ,

I’d rather NASA be funded well enough to not need private, profit-driven, corporations dictating how we explore space. That and Musk’s stench sticks to all his companies, for good or bad.

masterspace ,

They literally are.

That’s what SLS is, a rocket built by NASA using their traditional contractors and it costs orders of magnitude more to do the literal exact same thing.

Again, I get that Musk sucks, but hating on the hardwork of thousands of engineers and personnel because of what one of the employees does in their free time is just as biased as everyone who irrationally praises Musk for what is the hardwork of thousands.

The folly of hero worship cuts both ways.

halcyoncmdr ,
@halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world avatar

SLS does it the old way, with NASA contracting work out to the old school companies.

The Commercial Crew and Supply contracts are there to try it a different way. And they’re accomplishing their goals much more quickly and at a fraction of the cost.

EldritchFeminity , (edited )

There’s a great synopsis of the situation further up the thread, but the short is:

SpaceX originally wasn’t going to launch rockets from this facility… until they announced that they were, then asked for permission from the regulatory bodies after their first launch.

When concerns were raised about the rockets being launched half a kilometer from nature preservation land, and specifically in regard to the possibility of failed launches damaging the launchpad, Elon assured them that no such thing could happen… and then a quarter of the launchpad was destroyed by a failed launch.

So they installed the water deluge system, again asking for permission after they had already installed and used it.

Within their permit application for the system - which, again, was installed and used before the application was even submitted - are mercury measurements 50x higher than the Texas maximum threshold for acute mercury toxicity, and far higher than the thresholds for human safety.

The Elon hate is one thing, and I believe much of the hate for SpaceX is because of how he handles himself and his companies. But the general assurance has largely been that SpaceX has a team of handlers to keep him from screwing things up, and it sounds more like Boeing over there every day.

They may have Elon on a leash, but they seem to be running his playbook anyway.

NotMyOldRedditName , (edited )

They got approval from the fish and wildlife agency before launching with the deluge system

tpr.org/…/faa-gives-ok-to-spacex-for-second-stars…

Published November 16, 2023 at 9:00 AM CST

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved SpaceX’s next Starship launch, just hours after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concluded its assessment of the rocket’s launch infrastructure.

The FAA gave the company a launch license Wednesday afternoon, saying Starship and its new launch infrastructure would have “no significant environmental changes” for its second launch.

FWS stated that SpaceX’s water deluge system, meant to suppress the flames and sound from the rocket’s 33 engines, would produce the same amount of water from an average rainfall. The agency does not expect the water to change the mud flats’ salinity or affect shorebird habitat.

*emphasis mine.

Flight 2 was on November 18th, 2 days after they get approval for the deluge system.

Edit: further, spacex has replied to this and said the following (among other things as well)

x.com/SpaceX/status/1823080774012481862

SpaceX worked with the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) throughout the build and test of the water deluge system at Starbase to identify a permit approach. TCEQ personnel were onsite at Starbase to observe the initial tests of the system in July 2023, and TCEQ’s website shows that SpaceX is covered by the Texas Multi-Sector General Permit.

We only use potable (drinking) water in the system’s operation. At no time during the operation of the deluge system is the potable water used in an industrial process, nor is the water exposed to industrial processes before or during operation of the system.

We send samples of the soil, air, and water around the pad to an independent, accredited laboratory after every use of the deluge system, which have consistently shown negligible traces of any contaminants. Importantly, while CNBC’s story claims there are “very large exceedances of the mercury” as part of the wastewater discharged at the site, all samples to-date have in fact shown either no detectable levels of mercury whatsoever or found in very few cases levels significantly below the limit the EPA maintains for drinking water.

masterspace ,

Heavy metals are some of the worst things to dump into the environment, and I’m curious to see where the mercury is coming from, why they’re using it, and how they’re going to address it, but it really feels like you’re blowing up a relatively small issue into a massive one.

They had one launch where they blew up the launch pad accidentally, so they added a deluge system to cope. Now there’s mercury toxicity downstream of the site, but it’s not clear it has anything to do with the deluge system.

The Elon hate is one thing, and I believe much of the hate for SpaceX is because of how he handles himself and his companies.

That absolutely is where most of it comes from. Articles that hate on Elon get clicks, so for every actual thoughtful nuanced critique of SpaceX, there’s two dozen click bait articles written by glorified bloggers that will look for any flaw because critiques of Musk’s space company drives traffic.

But the general assurance has largely been that SpaceX has a team of handlers to keep him from screwing things up, and it sounds more like Boeing over there every day.

Boeing is failing to do what they used to do 50 years ago. SpaceX is successfully doing things that no one has ever done. Yes the wreckless rule breaking is trademark Elon, but let’s not be hyperbolic.

threelonmusketeers , (edited )

I’m curious to see where the mercury is coming from, why they’re using it, and how they’re going to address it

So was I. Upon closer inspection, it seems possible that this entire story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.

for every actual thoughtful nuanced critique of SpaceX, there’s two dozen click bait articles written by glorified bloggers

This story may have been one of the latter.

masterspace ,

Lol at the blind downvotes for pointing out that people are blindly hating SpaceX, while linking to proof that the article is wrong.

threelonmusketeers ,

mercury measurements 50x higher than the Texas maximum threshold for acute mercury toxicity

It is possible that this entire story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.

