Sascha Pallenberg 🇹🇼 ♻️ ⚡Apr 21, 2023

It seems like #SpaceX launched the largest rocket ever without any of the usual precautions regarding blast effects and possible debris in case of any failure.

A city covered in dust, concrete debris as big as bowling balls and cars that got hit. What a mess!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/us/spacex-rocket-dust-texas.html

SpaceX’s Starship Kicked Up a Dust Cloud, Leaving Texans With a Mess

Residents of Port Isabel said that their city was covered in grime following SpaceX’s rocket launch on Thursday. The city said there was no “immediate concern for people’s health.”

The New York Times
Show threadCubeThoughtsApr 21, 2023

@pallenberg I am a NYTimes subscriber and I'm not a fan of Elon Musk, but this type of article is why it's difficult to support the Grey Lady.

This was an experiment designed to identify problems. Getting off the ground was estimated at 50%. Several of 33 engines didn't start so the rocket spewef fire close to the ground longer than expected, probably leading to debris.

Lots of more information not in the NYT article, happy to share what I know. A start is this article https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/so-what-was-that-was-starships-launch-a-failure-or-a-success/

So what was that? Was Starship’s launch a failure or a success?

SpaceX's development process is messier, but it's also much faster.

Ars Technica
Show threadCubeThoughtsApr 22, 2023
@pallenberg @CodexArcanum @adamjcook
I'm just saying SpaceX wasn't freeballing here. A few points.
1 FAA did a multi-year inspection before their preliminary authorization last year, requiring many changes. They issued a specific approval for this launch after further checks. Air, land and sea was cleared for the test by FAA, Coast Guard etc. SpaceX has the gov approvals for this test campaign, it's not Musk experimenting unsupervised.
1/4
Show threadCubeThoughtsApr 22, 2023
@pallenberg @CodexArcanum @adamjcook
2 FAA:"no one was hurt and no public property was damaged." (as I understand, that van was inside the closed area under own risk) [1]
3 SpaceX did a static fire test in Feb, with 31 engines (same as the launch at start)[2]. The results were fed into this FAA approval.
4 There is a water deluge system [3]. Either they have to improve the launch pad, which was already planned, or they need to abort if lift-off isn't faster. Or both. 2/4
Show threadCubeThoughtsApr 22, 2023

@pallenberg @CodexArcanum @adamjcook
5 NASA's SLS also unexpectedly broke their launch pad a few months back.[1] But they are planning to launch once a year so they have time to rebuild. Also, NASA was happy with SpaceX test this week [4].
6 Launches of any rocket causes disturbances, like car alarms going off and windows rattling across a huge area [1]. Not a SpaceX exclusive.

3/4

Show threadCubeThoughts

@pallenberg @CodexArcanum @adamjcook
If Eric Berger at Ars isn't expert enough(!), at least read the WaPo article [1], they add context and statements from sources instead of giving the readers the red meat they want.

It's hard making a thread here! Hope it helps with some more context not included in the NYT article..
Links 4/4
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/21/spacex-starship-launch-debris-shrapnel/
[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/09/business/spacex-static-fire-starship-super-heavy-scn/index.html
[3] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OsbnYp0FYKU
[4] https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/so-what-was-that-was-starships-launch-a-failure-or-a-success/

SpaceX didn’t want to blow up its launchpad. It may have done just that.

Videos shared on social media showed debris slamming into a van several hundred feet away and striking the nearby beach and the shoreline as if they were a war zone.

The Washington Post
Apr 22, 2023 at 6:02amTusky
Show threadAdam CookApr 22, 2023

@CubeThoughts @pallenberg @CodexArcanum As I noted elsewhere in this thread, ESG Hound on Twitter predicted this disaster prior to launch - and was rebuffed by SpaceX-friendly press (like Eric Berger).

If SLS required a flame trench, then this vehicle obviously requires one as well.

SpaceX was indeed freewheeling it here and the FAA and FWS was complicit in this wrongdoing with a sloppy, goal-seeking environmental assessment.

https://blog.esghound.com/p/spacexs-texas-rocket-is-going-to

SpaceX's Texas Rocket is Going To Cause A Lot More Damage Than Anyone Thinks

On Friday, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a license for SpaceX to launch the first orbital test of Starship, the largest rocket in human history, as soon as this Monday, April 17th.

ESG Hound
Show threadCubeThoughtsApr 22, 2023
@adamjcook @pallenberg @CodexArcanum That was a good read, quite interesting. Strange of the author to claim no water deluge system when there's video of it being tested. However, we seem to agree that FAA and others provide oversight and SpaceX is working in compliance with their approvals. The author says FAA is bad, that may be true. But no human got hurt and no public property damaged. The security measures were sufficient. Changes will be made before new authorizations.