SpaceX says, sure, Starship blew up but you can forget about the rest of that lawsuit

SpaceX has hit back at a lawsuit brought by the American Bird Conservancy and others regarding risks to the environment near its Starship testing facility in Boca Chica, Texas. While the Musk-owned rocket company admits its attempted orbital launch of Starship in April ended with a fireball, falling debris, noise, dust, and …

[Alistair]

Space X

The site was a bit of a question mark when announced, as much of the content of the lawsuit was raised as issues at the time. TBH, I am rather surprised that there was eventual agreement amongst (collection of US Federal agencies with relevant oversite) and SpaceX that the site was usable for launching rockets without causing environmental chaos.

That said, there is a DAMNED good reason why that site was chosen from a "Lets fling things into orbit" side of things. I'm fairly certain that its somewhat better than any of the NASA launch sites for accessing multiple orbital paths, (W->E, E->W, N->S) helping to reduce CtO (cost to orbit) for the launches.

I'll note that I do have somewhat biased input as a relative is a member of one of the animal rescue entities that supports those turtles, and I suspect that the launches just might cause more issues there than Gwen or any of the executive would like to (currently) admit. All that said, I'm still an advocate for getting Starship into service. I'm just thinking that there might be sufficient political fallout from the Boca Chica site as a primary launch site for Starship that MIGHT cause SpaceX some relatively high cost political flak.

[bazza]

Re: Space X

I think a real problem for SpaceX could be that, really, there's hardly anywhere on the entire eastern coastline that's suitable. Cape Canaveral in Florida is the most likely - because they've been launching from there for decades.

Quite a lot depends on whether or not they can actually pull off a FOD-free launch with a simple stand and water-quenched tin plate underneath it. If they can, there's room at Canaveral for a launch facility like that. If not, and they need an enormous flame trench, there might not be room at Canaveral for a new one of those, and building one at Boca Chica might be impossible.

So, if a flame trench is needed, it might just be that they've built a rocket too big to be launched from anywhere in the USA. And, when you look at a map of the world for eastern coastlines not too far away from the equator with a properous high tech economy suited to supporting such a program, there's not exactly many places in the world where it could be launched from.

[LorenDB]

Re: SpaceX

First of all, it's a steel plate, not tin. Pedantics concerning flame diverter materials aside, I have a hunch that they certainly can fit a full scale launch pad at the Cape. In fact, they've recently announced plans to expand SLC 40 to include crewed Dragon capabilities. On top of that, they have a lease agreement for SLC 41, which they could easily fit at least one launch pad with a proper flame diverter, or easily two with just the watercooled steel plate. So I really don't think it will be a big issue for them. The main problem with them getting kicked out of Boca Chica would be that they would have to rebuild Stage 0 at KSC and then either move vehicle construction there or ship vehicles from Starbase to KSC.

[FeepingCreature]

Re: SpaceX

And also getting permission to launch their possibly-explodey rocket near all of NASA's expensive infrastructure.

[Intractable Potsherd]

Re: SpaceX

Aren't all rockets "possibly-expodey"? The only difference is the probability of rapid unplanned disassembly.

[Arthur the cat]

Re: SpaceX

First of all, it's a steel plate, not tin.

The OED says

tin-plate, n.

Sheet-iron or, in later use, often sheet-steel, coated with tin; a plate of this.

Brought to you by Pedants 'Я' Us. [Pronounced Pedants Ya Us of course.]

[RegGuy1]

Re: SpaceX

Well it ain't sheet steel. Have you seen how thick it is?

[Justin S.]

Re: Space X

> "The site was a bit of a question mark when announced, as much of the content of the lawsuit was raised as issues at the time. TBH, I am rather surprised that there was eventual agreement amongst (collection of US Federal agencies with relevant oversite) and SpaceX that the site was usable for launching rockets without causing environmental chaos."

As improbable as it sounds, a wildlife preserve does not itself preclude successful, beneficial co-existence with a launch site. Kennedy Space Center is completely enclosed in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge-- I encourage everyone to look at on a map, particularly the one provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website. When I say "completely enclosed," I mean ***completely enclosed.*** There are bits which are excluded from the Refuge, but the Refuge runs right up to the edges of the launch pads and KSC runway.

