Dollars to donuts developing the fixes was an ongoing process parallel to the mishap investigation, and most of the recommendations are already done.
We've already seen that the pad has been rebuilt with a water deluge.
We've already seen that the pad has been rebuilt with a water deluge.
https://blog.esghound.com/i/135551935/spacexs-permitting-woe...
In this case, a retention pond and collection system does exist. However, when the system is starting and stopping there is overspray outside of the launch area that doesn't get collected. This water is potable and ambient temperature though.
So is water with unknown contamination.
Also USA news from literally just few weeks ago - https://apnews.com/article/florida-ocean-heat-climate-coral-...
Environments are much more fragile than you think.
Get a lake. Pour some lukewarm water into it. Let me know how many creatures survive.
> Also USA news from literally just few weeks ago
That is the entire ocean heating up. I think you're getting a bit confused about the thermodynamics.
And spacex launch site is literally surrounded by protected lands, that were there long before their site. Will spacex kill some protected life nearby? We don’t know. But let’s not pretend that dumping hot water is safe.
And that news is about parts near Florida reaching reef threatening levels. Based on your reasoning it’s fine, as only reefs near Florida were impacted, ocean is fine, so what’s the big deal, right?
It’s really stunning to me, that spacex fans, whose mission is to basically “safe humanity” care so little about the environment, that you know, humanity needs to live.
Unless it's very hot (like over 50C) I doubt that would be affected much, and even if it is, so what? I don't think the goal is zero deaths. A few insects and some algae dying does not matter.
The main thing to prevent would be toxic chemicals getting into the environment because unlike hot water they can have long term effects.
> care so little about the environment
I care about things that actually affect the environment. If you cared so much about it you'd spend more time worrying about actual issues.
> Based on your reasoning it’s fine, as only reefs near Florida were impacted, ocean is fine, so what’s the big deal, right?
Ok you really don't understand the scales involved here. Go and look up how much energy is involved in heating the Florida ocean by one degree, and compare that to the energy heating all the water from the deluge system by 100C. It's 1.3 million litres apparently.
So thank you for finally agreeing. Hot water is dangerous.
No one says goal is zero deaths. But brushing over it, "oh, just some things will die" especially if you're talking about wildlife preserve is oil baron type of argument.
> I care about things that actually affect the environment. If you cared so much about it you'd spend more time worrying about actual issues.
You care about things that affect part of the environment you care about, right? Other environments - that's their problem? You know that EPA considers heated water a hazard, right?
> Ok you really don't understand the scales involved here. Go and look up how much energy is involved in heating the Florida ocean by one degree, and compare that to the energy heating all the water from the deluge system by 100C. It's 1.3 million litres apparently.
I don't believe you argue in good faith, if you don't understand why I brought this example, and try to make it sounds, that unless spacex heats the water to 100C, then it's ok. Bye, it's not worth my time.
And if there was something in the exhaust (there isn't) it goes in the air and lands on that area anyway.
They use different engines because there are no petrochemicals on Mars, but there is CO2 and H2O, so you can produce CH4 and O2 locally if you have a power source (presumably solar or RTG).
However this is a problem that needs more study, the are various projects on how to quickly make a functional launch pad.
[1] To Mars and back diagram: https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/
So far, there has not been public information about what they're going to do about it.
A render of the moon landing Starship showed engines higher up that have been speculated to be used for landing and lunch to reduce the problem.
You need a lot less thrust to get off the Moon’s surface. That probably puts the problem back into a familiar envelope.
> apply for a modified FAA license before launching again
... as SpaceX will now need to go through the wait period of a modified FAA license application?
Many of the issues should never have happened. On launch day I remember people commenting within seconds of ignition that there was obvious large debris flying everywhere.
The investigation would never have had to happen with better controls and not outright lying on their reports.
They're learning, they're taking risks and they're doing new things.
Obviously they're not going to get everything flawless the first time around, and they're going to iterate and improve.
innovation can happen while also considering ideas such as “let’s not put a deluge system and just blow up the pad” — tho i suspect elon has something to do with that
You’re right though, they could run it like traditional space… and it would be just like SLS, New Glenn Ariene 6, etc
They’re doing what they’re doing for a reason
This issue is exactly why so many large companies become un-innovative despite having huge R&D budgets.
Above you said he lied on a report, now you're saying he said something on Reddit.
Show us the report he lied on.
He's agreeing with you by saying that because Musk betrayed the "real life Iron Man" image imposed upon him, everything that goes wrong in anything related to him gets the most intentionally negative interpretation possible regardless of evidence, such as this claim about lying on reports.