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.

    • Pennomi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      294 months ago

      SpaceX is cool, Elon is the world’s most colossal asshole. Some people won’t separate the two because they rightfully don’t want to enable him.

      Shotwell could run the whole thing herself, I wish the government would step in and cut Musk out of it entirely.

    • @johker216@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      174 months ago

      I’d rather NASA be funded well enough to not need private, profit-driven, corporations dictating how we explore space. That and Musk’s stench sticks to all his companies, for good or bad.

      • @halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 months ago

        SLS does it the old way, with NASA contracting work out to the old school companies.

        The Commercial Crew and Supply contracts are there to try it a different way. And they’re accomplishing their goals much more quickly and at a fraction of the cost.

    • @EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      There’s a great synopsis of the situation further up the thread, but the short is:

      SpaceX originally wasn’t going to launch rockets from this facility… until they announced that they were, then asked for permission from the regulatory bodies after their first launch.

      When concerns were raised about the rockets being launched half a kilometer from nature preservation land, and specifically in regard to the possibility of failed launches damaging the launchpad, Elon assured them that no such thing could happen… and then a quarter of the launchpad was destroyed by a failed launch.

      So they installed the water deluge system, again asking for permission after they had already installed and used it.

      Within their permit application for the system - which, again, was installed and used before the application was even submitted - are mercury measurements 50x higher than the Texas maximum threshold for acute mercury toxicity, and far higher than the thresholds for human safety.

      The Elon hate is one thing, and I believe much of the hate for SpaceX is because of how he handles himself and his companies. But the general assurance has largely been that SpaceX has a team of handlers to keep him from screwing things up, and it sounds more like Boeing over there every day.

      They may have Elon on a leash, but they seem to be running his playbook anyway.

      • @NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        They got approval from the fish and wildlife agency before launching with the deluge system

        https://www.tpr.org/technology-entrepreneurship/2023-11-16/faa-gives-ok-to-spacex-for-second-starship-launch

        Published November 16, 2023 at 9:00 AM CST

        The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved SpaceX’s next Starship launch, just hours after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concluded its assessment of the rocket’s launch infrastructure.

        The FAA gave the company a launch license Wednesday afternoon, saying Starship and its new launch infrastructure would have “no significant environmental changes” for its second launch.

        FWS stated that SpaceX’s water deluge system, meant to suppress the flames and sound from the rocket’s 33 engines, would produce the same amount of water from an average rainfall. The agency does not expect the water to change the mud flats’ salinity or affect shorebird habitat.

        *emphasis mine.

        Flight 2 was on November 18th, 2 days after they get approval for the deluge system.

        Edit: further, spacex has replied to this and said the following (among other things as well)

        https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823080774012481862

        SpaceX worked with the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) throughout the build and test of the water deluge system at Starbase to identify a permit approach. TCEQ personnel were onsite at Starbase to observe the initial tests of the system in July 2023, and TCEQ’s website shows that SpaceX is covered by the Texas Multi-Sector General Permit.

        We only use potable (drinking) water in the system’s operation. At no time during the operation of the deluge system is the potable water used in an industrial process, nor is the water exposed to industrial processes before or during operation of the system.

        We send samples of the soil, air, and water around the pad to an independent, accredited laboratory after every use of the deluge system, which have consistently shown negligible traces of any contaminants. Importantly, while CNBC’s story claims there are “very large exceedances of the mercury” as part of the wastewater discharged at the site, all samples to-date have in fact shown either no detectable levels of mercury whatsoever or found in very few cases levels significantly below the limit the EPA maintains for drinking water.

      • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Heavy metals are some of the worst things to dump into the environment, and I’m curious to see where the mercury is coming from, why they’re using it, and how they’re going to address it, but it really feels like you’re blowing up a relatively small issue into a massive one.

        They had one launch where they blew up the launch pad accidentally, so they added a deluge system to cope. Now there’s mercury toxicity downstream of the site, but it’s not clear it has anything to do with the deluge system.

        The Elon hate is one thing, and I believe much of the hate for SpaceX is because of how he handles himself and his companies.

        That absolutely is where most of it comes from. Articles that hate on Elon get clicks, so for every actual thoughtful nuanced critique of SpaceX, there’s two dozen click bait articles written by glorified bloggers that will look for any flaw because critiques of Musk’s space company drives traffic.

        But the general assurance has largely been that SpaceX has a team of handlers to keep him from screwing things up, and it sounds more like Boeing over there every day.

        Boeing is failing to do what they used to do 50 years ago. SpaceX is successfully doing things that no one has ever done. Yes the wreckless rule breaking is trademark Elon, but let’s not be hyperbolic.

        • threelonmusketeers
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I’m curious to see where the mercury is coming from, why they’re using it, and how they’re going to address it

          So was I. Upon closer inspection, it seems possible that this entire story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.

          for every actual thoughtful nuanced critique of SpaceX, there’s two dozen click bait articles written by glorified bloggers

          This story may have been one of the latter.

      • threelonmusketeers
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -14 months ago

        mercury measurements 50x higher than the Texas maximum threshold for acute mercury toxicity

        It is possible that this entire story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.

      • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -34 months ago

        Hmm, did you read that article before posting it?

        Because Im struggling to see how Starship, a fully reusable spaceship made out of stainless steel, is going to deplete the ozone the way that aluminum satellites do when they are deorbited and burned up…

        • Flying Squid
          link
          fedilink
          44 months ago

          What exactly do you think SpaceX is regularly launching into space? Because it isn’t Starship.

          • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -24 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
              link
              fedilink
              14 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
                0
                edit-2
                4 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  14 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
                    -2
                    edit-2
                    4 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?

        • @Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          Do you know what the clouds coming out of the engines at shut down and start up are? Methane and oxygen. Do you think injecting methane into the upper atmosphere does the earth any favours?

          • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -34 months ago

            Huh, if only NASA Earth’s science budget could stretch farther somehow so they could better monitor and tell us… now I wonder how they could reduce their mission costs by orders of magnitude…

            • Flying Squid
              link
              fedilink
              14 months ago

              They are literally monitoring it and telling us. You just don’t like what you’re being told.

              • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                No they’re not. You’re sitting here asking open ended questions like “do you think that will be good for the upper atmosphere”.

                  • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    04 months ago

                    No, you said that NASA is monitoring methane emissions in the upper atmosphere and that it’s harming us.

                    Please provide your source for that claim.