Atrichum ,

SpaceX fans have known about this for a long time now, and they just don’t care. They’ve shouted down anyone who has pointed it out for well over a year now

llamacoffee ,
@llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    NutWrench ,
    @NutWrench@lemmy.ml avatar

    And you just know Texas lawmakers were fine with this because the right people got paid off to look the other way by Musk.

    The dangers of mercury poisoning are well understood. We’re talking about insanity, paralysis and death. Nobody can pull a, “we had no idea” excuse. Google “Minimata Japan disaster” if you want to know what happens when a corporation poisons people with mercury for nearly 40 years.

    Sarmyth ,

    This is how they make more Republicans.

    violetraven ,
    @violetraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    I thought that was lead.

    Noodle07 ,

    Little bit of this, little bit of that.

    lostlittletimeonthis ,

    They are susceptible to various brain damaging chemicals

    HowMany ,

    This and dropping infants head first onto tiled floors.

    KillingTimeItself ,

    i thought that was how they cracked the tiles for aesthetic purposes.

    Chakravanti ,

    No, that was just how they hit the crack.

    KillingTimeItself ,

    oh, that’s what they mean when they say crack.

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    Tarball ,

    If you’re a star they let you do it.

    JasonDJ ,

    Nothing wrong with this after Trump wins, guts the EPA, and staffs it full of loyal cronies. This is one of the big goals for Project 2025.

    Because regulations are bad, right?

    Doomsider ,

    Texas already allows companies to pollute all they want. You see they are in charge of regulating themselves… Yeah you heard that right. They keep track of their own pollution and are responsible for reporting spills and accidents. No real penalties for lack of reporting either.

    photonic_sorcerer ,
    @photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Y’all actually need to read the article before commenting:

    One of the major initial concerns—the wastewater’s mercury content—stems from what experts believe may be egregious typos within SpaceX’s records. Lab reports indicate polluted waters contained 0.113 μg/L of mercury, while subsequent summaries appear to misplace the decimal point to show 113 μg/L. If the former measurement is accurate, then Starship’s wastewater contains roughly 1/17th the legal mercury limit.

    SpaceX has done some shady shit regarding their environmental practices, but this claim about mercury just ain’t it. Some of the comments further down go into more detail.

    DarkCloud ,

    That says if the former figure is accurate… But if it’s the latter? Then it’s 100 times more than 1/17th which would mean it’s waaay more than the legal limit… So it depends in which is the typo.

    photonic_sorcerer ,
    @photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    I’m going to assume a lab report is more accurate than its summary.

    Doomsider ,

    I am going to assume letting companies police their own pollutants is fucking stupid.

    sp3tr4l ,

    Ok so, going to the CNBC article and my own memory, as charitably summarized as I can:

    Boca Chica is originally built with certain parameters and specifications, before Musk announced they would be doing all of the testing for Starship at that location.

    Then, SpaceX just started doing so, and then asked for permission from relevant regulatory bodies … later.

    At this point, Common Sense Skeptic on YouTube did a video or two specifically going into the details of exactly how bonkers it is to do huge scale rocket testing basically half a kilometer away from protected nature zones.

    Then, one of the Starship tests blew apart huge parts of the launch pad after Elon had said that would not be a problem.

    Then, Elon folded on that notion, and built the water deluge system and modified the launching configuration, without getting any permits beforehand from relevant regulatory agencies.

    So the run off from all that water has been going into a protected natural environment for… about a year now.

    The EPA began investigating this in August of 2023, and informed SpaceX they were in violation in March of 2024.

    Literally the day after SpaceX was formally notified their water deluge system was in violation, SpaceX did its third Starship test, again using the water deluge system.

    Now, cue SpaceX lying all over the place, saying that they’ve been told they were allowed to do this the whole time, and that there were no detectable levels of mercury in the discharge, even though their own permit that they belatedly filed indicates the detectable level of mercury in the discharge were about 50x the safe level.

    SpaceX said in its response on X that there were “no detectable levels of mercury” found in its samples. But SpaceX wrote in its permit application that its mercury concentration at one outfall location was 113 micrograms per liter. Water quality criteria in the state calls for levels no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity and much lower levels for human health.

    To conclude:

    “Further wastewater discharges could trigger more investigations and criminal charges for the company or any of the people involved in authorizing the launches,” he said.

    • Eric Roesch, Environmental Engineer

    Basically, the environmental aspects of this have been a known and ongoing shit show for over a year, but have only been covered by a few YouTube channels and blogs, vastly drowned out by the cacophony of SpaceX fans.

    I highly suggest every one check out Common Sense Skeptic on YouTube, they have been calling bullshit on SpaceX for a while now.

    In particular, one interesting vid they did shows that a former NASA administrator bullshitted her own request for project process to get it awarded to SpaceX, using blatant double standards.

