totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[SunlitZelkova]

7 hours ago, tater said:

It doesn't sound like that at all. Littering has no positives. Building houses/apartments/hotels has positive benefit, building a spaceport has positive benefit. Both have externalities that potentially affect the environment. One or the other is going to happen at that site, and if not that site, if a spaceport is desired an area already covered with houses/apartments/hotels must be demolished to make way for the spaceport. That solution might mitigate the environmental concern since the destruction is already factored in—the existing structures already wrecked the place, so wrecking those to build something else is no big deal.

100% of the couple hundred acres controlled by SpaceX would have eventually have been at the very least little houses. People would plant stuff (likely invasive), and otherwise "wreck the place" from an environmental standpoint. SpaceX building in the same land is not that much different, and rocket operations are not all that frequent. I'm not seeing a big issue, and again, unless all space operations are to be in the place already ruined—the KSC area, which is vastly larger than Boca Chica, both in total area, and simply in paved/built area—then we might as well stop being interested in spaceflight, we're stuck with the sort of pace we've had in the past, and we'll all die before we see humans walk on Mars. I lived through nothing changing during the entire Shuttle era—lunar bases and Mars were "20 years off" literally every single year of the Shuttle era. I'm willing to roll the dice on that tiny sliver of coastline.

Quick check of Google Earth: The launch area is about 40 acres.

I just measured a tiny contiguous area of built up/pave/etc area at the southern tip of the Cape, and it's 333 acres, about the entire size of Boca Chica's facilities.

Just the VAB and related buildings and roads connecting VAB, office facilities, and 39A/B is 3-4 times the total area of Boca Chica (1200 acres)—including areas that they don't look to ever build on at Boca Chica.

I didn't even count the Shuttle runway, that alone is probably bigger than the entire SpaceX facility in TX.

Littering does have a positive- the person littering is not burdened with having to find a waste bin.

Likewise in the reverse, houses, apartments, and hotels, and a spaceport, are all subjectively positive. Boca Chica does not have a homelessness issue and thus there is little to no requirement for new housing, likewise the supposed "existential threats to humanity" largely exist only within the minds of SpaceX Mars City supporters (and building a city on Mars is hardly the most efficient solution to these existential threats) and therefore there is no need to build a spaceport. Expeditions to Mars (not colonization), the more realistic outcome of the Starship program, are also just a "want" and therefore can be viewed as unnecessary.

It does not matter whether something else was going to be built on the grounds of Starbase or not. People with environmental concerns are not trolls trying to turn SpaceX into a boogieman to the point of lying. They don't care whether it is SpaceX or some real estate firm- a thing is there, and environmental protection measures are not evidently being taken, and therefore they are concerned. SpaceX is not the issue- it is their seeming lack of care towards mitigating environmental damage.

KSC comparisons do not work as a defence against SpaceX because as noted in the report I linked, part of the reason why KSC does not massively negatively impact the endangered species of the area is because NASA actually tries to mitigate environmental damage where possible. There is zero indication SpaceX is doing the same, and thus environmentalists are rightfully concerned.

You might be willing to "roll the dice" on that coastline, but others are not. Again, if SpaceX wants to combine "China speed and then some", with "China ignorance of public concerns", they will probably be fine anyways, but it will be a PR disaster. I simply suggested they engage with the environmentalists in the form of a report similar to the one I linked on KSC. Even if some major damage is unavoidable, that's fine, but they at least need to try to some extent. Not necessarily to the point of slowing development- but they need to try.

Heck, at least China is trying to address one public concern (spent boosters falling on populated areas) with parafoils and other measures. SpaceX could at least bother to release a report like the one I linked with outside help, even if it they don't plan to take any further protective measures afterwards.

5 hours ago, tater said:

The total environmental impact of Boca Chica is certainly lower than just a tiny fraction of the built area at KSC—a very similar coastal wetland region, so very much comparable.

So we have daily traffic at KSC (which aside from air pollution also has huge runoff issues (oil, rubber, etc from all the cars)). Huge numbers of people working at KSC (10K+ just KSC, and added visitors), with related waste issues. Many launch pads, and LVs using RP-1, and many with hypergolics aboard.  Loads of impacts routinely, and more if accidents.

SpaceX meeting whatever EIS requirements they have to meet is fine, and they should do that—but even if they did almost nothing, it's noise compared to KSC impact doing all they can, just because merely being there at all is doing most of the impact.

They have to prove that with a report similar to the one I linked on KSC. Until then, environmentalists have right to be concerned.