And as bazza points out, there really aren't any locations along the Gulf or east coasts which could be considered 'unobjectionable' for development of a rocket as large as Starship/Super Heavy: it's all or almost all human inhabited or some kind of park or preserve. They could do more out of KSC, but only up to a point: KSC is used by more than just SpaceX, and NASA doesn't want their other operations to be unnecessarily impeded by the hardware-rich development of any of their partners/tenants. The same applies to Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

But the Boca Chica site is not-- and may never be-- a "primary launch site." The recent FAA PEA specified limits on the number of launches SpaceX is permitted. These limits will mostly confine them to test launches, though I'm all but certain they will seek waivers if they get to the point where they're filling an orbital propellent depot to support the moon missions, because they and NASA will want to reduce the time between the first propellent launch and the trans-lunar injection burn.

[Alistair]

Re: Space X

a wildlife preserve does not itself preclude successful, beneficial co-existence with a launch site

Oddly I know that. The differences here are scale. The wildlife refuge in Florida is *upstream* water flow wise, rather than downstream as in Boca Chica. This is a rather critical issue. Further, scale matters, Kennedy is much larger than Boca Chica and the wildlife refuge around it is enormous, while (Okay, haven't actually done the numbers) at Boca Chica the sizes don't seem to have the same ratio.

The previous use as a petroleum site also raised some flags, however that was addressed as SpaceX cleaning it up since they'd have so much *cough* firepower it would be a safety issue to not do so.

It may be that it is not currently planned or projected to be the primary launch site, but it certainly, from the business model of SpaceX is the only primary launch site that makes any sense at all. The possibility of shipping those rockets around exists I suppose and with the access to the gulf, water-borne shipping would be the rational way to go I suppose, but that is time and infra costs.

Hmm, Starship from Guiana? Possible?

ArianeSpace might actually consider it I suppose.

[bazza]

Re: Space X

French Guiana is a possibility. Belize - which is sort of British-leaning - could be another.

SpaceX's entire operation depends on satellites being delivered in bulk to launchers that are being assembled at pace whilst others are, at the same pace, being refurbed. There'd have to be quite a facility to refurb / repair proximate to the launch site to ensure they don't have a lengthy surface transit to slow things down. Persuading people to move there could be tricky...

Ariane's launch rate is fundamentally limited by the separation between the factory in France and the launch site on the other side of the Atlantic.

[Justin S.]

Re: Space X

My understanding is that Boca Chica will not be for primary production, either: they are constructing several new buildings at their KSC facility on Roberts Road, which are expected to be manufacturing for Starship and Super Heavy (with engines built in Hawthorn, CA and McGregor, TX). I expect some production SS/SH rockets to be built at Boca Chica for the same reason I expect them to launch propellant fill missions from B.C.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: PEA took ages

There are repeated bleats on the internet that there should have been an environmental impact study. There was but for launching Falcon 9+Heavy.

As this is an aerospace project, the lead agency was the FAA. The FAA subcontracted much of the work to US government departments specialising in environmental issues. The correct type of document for evaluating Starship launches at Boca Chica was a Programmatic Environmental Assessment, which the FAA conducted. It took ages, to the point where there was bleating on the internet that the government was dragging it out. I said at the time that was rubbish. The FAA took the time to make the PEA litigation proof. It was abundantly clear that any weakness in the PEA would result in litigation from Blue Origin (a company funded by Jeff Bezos with extensive experience in litigating rocket issues). I have confidence that the FAA's result: mitigated finding on no significant impact is backed by strong evidence and the current litigation will have no effect whatsoever.

There are historical issues. When Musk was in charge at Boca Chica, there was no single person with responsibility for license compliance. Several people found parts of one of the licenses unclear. Each of them assumed someone else had checked compliance. SpaceX got a stern telling off and were required to name someone to be responsible for compliance for each launch and if anything was unclear to pick up the phone and ask. Fortunately Musk became too busy to handle Boca Chica. Gwynne Shotwell took over then put Kathy Lueders in charge. Kathy is famous among space enthusiasts for heading the NASA side of the Commercial Crew Program where she was sidelined for showing firm fixed price contracts could deliver better results than cost plus. In the past I would have been worried that SpaceX would try to cut corners on the mitigations side of the mitigated FONSI. I have far more confidence in Gwynne and Kathy, and doubly so with Musk deep in a war of words with Zuckerberg.

The only open issue I am aware of is that SpaceX schedules a large number of road closures and cancels most of them. The number of times highway 4 is actually closed has stayed within agreed bounds. There was an argument about the number of cancelled closures but that has made the news for years.