    I say former NASA admin because quite quickly after rubber stamping a huge amount of taxpayer money toward Starship development, she now works for SpaceX.

    teamevil ,

    Good thing the supreme Court expects companies to not do this shit

    Fuckfuckmyfuckingass ,
    @Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world avatar

    Thank you very much for the synopsis. I am disgusted and unsurprised.

    PrincessLeiasCat ,

    I’m very curious as to who this NASA admin is…no name comes to mind?

    villainy ,

    Kathy Lueders

    PrincessLeiasCat ,

    Thank you!

    sp3tr4l ,

    Ah you beat me to it, I stepped away for dinner =P

    Wrench ,

    Thanks for the summary! Very easy to follow.

    Sorry if this is a stupid question, but wouldn’t diluting the runoff with more than 1:50 ratio with fresh water fix this problem? If it’s joining a large body of water down the line, wouldn’t that effectively negate the problem?

    I don’t know anything about the area or it’s ecosystem. But it seems like being close to protected wilderness is kind of a prerequisite for this kind of thing, because you can’t have human inhabitants nearby. And it seems that logically, large swaths of unoccupied land would be zoned as such until there was a need for some kind of development.

    sp3tr4l ,

    I am far from an expert on the toxicity of mercury (and that’s nearly certainly just one kind of pollutant in this scenario), but it seems unlikely this would solve the problem.

    The same amount of mercury is still being emitted, it just might lessen the amount that gets absorbed by immediately local soil… and just disperse it a bit more evenly over a longer range eventually mostly pooling along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico.

    Which… is still part of a protected natural environment with endangered species living in it. As I recall, there is specifically a species of endangered turtles that live in this area, so, they’re still fucked, along with I think some other endangered birds, reptile and small mammals.

    What they should have is a proper method of containing this dirty water, filtering and extracting dangerous chemicals, and a proper way of disposing those.

    But that would require foresight and planning, which is anathema to Musk’s ‘move fast and break stuff’ style of ‘rapid iteration’.

    Also, It is not true that large sections of uninhabited land are necessarily zoned as some kind of protected habitat. It is true there are lots of areas of the US where this is the case, but not totally.

    Musk was trying desperately to get NASA to let him use Cape Canaveral for Starship, but they viewed this (correctly, in hindsight) as too risky.

    So, when they said no, and he had deadlines to meet, basically said ‘fuck it’, took his existing facility and massively illegally upgraded it far beyond what was legally allowed by initial use permits, and just did everything Starship there, generally completely ignoring any concept of ‘regulations’ that might apply to this.

    He could have actually given investors and NASA themselves more realistic budget and timeframe ideas for how expensive and time consuming it would be to do this properly, but he did not.

    threelonmusketeers ,

    What they should have is a proper method of containing this dirty water, filtering and extracting dangerous chemicals, and a proper way of disposing those.

    It is also important to note that the dirtiness of the water may have been misreported. It seems possible that this story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report. The actual concentration of mercury may be 1000x lower.

    FabledAepitaph ,

    One of the fundamental principals of the RCRA is that dilution is not an allowable solution to pollution. Otherwise, you could just say that any amount of pollution is below applicable concentrations after it mixed into the oceans, atmosphere, whatever. And any company could emit as much as they wanted as long as they diluted it. Oil spills could simply be left alone because they’d eventually distribute throughout the earth.

    Concentrations must be considered as they occur in their process streams. The process stream must meet certain requirements first and foremost, and it must be further checked to see if that could significantly affect the air or water in which it is emitted, just to make sure its good to go since water flow, temperature, and wildlife migration change throughout the year. The same is true for air emissions as well.

    sp3tr4l ,

    Thank you for some more specific commentary on this.

    I had a gut feeling that uh… reverse homeopathy probably is not a legitimate methodology to approach environmental toxins with.

    NotMyOldRedditName ,

    Just a small correction about the pad exploding/water deluge system.

    They were already working on the water deluge system before the pad blew up. They simply didn’t think it was going to explode like that since it worked as expected during the half thrust test, and the water system wasn’t ready yet.

    Kalysta ,

    Maybe they should have had the water system ready before the full test just in case.

    Like someone concerned about health and safety would do.

    NotMyOldRedditName , (edited )

    Why would you wait to have something else ready if you think what you have is going to work?

    All the physics modeling they did and live tests showed that the concrete should work.

    When it looks like something should work, you test it. They had approval to test it after showing it should work.

    These people are launching and landing rockets at a pace never done before, they know how to model these kind of things. Now obviously something went very wrong here, but it wasn’t just a willy nilly choice.

    You test the things that you think will work, otherwise you never know if they’ll work.

    While the concrete may not have been their final decision for Boca Chica, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a possible solution for other location where a large quantity of potable water isn’t available.

    Edit: just further to possible other locations, the concrete if it worked, wouldn’t allow the rapid turn around time they want as they’d need to set new concrete vs piped water ready to go. But for a launch location that maybe wouldn’t need the rapid cadence, maybe it’d be perfect and cheaper if it’d work.

    zalgotext ,

    Why would you wait to have something else ready if you think what you have is going to work?

