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 CNBCreport 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.

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      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@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

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

          • masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            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?

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              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@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  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.