Starbase has really cleaned up the site. It used to be owned by Sanchez Oil & Gas Corp. Even if this was not provably ridiculous pearl clutching, I would not expect a Texas court to the the environment stand in the way of profit.

[Orv]

Re: PEA took ages

Repeated canceled closures have been an issue with SpaceX launches at Vandenberg, too. Every time there's a launch all of Jalama Beach, which includes a popular campground that people make reservations for six months in advance, has to be evacuated for the duration. They often string the county along for days at a time with evacuation orders that get rescheduled at the last minute. It's not the biggest issue in the world but it doesn't really endear people to having a launch operation as a neighbor.

There's talk of doing Starship launches at Vandenberg and I'm a little nervous about that. The sonic booms from the Falcon Heavy launches already rattle my windows. I wonder if I'm going to be replacing broken ones after a Starship launch.

[Anonymous Coward]

E->W Really?

Only if Mexicans don't count.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: E->W Really?

For USians, especially the whitey sort, they don't count.

[Anonymous Coward]

One alternative candidate would be "Mar-A-Lago"

... it might not be too hard to get Gov. DeSantis to agree.

[dizwell]

Read the fine print!!

"Even more strange is SpaceX's statement it "denies that the only way to access Boca Chica Beach is Texas State Highway 4." A brief look at a map of the area makes it pretty clear there's only one road in and out of Boca Chica Beach, and a call to the Cameron County Judge's office confirmed that fact."

But SpaceX's statement didn't say that there was only one road to the beach, did it? According to your fine report, they denied it was the only way to access it. And, indeed, a brief look at a map of the area makes it blindingly obvious that there's a bloody great bit of sea that gives plenty of access to the beach, provided only you are replete with an appropriate dinghy or equivalent maritime conveyance.

Icon: because, well... Lawyers, etc.

[Chris Gray 1]

Re: Read the fine print!!

Exactly! A "way" doesn't have to be safe or legal does it? Just find the closest un-fenced-off spot and drive your massive SUV thingy in the right direction until you either get there or it stops moving.

On second thought - fence, what fence?

[martinusher]

Re: Read the fine print!!

Beaches are legal to drive on in Texas.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Read the fine print!!

"drive your massive SUV thingy in the right direction until you either get there or it stops moving."

Or, <gasp> other forms of transport, eg Shanks's Pony :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Read the fine print!!

There are other forms of transport????

[Howard Sway]

Re: Read the fine print!!

You can also access the beach from above by getting onto a SpaceX rocket, although you may arrive at quite a high velocity and in several pieces.

[eldakka]

Re: Read the fine print!!

> ou can also access the beach from above by getting onto a SpaceX rocket

You can access it from above without quite going to the extreme of a rocket, such as with the use of a helicopter.

[GBE]

Re: Read the fine print!!

... although you may arrive at quite a high velocity and in several pieces.

Actually, I think you'll find that the terminal velocity for small bits of charred meat and bone isn't all that fast.

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: Read the fine print!!

So you can use a rocket to go there, for example?

[Anonymous Coward]

Late stage capitalism

Won't anyone think of the shareholders?

[LorenDB]

Re: Late stage capitalism

And by shareholders, you must mean Elon Musk. SpaceX is a privately held company.

[newspuppy]

Re: Late stage capitalism

Actually, if one has a pension.. there is a good chance your pension pot has a stake in SpaceX. They have had several VC's ( ( https://marketrealist.com/p/how-to-invest-in-spacex/ ) Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, Valor Equity Partners, and Baillie Gifford, as well as Google (Alphabet) and Fidelity investing money early on.

Pension pots do invest some of their money in VC Funds.

[eldakka]

Re: Late stage capitalism

> And by shareholders, you must mean Elon Musk. SpaceX is a privately held company.

A private company does not mean no shareholders. It means the number of shareholders it has is below the threshold that legally requires listing on the appropriate stock exchange. That number varies by country, but I think in the US it is around 200.

[RegGuy1]

Re: Late stage capitalism

I thought it meant they weren't publicly traded. Many SpaceX employees have shares, which can be sold privately on specified days.

[eldakka]

Re: Late stage capitalism

I'm not an expert, I can only speculate.

But, for example, Facebook was forced to go public in 2012 (citation in article goes to Felix Salmon) because it had passed a threshold of 500 investors.

In that cited article there is mention of volume of trading shares as well.