    Because it might not work, and we’re talking about millions of dollars worth of rocketry here, not a bottle rocket launched in your back yard.

    These people are launching and landing rockets at a pace never done before, they know how to model these kind of things.

    Obviously not, or the pad wouldn’t have blown up.

    Now obviously something went very wrong here, but it wasn’t just a willy nilly choice.

    Which is why you implement backup/alternative systems.

    NotMyOldRedditName , (edited )

    Because it might not work

    LOL. Dude, they weren’t even sure that the ROCKET wouldn’t destroy the pad (edit: as in, the WHOLE launch pad including the tower). They’re literally making the largest most advanced rocket ever. There are countless unknowns until you test it.

    zalgotext ,

    Exactly, which is why implementing backup systems or planning for catastrophic failure modes is a Really Good Idea.

    NotMyOldRedditName ,

    lol

    zalgotext ,

    Are you an engineer?

    NotMyOldRedditName ,

    I just find it hilarious that your trying to say people shouldn’t test things all their tests and modelling says should work, because this OTHER thing, that’s also never been tested at the same extreme levels, might work better, but you know, maybe not.

    I’m done with this conversation before I feel more inclined to violate rule 1.

    zalgotext ,

    I’ll take that as a no.

    Kalysta ,

    Standard for engineers is to have backup systems to your backup systems.

    Especially for something as important as a rocket that will someday have astronauts on it.

    This was cost cutting and rushing which is bullshit pushed by management, not engineers who know what they’re doing.

    NotMyOldRedditName , (edited )

    This is a TEST rocket program.

    The goal of the program is to figure out what does and doesn’t work.

    There are numerous zero single failure points all over the ship currently as they figure things out.

    Using the concrete was a way to test if they could set up a launch pad easier. ALL their tests and modeling proved it should work.

    Tests and modeling aren’t the end all be all though and sometimes things you don’t or can’t anticipate happen and then you remodel with the new info. This isn’t a high school project, it’s rocket science.

    There was nothing bullshit about testing it out.

    The goal of IFT1 was don’t blow up the entire stage 0. They didn’t blow up the entire stage 0. They learned the concrete doesn’t work, but also hopefully they were able to learn WHY. And if they found a why that why may lead to it being attempted again in the future maybe even by someone else.

    Kalysta ,

    You’re not an engineer, are you?

    NotMyOldRedditName , (edited )

    No, I’m not an engineer (and that’s an Ad Hominem fallacy). But for the love of god, SpaceX is a terrible company because they launched a rocket with INTENTIONALLY missing heat shield points to see what would happen (edit: all while knowing if certain heat shield tiles failed it would guarantee the complete destruction of the ship, that would obliterate any crew you’re oh so concerned about in this test phase!), and even launched their rocket with wing flaps that they suspected would be destroyed by the hot plasma and had already made changes in future designs! God forbid they test a ablative concrete launch pad that survived all their real world tests and showed it should work in models.

    Kalysta ,

    You’ve just explained why we’re pissed at them and not even realized it.

    NotMyOldRedditName ,

    And you’ve just explained how you have absolutely no understanding of how spacex functions and why and why it’s a good thing.

    This is how they land rockets on barges at sea and no one else can, or thought it was even possible.

    Raiderkev ,

    Don’t worry, with the Chevron ruling out of the way, this can be thrown out in court and promptly swept under the rug. 💪🇺🇲🦅

    threelonmusketeers ,

    SpaceX said in its response on X that there were “no detectable levels of mercury” found in its samples. But SpaceX wrote in its permit application that its mercury concentration at one outfall location was 113 micrograms per liter. Water quality criteria in the state calls for levels no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity and much lower levels for human health.

    Upon closer inspection, it seems possible that this discrepancy is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report. The actual value may be closer to 0.113 micrograms per liter, not 113.

    threelonmusketeers , (edited )

    I highly suggest every one check out Common Sense Skeptic on YouTube

    They lost their credibility as soon as they started hating on Musk for clicks and views. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of valid criticism of Musk, but criticizing anything and everything related to Musk no matter what has become Common Sense Skeptic’s entire brand and business strategy. I don’t think they can be considered an unbiased party.

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    sp3tr4l ,

    Yes, thats what SpaceX is saying.

    As of right now, the original blurb I quoted from the CNBC article has been modified to this:

    SpaceX said in its response on X that there were “no detectable levels of mercury” found in its samples. But SpaceX wrote in its July permit application — under the header Specific Testing Requirements - Table 2 for Outfall: 001 — that its mercury concentration at one outfall location was 113 micrograms per liter. Water quality criteria in the state calls for levels no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity and much lower levels for human health

    CNBC is currently sticking with their report. This is not factually inaccurate information, it is a clarification, a specification.

    Perhaps SpaceX could actually provide evidence that they submitted a version with the typo fixed, that TCEQ is ‘currently updating the application’, or that other lab tests corroborate that the 0.113 number?

    Either way, doesn’t change the number of complaints the TCEQ received, that SpaceX was releasing deluge water for roughly a year without permission to do so, that they were told to stop doing that and then did it again literally the next day.