And again, KSC is a very, very poor comparison. KSC is actually vital to national security and the decision to build it there was made when environmental protection measures were non-existent. Just because KSC does it does not justify Musk having the right to do it, especially for something as (in the eyes of other people) fanciful and unnecessary as Mars.

In addition, KSC actually takes measures to reduce its impact. There is no sign SpaceX does that.

I'm not saying SpaceX has to slow development to a snail's pace and send a guy out there to collect the endangered small animals before each launch like in that one scene from Space Force. They just have to try their best.

I suggest they do that as I hope they will find a humane way to address the concerns of different groups about their operations in some form. But again, the moral-less option will likely work as well.

------------------------------------------

I'd like to clarify none of this is directed at any member of the forum. I am criticizing SpaceX, not SpaceX fans.

[Beccab]

9 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Heck, at least China is trying to address one public concern (spent boosters falling on populated areas) with parafoils and other measures. SpaceX could at least bother to release a report like the one I linked with outside help, even if it they don't plan to take any further protective measures afterwards.

I consider not dropping boosters on populated areas in first place better than addressing later the concern that spent boosters have fallen there personally

[SunlitZelkova]

11 minutes ago, Beccab said:

I consider not dropping boosters on populated areas in first place better than addressing later the concern that spent boosters have fallen there personally

I am sure the environmentalists feel that the most ideal solution to Starbase's environmental impact would be to not build a spaceport in a National Wildlife Refuge (that is, shut down Starbase) in the first place, too.

There are valid reasons why China had to build its spaceports in inland locations. Likewise, I recognize there are valid reasons to select Boca Chica as the site of Starbase.

It is unrealistic to expect those reasons to be ignored, and for inland Chinese launch centers to be closed or Starbase to shut down. But SpaceX should at least try to mitigate their environmental impact and release a report similar to the one I linked, just as China should try to reduce the area the boosters fall in to prevent it from hitting populated areas.

Or space entities can just ignore them, much in the same manner as how other organizations and corporations ignore public concerns for their own self benefit. That option will likely be successful. But it will damage SpaceX's image and make them look more like a "corporation that doesn't care" rather than just an innovative company working for humanity's benefit.

[RCgothic]

An environmental impact statement for using Boca Chica as a launch site for vehicles up to Falcon Heavy exists.

https://www.faa.gov/space/environmental/nepa_docs/spacex_texas_eis/

Suborbital launches of Starship from BC are covered under this assessment.

Orbital launches of Superheavy probably require a new statement. The determination of the new statement is widely known to be in process.

Edited August 26, 2021 by RCgothic

[tater]

2 hours ago, RCgothic said:

An environmental impact statement for using Boca Chica as a launch site for vehicles up to Falcon Heavy exists.

https://www.faa.gov/space/environmental/nepa_docs/spacex_texas_eis/

Suborbital launches of Starship from BC are covered under this assessment.

Orbital launches of Superheavy probably require a new statement. The determination of the new statement is widely known to be in process.

So the impact question is literally not the couple hundred acres of facility (which is a given), but the added impact of SS/SH launches.

 

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

KSC comparisons do not work as a defence against SpaceX because as noted in the report I linked, part of the reason why KSC does not massively negatively impact the endangered species of the area is because NASA actually tries to mitigate environmental damage where possible. There is zero indication SpaceX is doing the same, and thus environmentalists are rightfully concerned.

Every car in the parking lot drips, and the runoff moves oil into that wetland. There is no mitigating that if they allow the 10k employees to drive to work. There's a reasonable chance that impact alone exceeds Boca Chica. 200 acres is tiny. Actively mitigating an impact that starts out orders of magnitude greater still results in more absolute impact. The BO facility at KSC is actually pretty large—scraping away all that wetland, then building a few huge buildings, a rocket testing area, and large parking lots around them—is actually larger, just measured it. 250 acres.  I didn't measure the launch pad area, however, so maybe closer to 300+.

If BO comes up with a New Armstrong, then presumably they have to resubmit as well due to the impact of a yet larger rocket in the same way.

