Hacker News Reader

Comment by cratermoon | Hacker News Reader

Seems like the author was closer to the truth that HN gave him credit for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thA8jlgcJ-8

I dont think it was close to the truth at all.

They predict shattered glass,damaged foundations of beachside homes, and people scarred for life by the launch.

This was hyperbolic fearmongering. The actual launch was very close to baseline expectations. The lack of launch pad flame channels was common knowlegle, and no great insight.

This entire blog is dedicated to environmental complants about SpaceX operations. If there had been flame channels, the author would instead be writing about how they are pointed at sensitive environmental habitat.

Would strongly disagree. Reading the article it doesn't sound like fear-mongering at all.

In fact their concerns about FAA cutting corners in allowing SpaceX to build such a facility seem quite legitimate. Especially if they are passionate about protecting sensitive environment habitat which is a voice that we need more of in this world.

Is there evidence for widespread property damage in neighborring communities and are the individuals scarred for life, as the author predicted?

I think we need fewer such passionate voices who place such a high value on a handful of birds and am glad they are largely ignored.

So this needs to be stressed: the only reason the area around Starbase is protected habitat is because SpaceX built Starbase there. Because space launches fall under FAA and thus Federal regulation, the area around them becomes Federal land and subject to Federal environmental review and protection. This is the same reason Cape Canaveral is surrounded by protected wetlands - it's because the Cape Canaveral launch complex is there.

But that's predicated on the facility existing. If SpaceX hadn't bought that land - and they did buy it - it was for sale - then those wetlands would not be protected habitat at all.

I wasn't aware of that. Can you recommend further reading?

> pecially if they are passionate about protecting sensitive environment habitat which is a voice that we need more of in this world.

Environmentalism is one of /the/ largest talking points in current discourse.

Are you still of the opinion that the article was not close to the truth at all? Windows were shattered, the highway next to the facility was damaged and is still closed, Port Isabel was showered with dust and debris, and more.

Try this exercise:

Go through that article to find every specific prediction you can (e.g. broken glass & damaged foundations in the town 8.5km away). Then compare these to what happened.

When I tried it, I found that they were more incorrect than they were correct and the biggest harms predicted were the things they were the most wrong about.

the wide angle makes it look a lot further away from the rocket than they really were - The camera is about 440m away from the rocket.

The damage shown in the video appears to be entirely caused by debris while the article was suggesting possible property damage ("shattered glass and damaged foundations ... from a miscalculated sonic blast") to towns 8500m away - 20 times further

Wow! You can see the chunk nail the corner of the NASASpaceflight stream van (on the left of the frame) at 0:15.

Unlucky hit! But I guess lucky it missed the camera gear.

The team was chuckling on the stream about how they opened the vehicle windows for airflow to the electronics gear inside... but SpaceX helped them open it even more.

To come back and admit that I was wrong:

"In Port Isabel, a city about six miles northwest where at least one window shattered, residents were alarmed. " from [0] posted to HN [1]

I stand corrected - the warning article was pretty accurate

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/us/spacex-rocket-dust-tex...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35651757

Reply on news.ycombinator.com