    NotMyOldRedditName , (edited )

    They also wrote <0.113 on table 16 at the same outfall.

    Table 2 and 16 also have 139 and 0.139 for sample 2, reversed so T2: (113/0.139) T16: (<0.113/139)

    No matter how you look at it, that’s extremely shoddy reporting by CNBC. Whoever wrote that report also needs to have a long chat with their supervisor.

    Also SpaceX claims they had permission to do it based on existing rules they are under, AND TCEQ was there to help with the first test even. The EPA had factually incorrect information when they requested they stop, and then gave the A-OKAY once SpaceX corrected their misunderstandings.

    edit: Selenium also goes from 2.86 to 28.6 on sample 1

    https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/57e4254e-13ef-4c48-8d5d-4105c39aee88.png

    NotMyOldRedditName , (edited )

    SpaceX has replied to the CNBC report

    x.com/SpaceX/status/1823080774012481862

    For those not wanting to click an X link

    CNBC’s story on Starship’s launch operations in South Texas is factually inaccurate.

    Starship’s water-cooled flame deflector system is critical equipment for SpaceX’s launch operations. It ensures flight safety and protects the launch site and surrounding area.

    Also known as the deluge system, it applies clean, potable (drinking) water to the engine exhaust during static fire tests and launches to absorb the heat and vibration from the rocket engines firing. Similar equipment has long been used at launch sites across the United States – such as Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Stations in Florida, and Vandenberg Space Force Base in California – and across the globe.

    SpaceX worked with the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) throughout the build and test of the water deluge system at Starbase to identify a permit approach. TCEQ personnel were onsite at Starbase to observe the initial tests of the system in July 2023, and TCEQ’s website shows that SpaceX is covered by the Texas Multi-Sector General Permit.

    When the EPA issued their Administrative Order in March 2024, it was done without an understanding of basic facts of the deluge system’s operation or acknowledgement that we were operating under the Texas Multi-Sector General Permit.

    After we explained our operation to the EPA, they revised their position and allowed us to continue operating, but required us to obtain an Individual Permit from TCEQ, which will also allow us to expand deluge operations to the second pad. We’ve been diligently working on the permit with TCEQ, which was submitted on July 1st, 2024. TCEQ is expected to issue the draft Individual Permit and Agreed Compliance Order this week.

    Throughout our ongoing coordination with both TCEQ and the EPA, we have explicitly asked if operation of the deluge system needed to stop and we were informed that operations could continue.

    TCEQ and the EPA have allowed continued operations because the deluge system has always complied with common conditions set by an Individual Permit, and causes no harm to the environment. Specifically:

    • We only use potable (drinking) water in the system’s operation. At no time during the operation of the deluge system is the potable water used in an industrial process, nor is the water exposed to industrial processes before or during operation of the system.
    • The launch pad area is power-washed prior to activating the deluge system, with the power-washed water collected and hauled off.
    • The vast majority of the water used in each operation is vaporized by the rocket’s engines.
    • We send samples of the soil, air, and water around the pad to an independent, accredited laboratory after every use of the deluge system, which have consistently shown negligible traces of any contaminants. Importantly, while CNBC’s story claims there are “very large exceedances of the mercury” as part of the wastewater discharged at the site, all samples to-date have in fact shown either no detectable levels of mercury whatsoever or found in very few cases levels significantly below the limit the EPA maintains for drinking water.
    • Retention ponds capture excess water and are specially lined to prevent any mixing with local groundwater. Any water captured in these ponds, including water from rainfall events, is pumped out and hauled off.
    • Finally, some water does leave the area of the pad, mostly from water released prior to ignition and after engine shutdown or launch. To give you an idea of how much: a single use of the deluge system results in potable water equivalent to a rainfall of 0.004 inches across the area outside the pad which currently averages around 27 inches of rain per year.

    With Starship, we’re revolutionizing humanity’s ability to access space with a fully reusable rocket that plays an integral role in multiple national priorities, including returning humans to the surface of the Moon. SpaceX and its thousands of employees work tirelessly to ensure the United States remains the world’s leader in space, and we remain committed to working with our local and federal partners to be good stewards of the environment.

    Tja ,

    Water is hauled off… where? Beyond the environment?

    NotMyOldRedditName ,

    Probably to a proper treatment facility like all other potentially bad water goes.

    Burn_The_Right ,

    It’s OK. There’s a creek down the road that doesn’t have any fish left. It goes right out to the gulf, so it’s all good.

    some_guy ,

    Mars.

    threelonmusketeers ,

    while CNBC’s story claims there are “very large exceedances of the mercury” as part of the wastewater discharged at the site, all samples to-date have in fact shown either no detectable levels of mercury whatsoever or found in very few cases levels significantly below the limit the EPA maintains for drinking water.

    I think this discrepancy may have been caused by a typo in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.

    NotMyOldRedditName ,

    Wow.

    I wonder what CNBC is gonna say about that.

    That’s pretty embarrassing if that’s what happened partially triggering this article.

    Also that poor person who wrote the report up is probably going to get an earful too now.

