SpaceX Blast Left Officials in Disbelief over Environmental Damage
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
The only damage they actually cite despite claiming to have access to a 1100 page report is someone's trail camera seeing birds getting scared off and their eggs being eaten by another animal...
The rest is all whining about not being allowed on site after the self-admitted dangerous explosion for 48 hours and a bunch of "but the experts (specifically the ones we prefer) say they definitely need a flame diverter". Then they wonder why SpaceX's protocol is to ignore media rags.
The design decisions that led up to the decision to not have a flame trench weren't exactly secret either. They wanted to avoid it because they would have to build up the area to be able to have a trench, which would take many years and would end up being a high cost for every launch site they might want to build, and so they tried to come up with a design that could get by without one. By the time came for the orbital test, they knew the concrete would not be sufficient and the water deluge system was already in development, but they expected that the concrete would be ablated. Instead it unexpectedly shattered due to interactions with the sand underneath.
However, saying that isn't convenient for the narrative. Many of the "experts" they're citing likely also made claims about how reusable rocketry isn't economical or that pin point landings on a barge in the middle of the ocean would not be reliable every time there was a failed attempt during the early days of that.
The article you're supposedly commenting on starts off by referring that "almost four acres of state park were burned" and animals being incinerated. The pay wall stops me from reading the rest, but that much is clear.
Damn what a massive unprecedented disaster, clearly this deserves outsized attention.
I did want to comment I’m aware of concrete chunks being thrown in the first test, but they were obviously okay with it exploding on the pad (a reasonable assumption for rocket development).
> the company's radically rebuilt ground systems, with an enhanced water suppression system, appeared to function well in protecting the rocket and the launch pad.
However, the point is that the theoretical worst case scenario in the environmental assessment was a lot worse than what did occur, and that worst case scenario was deemed an acceptable risk.
It’s really not disappointing to see supposedly smart people do this.
HN is not intended to be the discussion site for every topic. It deliberately tries to avoid topics that are going to produce more flame than light.
The values of western civilization do not depend on whether HN allows discussion of every topic. There are plenty of other places for those discussions to happen, free and unhindered by HN's site guidelines.