I suspect that share options given to employees don't count as 'investors' for that 500 investor limit, but I am only speculating.

That article you referenced did note (various quotes):

• But to keep tight control of the company's shareholders, SpaceX uses an internal stock market, according to an investor. The private exchange matches up employee shareholders with approved investors.

...

...also gives SpaceX precise control over people who own pieces of the company.

...

But the anonymous investor said the company didn't let employees sell to anyone at any time: It uses an internal "matchmaking service" with vetted investors to get employees cash for their options.

...

Employees could try to sell their shares on their own, such as through a broker. But because SpaceX is not a public company, and its shares come with a right of first refusal, the company's board of directors can kill a private sale.

...

Such comments underscore another incentive for sticking with SpaceX: Even if an employee quits with a nest egg of vested shares, they can't really do anything with them — at least legally — until SpaceX either buys them back or the company goes public, which may not happen for decades.

...

Once SpaceX has a handle on which employees are selling what, they approach investors — but only trusted parties already in the company's capitalization table, or cap table.

...

"They get people like me who are previous investors, which doesn't change the cap table," the investor said. "From a company perspective, they don't want their guys leaving and trying to sell the stock to other players. They want to control that process. It's very smart. SpaceX kind of controls the market."

...

All of which leads me to believe that employee options aren't regarded as 'investors', that SpaceX can and does legally control to whom and when and how many of those shares obtained via share options are sold to, and keeps a 'cap table' of allowed investors so that it can ensure it doesn't exceed whatever the limits are before one is forced to be listed on a stock exchange (whether that's 200, or 500 investors, or specific share trading volume).

[Anonymous Coward]

"terrifying" sounds were reported in Port Isabel

The massed cheers of Musk employees as they watched Starship break up in flight.

Seriously, what was that about? Even the SpaceX commentator lady sounded confused when that was shown.

[FeepingCreature]

Re: "terrifying" sounds were reported in Port Isabel

"Success maybe, excitement guaranteed!" Elon Musk, announcing the launch date. (Not a joke.)

A fireball was always an anticipated outcome for this launch. And it was a pretty good fireball.

[Justin S.]

Re: "terrifying" sounds were reported in Port Isabel

Yes. They helped launch the most powerful rocket ever built, with the largest number of engines (though perhaps not, on the first try, the largest number of operational engines) ever flown. They knew and accepted the various degrees of "success" and "failure" that were possible and, getting as far as it did (and not completely destroying the launch site), they had a lot to be proud of.

[rg287]

Re: "terrifying" sounds were reported in Port Isabel

Seriously, what was that about? Even the SpaceX commentator lady sounded confused when that was shown.

I assumed it meant the sweepstake was settled and the cheers were from people not buying the beers that night/supplying cake the next day.

[Flocke Kroes]

cheers of Musk employees as they watched Starship break up in flight.

It makes sense if you understand the enormous differences between SpaceX and old space.

An old space rocket is designed and simulated for years at enormous expense. Eventually they try to build one and find they can't. They either have to do expensive research into new manufacturing methods or repeat the expensive design and simulation stage. The project gets delayed for years and the costs rocket up. When they finally do launch the rocket gets to orbit but only after many cancellations and delays because the cost of failure would be the end of a cost plus contract. The final product has an incremental cost of $4B per launch and they can only make one every two years.

SpaceX's immediate goal is not a rocket but a rocket factory. Last I looked there are three boosters and three ships parked in the rocket garden plus more at the test site and more nearing completion at the factory. The factory can turn out a complete stack every month now and is undergoing a huge expansion. The license for Boca Chica is currently 5 orbital launch attempt + some suborbital launches per year. Blowing up a rocket in the cleared launch corridor really means nothing to SpaceX - except perhaps they will not have to scrap another rocket to make space in the garden.

For that particular launch, the thrust vectoring system was destroyed well before stage separation was scheduled. They needed the entire thing in pieces before it left the cleared launch corridor. The flight termination system was triggered and the shaped charges exploded promptly but the rocket did not blow up. Luckily it was doing summersaults so the thrust averaged out to zero. It took about 40 seconds for the rocket to RUD. I bet there was relief when it happened because no-one wanted a fully fuelled upper stage to explode outside the launch corridor.