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    threelonmusketeers ,

    I wonder what CNBC is gonna say about that.

    If they have integrity, they’ll issue a retraction/correction. However, I do not have high hopes.

    that poor person who wrote the report up is probably going to get an earful.

    LOL, yeah. I bet they never expected their report to get blown out of proportion to this extent.

    Burn_The_Right ,

    Texas allows pollutors to self-report in “good faith”. Why would we give any credence at all to a self-report (or hired self-report)?

    If the EPA or TCEQ didn’t measure it themselves during an unscheduled visit, then all measurements should be disregarded.

    _stranger_ ,

    If the TCEQ measured it, the EPA needs to double check their work. The typos in the report are a cause for concern, and the Texas agency needs to be put under scrutiny.

    WldFyre ,

    So you still think there’s a mercury problem?

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    _stranger_ ,

    Interesting, glaring red flag and no one caught it, or cared, until someone made a stink about it. Credit where credit’s due, that’s what journalism does. This tells me there were zero eyes that cared on this entire permit process.

    BeardedGingerWonder ,

    Can you stop spamming the fucking thread.

    Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

    we have explicitly asked if operation of the deluge system needed to stop

    If that question is being asked then maybe it should be stopped.

    NotMyOldRedditName ,

    What a weird take to make.

    They are constantly in talks with these people. They probably ask this exact question every time they’ve used it and sent them more data about it.

    Should you stop eating? I think you better since the question is being asked!

    Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

    My point is that Space X obviously think this is a concern. If they were totally confident their actions are sufficient they wouldn’t keep asking.

    TheDemonBuer ,
    @TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world avatar

    Any and all claims being made by SpaceX should be verified by an objective third party. We should never simply take a company at their word, but that is especially true of a company that has Elon Musk, a man known to disseminate falsehoods as its Chair, CEO, and CTO.

    d00phy ,

    The cornerstone of all annual business ethics training so many drones (like me) have to endure every year: If you’re known for being dishonest, people will stop believing you. According to the training, they’ll also stop doing business with you, so maybe it’s a bit out of date.

    TheDemonBuer ,
    @TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world avatar

    According to the training, they’ll also stop doing business with you, so maybe it’s a bit out of date.

    It is baffling. I, for one, would never buy any product or service from a company associated with Musk, but many other people are not so discerning.

    threelonmusketeers ,

    Musk != SpaceX

    Related, yes, but not equivalent.

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    ArbitraryValue ,

    The article has no details about the mercury beyond what is in the title. The specific issues it does talk about are things like water runoff, noise that frightens animals, and even “proximity to indigenous sacred lands” which are all, to be frank, trivial. Mercury (in significant amounts) is a problem. But a rocket making noise? Yeah, they do that.

    halcyoncmdr ,
    @halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world avatar

    They also do that in Florida. Where many of the pads are in a conservation area. Launching from those types of areas isn’t new, rocket launches are a well known impact.

    Don’t ever see anyone talking about the NASA launch sites when these things are brought up. Always seems to be articles where the SpaceX stuff is in a vacuum and no one else launches or has launch pads to compare against.

    Not saying that contamination shouldn’t be researched, just that much of the reporting seems to have a motivation behind it that isn’t what it claims to be.

    Cosmonauticus ,

    What about the uproar between native Hawaiians and Nasa over observatories being built on sacred native land? It’s not launch pads but Nasa has definitely pissed ppl off

    halcyoncmdr ,
    @halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world avatar

    I never said they didn’t piss people off. But we’re talking about concerns at a launch site. An observatory and a launch site have nearly zero in common.

    LifeInMultipleChoice ,

    So your defense is that what they are doing, someone else may have done or done something you consider equally as wrong? I don’t need to make a strawman/example/anything for you, I think you already know it is morally/ethically wrong.

    Atrichum ,

    Because NASA treats its waste water like every other sane responsible rocket company or government agency.

    yogurt ,

    They don’t treat launch water, it runs off into the wetlands through open ditches. The SRBs that the Shuttle and SLS use are 100-ton bricks of perchlorates that contaminate and acidify water for miles every time there’s a launch, so treating the direct runoff is deck chairs on the Titanic. Kennedy Space Center is already a Superfund site, so they focus on things like underwater fencing to stop KSC fish full of teflon and cadmium from being eaten by normal fish.

    socphoenix ,

    The original cnbc report linked in the article posted states their application asked for 113 micrograms per liter of mercury for discharge. Texas considers 2.1 to be toxic to aquatic life and less than that for human life.

    They also mention their application didn’t mention the temperature of the water discharge which could also be a problem if we are trying not to boil the wildlife near the pad.

    threelonmusketeers ,

    113 micrograms per liter of mercury

    This may have been a typo in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    jumjummy ,

    One of the many reasons he moved to Texas. This is what you get when your state is so “business friendly”. All the complaining about California and the related regulations, but this is what those regulations are supposed to prevent (yes I know there are still plenty of examples of companies polluting in CA).

    The Chevron ruling is absolutely a blatant effort to neuter all of these government oversight departments to allow businesses to accelerate their “line go up” polluting efforts.

    chiliedogg ,

    The thing is California used to do the same thing. They invited everyone to California with business incentives, but eventually they had to start putting in regulations because they realized things had gotten out of control.