Edited August 26, 2021 by tater

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

not build a spaceport in a National Wildlife Refuge

There is a certain benefit to having a place like Starbase adjacent to (or inside) a refuge: it won't be paved over for mega-hotels, parkinglots and shops.  There are people in the US who are completely and totally against any and all building/industry in such areas, but they're rare..   Admittedly, some places do need protection like that (no one wants to see massive, industrial thermo-electric plants in Yellowstone) - but many can be dual-use.  KSC showcases how: NASA - Space Center Balances Nature and Launch Operations

 

[Beccab]

Interesting bit of info from trustable insiders on r/SpaceX:

" Original tile design [of Starship heat shield] was with overlapping ledges, like a sliding tile puzzle, but this was too complex for fitting and got superseded for the current hex 'scale tile'. "

[magnemoe]

35 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

There is a certain benefit to having a place like Starbase adjacent to (or inside) a refuge: it won't be paved over for mega-hotels, parkinglots and shops.  There are people in the US who are completely and totally against any and all building/industry in such areas, but they're rare..   Admittedly, some places do need protection like that (no one wants to see massive, industrial thermo-electric plants in Yellowstone) - but many can be dual-use.  KSC showcases how: NASA - Space Center Balances Nature and Launch Operations

 

This, but guess the wildlife refuge came after KSC? 
The issue is that rocket launch sites need an large safety zone around them, you need them to be at the coast as all area below the path is also unsafe and you want it as far south as practical. 
Not many places who fits. 

[mikegarrison]

41 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

This, but guess the wildlife refuge came after KSC?

The military base there goes back at least to 1940, as the US was building up for the war that everybody knew was coming. (It had already started in Europe and Asia.)

Anyway, there wasn't much of a concept of wilderness or environmental preservation back then. The first National Park in the world (Yellowstone) only dates back to 1872. After the war ended, the US decided that area was an ideal place for a rocket proving ground. So yeah, the base predated much of the interest in wildlife or environmental protection. It wasn't really until the 1950s and 1960s that there started to be serious pushback in the US on things like damming rivers and draining wetlands and such, and even then it was marginalized until the 1970s, when environmental concerns really gained a lot of ground.

But the point still is that SpaceX is not responsible for what other people do. They ARE responsible for what THEY do.

Edited August 26, 2021 by mikegarrison

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

The military base there goes back at least to 1940, as the US was building up for the war that everybody knew was coming. (It had already started in Europe and Asia.)

Anyway, there wasn't much of a concept of wilderness or environmental preservation back then. The first National Park in the world (Yellowstone) only dates back to 1872. After the war ended, the US decided that area was an ideal place for a rocket proving ground. So yeah, the base predated much of the interest in wildlife or environmental protection. It wasn't really until the 1950s and 1960s that there started to be serious pushback in the US on things like damming rivers and draining wetlands and such, and even then it was marginalized until the 1970s, when environmental concerns really gained a lot of ground.

But the point still is that SpaceX is not responsible for what other people do. They ARE responsible for what THEY do.

1872 was very early, but yes back then it was about saving attractions  and keep them public, not about the environment. 
The site itself is given,  if spaceX had not been allowed to develop it they would not bought it, although their plan changed. Going for methane rather than kerosene is an major benefit if you get leaks. 
Yes methane is way more flammable up to fuel air bomb level it don't have the long lasting effect of oil. 
Animals has way lower safety levels than us, Chernobyl is in practice an wildlife refuge and an thriving one, people don't live there and its illegal to hunt as people will sell radioactive meat. 
So using an wildlife refuge as an buffer zone make loads of sense. Farmland would also work but might get issues if spaceX launch as often as they hope to do. 
Yes you also has the pollution one but methane and lox burns so clean its an issue. 

[tater]

[Beccab]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

Test tank has apparently been disconnected from the GSE but the closure is still scheduled, so there's a chance of S20 testing tonight. Either they cancel the closure or they test S20 at this point

[tater]

 

[SunlitZelkova]

11 hours ago, tater said:

Every car in the parking lot drips, and the runoff moves oil into that wetland. There is no mitigating that if they allow the 10k employees to drive to work. There's a reasonable chance that impact alone exceeds Boca Chica. 200 acres is tiny. Actively mitigating an impact that starts out orders of magnitude greater still results in more absolute impact. The BO facility at KSC is actually pretty large—scraping away all that wetland, then building a few huge buildings, a rocket testing area, and large parking lots around them—is actually larger, just measured it. 250 acres.  I didn't measure the launch pad area, however, so maybe closer to 300+.

If BO comes up with a New Armstrong, then presumably they have to resubmit as well due to the impact of a yet larger rocket in the same way.

I am not trying to pinpoint run off from parked cars or one particular issue. A spaceport can have a range of effects on the environment. I think it is unfeasible to completely stop all damage, but I suggest that the best method to ease environmentalists' concerns is to try to mitigate damage where possible. This is possible as seen in the report I linked.

This is not about BO. If environmentalists start bringing up major issues over the BO site at KSC, then that will be a topic of discussion for the BO thread. Again, this "they did it so it is ok for me to do it" is a poor argument for the defence of SpaceX.