The test generated a huge amount of data - one test is worth a thousand simulations. Simulations showed the upgraded base of the launch table was strong enough for one launch. That proved spectactularly wrong. The simulations have been improved and a large crater was dug (by rocket engines) and filled with rebar and concrete supported by pilings and covered in a giant upside down shower head. Although some of the pieces of the pad production system were built before the test it is clear that waiting for installation would have created at least three months of delay. SpaceX now have a similar amount of delay but with test data informing a thousand changes to the rocket plus better simulations to guide the design of the flame diverter.

With the pad unavailable because of construction work SpaceX has taken the opportunity to make huge changes to the layout of the ground support equipment. Most of the big vertical tanks have gone - the water tanks are now on their side and vacuum insulated tanks have arrived and been installed for LOX + methane. Testing has continued at the former Massey's gun range site. There have been structural tests on the nose cone, cryo-proofing of a ship, a static test fire and a test of the flight termination system.

I am sure all the SpaceX staff had hoped for more from that launch but in context it is clear to everyone but Jim Free that there has been no significant interruption to Starship progress. If the new flame diverter does its job then SpaceX might be able to fit in all 5 possible launch attempts this year. (My bet is on 4)

[Richard 12]

Re: cheers of Musk employees as they watched Starship break up in flight.

Except they now won't get clearance to do any more launch attempts this year, because the FAA won't believe them anymore.

The launchpad failed, dangerously.

The flight termination system didn't work at all.

It was frankly pure luck that it tumbled enough to break up on its own.

If they'd waited the three months or so, then they would be far more likely to reach orbit this year, maybe even the first paying payload.

More haste, less speed.

On the other hand, they will now be redesigning the FTS so it actually works, and the FAA may well require a live test of it. That will result in a far safer rocket than otherwise.

[Justin S.]

Re: cheers of Musk employees as they watched Starship break up in flight.

The launchpad did not fail "dangerously." Nobody would have been injured if the rocket RUD'ed the pad, and that's the only thing the FAA cares about-- they don't particularly care if SpaceX destroys their own facilities, only that they don't endanger people.

The FTS did work... eventually. Based on the videos, the rocket didn't break up from tumbling. In fact, the robustness of the rocket was likely contributory to the FTS not working as quickly as it should. This is the same FTS (or essentially so) as used on Falcon 9 launches, and that system *has* been tested in-flight, on the F-9R Dev-1 launch in 2014.

The solution to the SS/SH problem is likely to use a ribbon-style FTS instead of point-charges, which will cause part of the rocket to essentially "unzip." This will cause both catastrophic structural failure as well as rapid mixing of the propellants, increasing the likelihood of an explosion. Why didn't/don't they use a ribbon charge in the first place? Because no sane person wants to handle more explosive material than they have to, regardless whether it's considered "stable."

Hindsight is 20/20. They didn't expect the pad to crater like it did. I'm confident if they knew the pad wouldn't survive, they would have waited. But we don't know that the launch would have been "far more likely" to succeed, because we don't know the cause of the various failures. Did some engines fail due to FOD strikes? Almost certainly. Were ALL the engine failures due to FOD strikes, either directly or indirectly? We don't know. Were the explosions (engines or otherwise) which destroyed the TVC pumps caused by FOD strikes? We don't know. SpaceX might, but *we* do not.

Besides the delayed self-destruct, the loss of the TVC system was probably the most significant failure during launch. Fortunately, they're replacing the hydraulic system with electric motors, and they should be able to make the electric system much more robust to failure.

[Richard 12]

Re: cheers of Musk employees as they watched Starship break up in flight.

A very large amount of pad debris was scattered outside the exclusion zone.

That's what "failing dangerously" looks like.

I don't know how much damage was done, but there are lawsuits under way and no doubt we will learn more.

And the rest of your post was basically sayjng "yeah the FTS failed but no but yeah but no but"

It did not terminate the flight. That means it failed.

[Justin S.]

Re: cheers of Musk employees as they watched Starship break up in flight.

You consider beach sand to be a dangerous substance? Because so far, published tests on the "debris" which fell on Port Isabel have don't match concrete or Fondag, and the size and appearance of the bits of debris are consistent with sand (Dr. Phil Metzger, planetary scientist at the University of Central Florida, Jun 16, 2023: "Partial results on the analysis of the ejecta from the SpaceX Starship launch. The visible and infrared spectra of the fine particles that rained down on Port Isobel do not match the concrete or the Fondag that was picked up on the beach.").

The larger bits of debris-- the pieces which would have had dangerous momentum-- only made it one or two thousand feet from the launch site, which is well within the exclusion zone. If you know of larger pieces which made it outside the exclusion zone, please provide a reference.

As for damage, so far the only real damage reported is one or more broken windows, but that's literally all the news articles say: "[r]esidents of Port Isabel, a town six miles northwest of the launch site, told the New York Times that at least one window shattered," "[b]roken windows and ash-like particulate matter from the launch have been reported as far away as Port Isabel," and "media outlets reported shattered windows in homes in Port Isabel" are typical quotes. No interviews with people whose windows were broken, no specific locations where windows were broken, and no counts of windows which were broken.

But surprise, several quotes came from Dave Cortez, a leader of the local chapter of the Sierra Club, which opposed and continues to oppose Starship testing.

The reason you "don't know how much damage was done" is because there was no significant damage. If there were, it would be news-- if it bleeds, it leads, as the saying goes.

As for the FTS, you can argue that with the FAA if you'd like. They, as well as SpaceX, already know it didn't work as quickly as it should, and so SpaceX will redesign it. You say you want it tested? Well, to do that you need to launch a test article, so don't expect the FTS to prevent a second launch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: cheers of Musk employees as they watched Starship break up in flight.

A very large amount of pad debris was scattered outside the exclusion zone.

Yeah, like my car gets covered in Saharan sand from time to time. And I live in Brexshitland.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: cheers of Musk employees as they watched Starship break up in flight.

Plenty of old NASA rockets went up in smoke. Several of them with people in them, if I remember.

At some point you have to actually launch something. Otherwise you can just sit in the pub with your mates for all it matters...

[RegGuy1]

Re: cheers of Musk employees as they watched Starship break up in flight.

As to the FTS testing there is some detail here:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/05/spacex-progressing-next-flights/

[imanidiot]

"SpaceX also denied that there was any risk from keeping its farm of fuel and propellant tanks so close to its launch site despite visible damage to the tanks after Starship's April launch and concerns that climate change is putting the Texas coast at greater risk from hurricane effects."

When a rocket is actually launching, the tank farm is pretty much empty. All of the explodey stuff would be inside the rocket. The tanks in the tank farm serve as an intermediate buffer to store the propellant while the liquefaction and super chilling processes are running and the contents is then loaded into the rocket. The tank farm also only got mostly superficial damage. The tanks themselves were actually fine, most of the visible damage to the vertical tanks was to outer skins covering a thick layer of insulation and the rest of the damage wasn't sufficient to trigger any serious mishap. And if the launch pad hadn't disintegrated and been turned to high velocity shrapnel the tank farm would also have been fine. The tank farm is mostly protected by high berms at Boca Chica. The tank farm for the shuttle at SLC-39A and B was about 400m away but pretty much unprotected. A low level mishap there would probably also have damaged the tank farms.

The comment about climate change is just pure FUD. That's not a local effect nor is it very relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Justin S.]

More than that, the vertical tanks contained water, liquid nitrogen, and liquid oxygen, none of which are combustible. A LOX leak would only be a significant problem if something else nearby was on fire, in which case the fire would burn faster/hotter than normal. The methane is stored in horizontal tanks away from the vertical farm, behind protective berms, which was required by state law (and an example of existing regulation working as intended, since SpaceX *had* originally planned to store methane in the vertical tank farm).

[Richard 12]

A LOX leak is absolutely 'ing terrifying. LOX is seriously good at starting fires in things that normally won't burn.

Please stop being a blind fanboy and think about what you're saying!

[Justin S.]

Liquid oxygen doesn't start fires. It's an oxidizer, not a fuel. It will enable combustion if there's enough energy to start the process, but on its own it's simply cold. If something were on fire, or caused a spark, in the vicinity of the LOX tank when it was punctured, the added oxygen would have increased the combustion rate-- it would have burned hotter and burned out faster. Could that provide enough energy to start something else burning which normally wouldn't? Sure. What types of materials were in use at the tank farm? Concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, zinc, various types of polymers, and probably some paper. Anything else? Not in any significant quantity. The plastic and paper will combust regardless whether pure oxygen is present, but good luck getting the metals to burn-- it's possible under certain conditions, but not in the solid, bulk forms used at the launch site.