    Texas today is what California was in the 60s and 70s.

    DaddleDew ,

    I can see why Elon hates government regulatory bodies.

    How dare they stop him poisoning millions of people and entire ecosystems, causing irreparable damage just so he can save a few bucks on waste disposal fees? This is so unfair!

    LifeInMultipleChoice ,

    If we are going to say that foreign members can’t own large media companies aka Tiktok, maybe we could expand it to all media companies to ensure a certain Australian has to sell his, and government contracts all be required to be owned by naturalized americans as well. Seems like they have proven are a huge threat and have violated multiple factors of our government/ laws

    Zorsith ,
    @Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    If you’re referring to Murdoch, unfortunately he is a US citizen…

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    FarFarAway ,

    TECQ stops him about as much as a stick stops a bulldozer.

    The first, and so far, only fine they’ve issued for his violations at his Boring Co / Space X site outside of Austin, amounted to a little under $12,000. This is after at least 13 violations that include water contamination, runoff and erosion, and air quality violations.

    He hates them the same way one hates a fly.

    iAmTheTot ,

    I would be exactly 0% shocked to learn this was true.

    ShepherdPie ,

    I’d be shocked if Abbott didn’t try to give them a Texas Medal of Freedom award for doing this.

    HoustonHenry ,

    And for removing water breaks for workers when it’s really hot out

    meco03211 ,

    Or… I could see him mandating more water breaks… provided it comes from the test area. People in the biz refer to that as remediation.

    HoustonHenry ,

    Ah yes, I forgot about that old fallback

    Plastic_Ramses ,

    And with Chevron ruling they wont face any repercussions!

    Isnt crony capitalism great!?!?!?!

    threelonmusketeers ,

    Would you be more shocked to learn that it isn’t true? It is possible that this entire story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.

    418_im_a_teapot ,

    Not sure why you’re getting downvoted (although you’re username would certainly give the impression you’re just defending musk).

    The information you linked to does indeed cast doubt on the validity of the report. Corrected information will be needed before concrete conclusions can be drawn.

    I hate Musk as much as the next person, and definitely wouldn’t be surprised if he was dumping chemicals in the water. But that doesn’t mean we should let confirmation bias cloud our ability to think critically.

    Cenzorrll ,

    I went through the report, and the raw data at the end shows the two samples coming back at “0.139” and “ND”

    Cataphract ,

    It could be that they mod all the musk communities and are an elon stan but more than likely it’s because they’ve plastered the same comment over 14 times with now llama taking over who is also an active user in the same communities making it seem like brigading. If the case was stated in a single comment it might be upvoted more than others, at this point they’re just spamming anyone who comments regardless of the context.

    I’m all for putting your truth out there, but it just seems like they’re trying to drown out everyone with a “nuh uh, believe me” over letting the facts play out. It’s not like this thread is gonna have any real impact on the company or perception at this point no matter what anyone says.

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    My dear friend, the report is factually false. I can’t speak for others, but I personally find it to only be responsible to help dispel false news. And for what it’s worth, Elon is an asshole in my view, but that is irrelevant in this context, wouldn’t you agree?

    As for the facts, you may check them yourself. Here is the actual application. Typo is on page 79, the actual figure is in the appendix on page 177.

    tceq.texas.gov/…/wq0005462000-spaceexplorationtec…

    Maybe you’re wondering why I am keen on sharing all this. I am a big fan of spaceflight, it’s just something I like and find inspiring. False reports that lean heavily on “Elon Musk bad” make the spacefaring future I’m rooting for more difficult to achieve. Surely it’s ok to correct misinformation?

    Cataphract ,

    My dearest lover, I appreciate you reaching out to me in this way. I missed all the other links you’ve put up and so this copy/paste directly made for me has made my heart swell. I regret to inform you that you’re behind in your news updates and the reporting is only getting worse for you at this time. I apologize for the inconvenience and will never give up being your shelter and rock in the stormy sea of life.

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    Instant upvote. Well played, my friend, well played.

    M137 ,
    @M137@lemmy.world avatar

    Your* username

    threelonmusketeers ,

    although you’re username would certainly give the impression you’re just defending musk

    I find it interesting that people automatically assume my username implies endorsement of the person.

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    Kalysta ,

    Yeah i don’t believe this at all

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    Here is the actual application. Typo is on page 79, the actual figure is in the appendix on page 177.

    tceq.texas.gov/…/wq0005462000-spaceexplorationtec…

    Burn_The_Right ,

    TCEQ has no power to enforce anything in Texas without the Governor and AG’s cooperation. Mark my words. As long as Texas is run by conservatives, absolutely nothing at all will be done to protect the environment in Texas. Absolutely nothing. Everything related to the environment is performative in Texas, not substantive.

    Conservatives delight in pollution. They equate pollution with freedom. Conservatives in Texas intentionally choose vehicles with the worst exhaust, they litter, they dump chemicals directly down drains, into sewers and into waterways, they “roll coal”, they joyfully embrace chemical plants and they mock absolutely anyone who has any problem with dirty air or water. If you can’t handle chemical-laden air, you are considered weak or “librul”. Clean water is for pussies.