It would be much easier to defend SpaceX if they would at least try a little in certain areas. But so long as they completely ignore environmentalists' concerns and appear to occasionally make "mistakes" like using refuge land as a parking lot, there will be reason to protest their activities at Starbase.

I am not saying they need to halt development at its current pace and go full on green. They just need to try where they can and perhaps invite some outside professionals to take a look at the impact, which would help ease concerns.

Of course, I suggest this on the assumption SpaceX actually cares what the public thinks. If they don't and believe "what I think is right and what others think is not" then they can steamroll and Starbase will probably be completely fine anyways. But the PR will not be good.

10 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

There is a certain benefit to having a place like Starbase adjacent to (or inside) a refuge: it won't be paved over for mega-hotels, parkinglots and shops.  There are people in the US who are completely and totally against any and all building/industry in such areas, but they're rare..   Admittedly, some places do need protection like that (no one wants to see massive, industrial thermo-electric plants in Yellowstone) - but many can be dual-use.  KSC showcases how: NASA - Space Center Balances Nature and Launch Operations

 

This is certainly true but I don't think the environmentalists concerned about Starbase really care. They ideally want both no Starbase and no hotels and other tourist structures. Choosing "the lesser of two evils" is likely out of the question for them.

They will always be concerned, but by doing the things I suggested and showing they care at least a little, it becomes harder to support the environmentalists position. So long as SpaceX completely ignores them however, public sympathy will lie with the environmentalists, not so much because the public actually cares about the species in danger, but because such "rude moves" are generally frowned upon, regardless of the subjects involved.

[tater]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It would be much easier to defend SpaceX if they would at least try a little in certain areas. But so long as they completely ignore environmentalists' concerns and appear to occasionally make "mistakes" like using refuge land as a parking lot, there will be reason to protest their activities at Starbase.

What are the specific concerns they are not addressing? You are saying they are completely ignoring something they are beholden by law to do, what is it? (actual examples, please)

Random activists can come up with "concerns" to stop literally anything, all that matters is what their legal requirements are, and if they are violating them.

They are currently submitting amendments to their already granted permission for launches (presumably updating from FH launches to SS/SH) WRT impact.

Environmental impact came up in this thread because of the Boring Company machine, and the proposal for beach access. Boring a tunnel vs making a wider road that would impact the wetlands. It was then somehow complained about because they built next to a refuge—with the full backing of local government (there are large, protected wetlands all around Houston, for example, some literally next door to petrochemical plants that are substantially larger than the entire SpaceX facility (and they have a history of pretty catastrophic failures, outside of just spills). Probably the same in coastal areas closer to Boca Chica, I just happened to look around Houston since I knew there were big plants there.

If SpaceX wants to dig a tunnel to allow beach access even when they need the surface road to move a large vehicle over several hours, seems like that has zero downside. They could also build a ferry system, but perhaps the dock would have more negative impact than a tunnel that could surface at an existing road, not adding any built footprint.

Edited August 27, 2021 by tater

[Beccab]

 

The road has just been closed and the police is at the roadblock, but apparently there's people around S20 still right now. They will definitely do something at this point, we just don't know what that is

 

3.6 mm barrel spotted, we don't know if for testing or for an actual ship. This would allow to increase the payload considerably if applied

 

Interesting new Mechazilla parts, we don't know the exact purpose yet

Edited August 27, 2021 by Beccab

[tater]

3 minutes ago, Beccab said:

3.6 mm barrel spotted, we don't know if for testing or for an actual ship. This would allow to increase the payload considerably if applied

Would be a 10% dry mass savings on hull.

[Beccab]

More info from the usual reddit SpaceX insider on the heat shield: depending on how the static fire and flight go, they are strongly considering changing from the three tile attachment points which could make it too easy for tiles to break for the vibrations during liftoff to Metaklett, a high temperature 'velcro'

[Brotoro]

Is Velcro good in a vacuum?

[Beccab]

7 minutes ago, Brotoro said:

Is Velcro good in a vacuum?

Yep, it's what they use inside the ISS to keep stuff from flying everywhere

(the white squares)

Edit: whoops you said vacuum, not zero g. Please ignore

Edited August 27, 2021 by Beccab
am dumb

[Codraroll]

41 minutes ago, Brotoro said:

Is Velcro good in a vacuum?

Why shouldn't it be? It's based on friction. I don't think atmospheric pressure is necessary for it to work.

[Brotoro]

9 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Why shouldn't it be? It's based on friction. I don't think atmospheric pressure is necessary for it to work.

It's based on thin plastic hooks and loops... (well, the hooks are plastic...maybe the loops are fabric?) ...how will those do it low temperatures out in space? And then there's the question of the adhesive. Do astronauts use Velcro on EVAs? These use it all over the place inside ships, but I don't know if it's used outside. So I'm asking.

[Beccab]

4 minutes ago, Brotoro said:

It's based on thin plastic hooks and loops... (well, the hooks are plastic...maybe the loops are fabric?) ...how will those do it low temperatures out in space? And then there's the question of the adhesive. Do astronauts use Velcro on EVAs? These use it all over the place inside ships, but I don't know if it's used outside. So I'm asking.

Looks like they do, this is the Apollo EVA suit

For your firs question, the Metaklett is only a velcro in concept, it is completely metallic and attaches mechanically

Edited August 27, 2021 by Beccab

[mikegarrison]

10 minutes ago, Brotoro said:

It's based on thin plastic hooks and loops... (well, the hooks are plastic...maybe the loops are fabric?) ...how will those do it low temperatures out in space? And then there's the question of the adhesive. Do astronauts use Velcro on EVAs? These use it all over the place inside ships, but I don't know if it's used outside. So I'm asking.

I am somewhat confident that Velcro was actually invented FOR Apollo.

OK, nope, it wasn't. It was invented by a Swiss man in 1941.

Edited August 27, 2021 by mikegarrison

[SunlitZelkova]

5 hours ago, tater said:

What are the specific concerns they are not addressing? You are saying they are completely ignoring something they are beholden by law to do, what is it? (actual examples, please)

As I said-

8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I am not trying to pinpoint run off from parked cars or one particular issue.

I am not a wildlife conservationist. When I refer to "concerns", I am not talking about some list of grievances I have next to my computer, I am talking about the fact that there is concern from members of the public over potentially extreme impact on different species. I am not necessarily talking about the law, I am talking about what they can do outside of "they are required to". NASA has no legal obligation to take all of the Stewardship actions they do at KSC to mitigate their impact. They do it because they care about the environment.

Likewise, I simply suggest the most humane way to deal with the concerns of the public and improve SpaceX's image would be to do their best to mitigate where possible and invite third party persons or groups to do an assessment of SpaceX's impact so we can see what it actually is beyond "there are fewer bird nests so Starbase bad". There is a solution to this conflict beyond steamrolling.

5 hours ago, tater said:

Random activists can come up with "concerns" to stop literally anything, all that matters is what their legal requirements are, and if they are violating them.

The people concerned have presented a number of justified reasons to be concerned. Examples from this article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-launch-site-boca-chica-texas-60-minutes-plus/ -

Quote

David Newstead, director of the bird program at the nonprofit Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program, told Acevedo he's seen changes in the refuge since SpaceX began their operations.

Newstead said that where there used to be a dozen or more nests, starting last year they only found two. "And this year, there was only one," he added. 

Quote

In a letter to SpaceX's director of starship operations dated June 21, 2021, a Fish and Wildlife complex refuge manager described, "unauthorized encroachments and trespass on the refuge." He attached photographs that he said shows SpaceX's employees using refuge lands as a parking lot and, in another one, a drainage ditch on protected land. 

These are not all random activists by the way. One of the entities concerned is the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Again, this is not about legal requirements. It is about what they should do beyond what they are required to do, if they wish to solve this problem like human beings.

5 hours ago, tater said:

Environmental impact came up in this thread because of the Boring Company machine, and the proposal for beach access. Boring a tunnel vs making a wider road that would impact the wetlands. It was then somehow complained about because they built next to a refuge—with the full backing of local government (there are large, protected wetlands all around Houston, for example, some literally next door to petrochemical plants that are substantially larger than the entire SpaceX facility (and they have a history of pretty catastrophic failures, outside of just spills). Probably the same in coastal areas closer to Boca Chica, I just happened to look around Houston since I knew there were big plants there.

If SpaceX wants to dig a tunnel to allow beach access even when they need the surface road to move a large vehicle over several hours, seems like that has zero downside. They could also build a ferry system, but perhaps the dock would have more negative impact than a tunnel that could surface at an existing road, not adding any built footprint.

I am not arguing against a tunnel, or further expansion of Starbase- even expansion that would increase environmental impact. I am suggesting a way to ease those concerned over the environmental impact to solve the issue humanely, instead of steamrolling.

---------------------------------------

I would like to clarify again all of my criticisms are aimed at SpaceX, not SpaceX fans.

Edited August 27, 2021 by SunlitZelkova