But let's entertain the proposition that everything at the launch site can be made to combust in a pure oxygen atmosphere:

A LOX tank is punctured, it begins venting, and something close and on fire begins to combust enthusiastically. This causes everything it touches to begin to burn. The fire spreads. But it only spreads as far as the venting oxygen allows, BECAUSE THE CONCRETE AND METALS CANNOT SELF-SUSTAIN COMBUSTION IN A NORMAL ATMOSPHERE. If they could, they would be unsuitable for use in pretty much anything. Need to cut a piece of steel with torch? If it were self-sustaining, the entire piece of metal would go up when the torch was applied. Same thing with aluminum, and just about every other commonly used metal. Pure oxygen in a kiln would cause the kiln to combust. Then the impossible, hypothetical launch site fire would burn itself out when the LOX tank ran dry. Even then, not all the oxygen would be used in combustion because the heat would cause it to transition to a gas and blow away.

But it's all a fantasy, because it can't happen.

And even if-- EVEN IF-- the impossible were to happen, it's difficult to be "terrified" of a LOX leak from five-plus miles away, which was the closest any person was allowed to be to the launch.

So rather than accuse me of "being a blind fanboy" and not "think[ing] about what [I'm] saying," perhaps you should stop being an ignorant, irrational alarmist about a subject you clearly know little about.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even more strange is SpaceX's statement that it "denies that the only way to access Boca Chica Beach is Texas State Highway 4." A brief look at a map of the area makes it pretty clear there's only one road in and out of Boca Chica Beach, and a call to the Cameron County judge's office confirmed that fact."

Use a boat. Every damn ocean-front beach on the planet is accessible via boat.

Also, 1/2 of the Texas Least Terns now live in Gulfport, MS, and have since the 1980's, so, fuck 'em.

[Malcolm Weir]

Nah, some beaches are protected by reefs that prevent boats getting to them (granted, not many if you're prepared to go around the ends of the reef, and if you broaden "boat" to include hovercraft, you're golden!)

[Tom 38]

My hovercraft is full of eels

[martinusher]

Rockets are a bit dicey, new ones especially so

Its a new type of rocket. Those things have a tendency to blow up at the best of times.

[Marty McFly]

Florida rockets & the environment

The first missile launches on the Florida coast started in 1949. Way before environmentalist lawyers crawled into existence. There is no way the existing Florida launch facilities could be built today in our era of regulation. KSC thrives today because it is 'grandfathered in'.

Only problem with Boca Chica is it is being developed about 60 years too late.

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: Florida rockets & the environment

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 was an environmental law, so that's pretty strong evidence that environmental lawyers existed...

But perhaps closer to home, Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) was a Supreme Court decision about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (the birds won).

The environment has been around for a long time... even before John Muir persuaded Congress to create a National Park (Yosemite) in 1890...

[Grinning Bandicoot]

Darwin is dead, dead ,dead

A) When launches for the Space Shuttle were planned for the Point Arguello area an EIR was done. Much concern about the California Sea Lion was expressed but it was not noted that at the next launch site 20 miles north that the Sea Lion would sleep through the launches nor the Bell Buoy seemed to be a mid blue water nap spot just for them. The Manatee described as shy swims in the channels around the various launch facilities at Cape Canaveral I guess to watch all the nesting birds. The only thing that worked effectively at the Booster Recovery Facility at Port Hueneme to keep the birds from making it a hang out was to keep the deck wet, very wet, but then the bipeds had problems. It is a question of adaption and how many generations it takes for a species to become adapted. When several no take marine sanctuaries off the coast of Taxifornia where established it did not long for the area to become populated by the Sea Lion chasing chasing the fish.

B) As noted elsewhere Texas beaches are driven. [First trip into Texas was startled to see posted at an entrance the sign " Patrons are reminded to remove their firearms before entering a cash handling facility" along with the more appropriate "Drivers are requested to used the entrance ramps" posted at the end of a frontage road and beginning of a dirt trail to the Interstate. Two conclusions I drew from this were 1) guns are the blast that is made when used are tolerated and 2)pavement is not necessary for travel. Conclusions: Mammals and birds can will adapt but Texans might somebody.

C) Late night programing on TV in the US appears to have captured by Legal Firms specializing in class actions. If it is suspected that a buck could be made, an ad is sponsored trolling people to list as the damaged party. I wonder if all the low hanging fruit (torts) have been plucked and this is an attempt to keep Houston's legal firms in the fore front of all class action legal teams. This suit has has ramifications far beyond this and I can see dozens of airports that could be effected in addition to several seaports.

A+B+C=CROCK