    There’s a reason the number one cancer research center in the U.S. is based in Houston. The air is famously polluted by nearby refineries that do not report what they release into the air to the public. They are permitted to “self-report” that they are not violating any rules, but there is no actual check performed by TCEQ without a great deal of advance notice and preparation.

    Texas is a conservative haven of airborne and waterborne carcinogens. Musk knew that when he moved here. That’s the reason polluters move here. Because conservatives fucking love pollution.

    When I hear of a conservative in Texas getting a brutal form of cancer, I just smile and nod because I presume they’ve achieved their goal. It’s the only silver lining in Texas, other than the silver-laden clouds.

    d00phy ,

    Agreed. I’ve read an article hear and there over the past couple years about this and how a reckoning is coming. Space-X leaving California in favor of Texas is too big an advertisement for their brand. They won’t do anything to upset the Musky child.

    Preacher ,

    Not ‘conservatives’

    Nothing conservative about them

    daellat ,

    I mean they are referred to as conservatives because of their predominantly archaic social and economical laws not because they conserve the ecology

    Preacher ,

    Their politics are not conservative. They are inflammatory and extremist.

    Burn_The_Right ,

    Those concepts are not at all mututally exclusive. In fact, they are typically correlated.

    It is not possible for a conservative to enter a conversation or debate in good faith.

    CafecitoHippo ,

    Clean water is for pussies.

    Well when you only consume monster energy drinks and miller lite, why would you need water?

    bleistift2 ,

    I think we would’ve noticed if they had crashed an entire planet into Texas, right?

    ZealousSealion ,

    Worker’s rights transgressions? Yes. Bulldozing a frog pond? Yes. Dumping mercury? No, that makes no sense. I can’t see where mercury would be introduced in any meaningful quantities.

    mrcleanup ,

    Well, if *YOU * don’t see any reason to worry we should probably just assume they aren’t polluting then.

    Thanks for setting us straight.

    ZealousSealion ,

    Well, I hope some will question the validity of this particular claim after reading my comment. Many more will probably question it after reading the comments, from others, that have found the measurements to likely be recorded incorrectly.

    If someone made an accusation of pollution with a substance I could see them using or producing, I would be more inclined to believe it.

    mrcleanup ,

    Why would anyone question anything based on your comment?

    You didn’t link to an article presenting information that supports you. You didn’t link to information showing why mercury in this type of use would be low.

    You didn’t present any factual… Anything.

    You didn’t even claim to be someone with training in this area that would give your opinion weight.

    Your comment is the equivalent to saying you don’t believe elephants are real, but not even saying it is because you have never seen one, which would have still been a weak argument.

    Opinions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    ZealousSealion ,

    Chill.

    And don’t think you can convince me that elephants are real.

    index ,

    Guess what, sending rocket in orbit is one of the most polluting business out there and most of it it’s done for business

    FilthyShrooms ,

    Is it? As far as I can tell rocket launches don’t cause that much pollution compared to a coal powerplant, or the hundreds of daily airline flights.

    NotMyOldRedditName ,

    Cargo ships are probably up there as some of the worst. They burn copious amounts of really dirty fuel.

    PlutoniumAcid ,
    @PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world avatar

    Yup. They burn heavy bunker fuel - the sludge that is too bad to be used for anything else.

    Considering the amount of shipping, it’s horrendous.

    But - and there’s always another view - I don’t know how much energy you’d need to use to haul that much cargo by other means like rail and trucks. One container ship carries as much as a thousand trains could carry. Vessels are really, really large, which make them quite effective.

    cows_are_underrated ,

    And trains can’t cross Oceans. Even tho that cargo ships need a shit load of fuel it isn’t that much per ton of cargo due to the efficiency and sheer mass they are carrying

    index ,

    Oh you are right coal is worst we can keep blowing up rockets and send them in orbit so that billionares can have their nice trip to space

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    If a rocket gets to orbit, it most certainly hasn’t blown up ;) Furthermore if it is reusable (which only SpaceX has) then it doesn’t even crash into the ocean.

    Let’s be very clear on what rockets generally do. Last year, there were just over 200 launches worldwide (a world record, btw). ~10 of these sent professional astronauts to space stations. The rest deployed satellites that do all sorts of amazing things, including astronomy research, weather and earth observation, and communications. If 1 or 2 are a tourist flight, what’s the big deal?

    index ,

    what’s the big deal?

    Here’s the big deal, are you paying attention?

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_applicati…

    llamacoffee ,
    @llamacoffee@lemmy.world avatar

    Personally, I think it’s a great thing that the US arguably has the best military surveillance and communication satellites. Certainly I prefer money going there than into literal bullets. In any case, doesn’t this have nothing to do with space tourism?

    index ,

    Personally, I think it’s a great thing that the US arguably has the best military surveillance

    Nobody should have it

    en.wikipedia.org/…/2010s_global_surveillance_disc…

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •