Quote from: woods170 on 07/17/2024 12:43 pmQuote from: ZachF on 07/17/2024 12:18 pmQuote from: billh on 07/10/2024 08:32 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/10/2024 07:46 pmGood for SpaceX.I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but sometimes, I swear, the aversion and hostility towards "evil technology" is so disheartening. It's not just SpaceX, but certainly nowadays SpaceX is definitely in the cross-hairs. Yuck.What's disheartening is that SpaceX appears to be trying hard to be a good environmental neighbor. A rocket company is going to have an environmental impact no matter where you put it, but they seem to be completely willing to do what they can to protect local wildlife.Unfortunately, a large chunk of the modern environmental movement is of the degrowth mindset.That judgment is correct IMO. I'm a biologist by training and have been very active in the environmental movement, until shortly after the turn of the century. That's when I began to notice some deeply disturbing developments within the environmental movement in general, which, in my opinion, could not be easily reversed. So, I jumped ship, not wanting to be part of a movement that no longer actually is about saving the environment, but about pointing to humanity as the sole cause of everything that goes wrong on this planet.But I digress.I’m not sure it’s that much of a digression. It’s an interesting, first-person account from someone who has “jumped the fence”.Far more merit in your reply than the random “word salad” one directly below yours.
Quote from: ZachF on 07/17/2024 12:18 pmQuote from: billh on 07/10/2024 08:32 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/10/2024 07:46 pmGood for SpaceX.I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but sometimes, I swear, the aversion and hostility towards "evil technology" is so disheartening. It's not just SpaceX, but certainly nowadays SpaceX is definitely in the cross-hairs. Yuck.What's disheartening is that SpaceX appears to be trying hard to be a good environmental neighbor. A rocket company is going to have an environmental impact no matter where you put it, but they seem to be completely willing to do what they can to protect local wildlife.Unfortunately, a large chunk of the modern environmental movement is of the degrowth mindset.That judgment is correct IMO. I'm a biologist by training and have been very active in the environmental movement, until shortly after the turn of the century. That's when I began to notice some deeply disturbing developments within the environmental movement in general, which, in my opinion, could not be easily reversed. So, I jumped ship, not wanting to be part of a movement that no longer actually is about saving the environment, but about pointing to humanity as the sole cause of everything that goes wrong on this planet.But I digress.
Quote from: billh on 07/10/2024 08:32 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/10/2024 07:46 pmGood for SpaceX.I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but sometimes, I swear, the aversion and hostility towards "evil technology" is so disheartening. It's not just SpaceX, but certainly nowadays SpaceX is definitely in the cross-hairs. Yuck.What's disheartening is that SpaceX appears to be trying hard to be a good environmental neighbor. A rocket company is going to have an environmental impact no matter where you put it, but they seem to be completely willing to do what they can to protect local wildlife.Unfortunately, a large chunk of the modern environmental movement is of the degrowth mindset.
Quote from: meekGee on 07/10/2024 07:46 pmGood for SpaceX.I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but sometimes, I swear, the aversion and hostility towards "evil technology" is so disheartening. It's not just SpaceX, but certainly nowadays SpaceX is definitely in the cross-hairs. Yuck.What's disheartening is that SpaceX appears to be trying hard to be a good environmental neighbor. A rocket company is going to have an environmental impact no matter where you put it, but they seem to be completely willing to do what they can to protect local wildlife.
Good for SpaceX.I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but sometimes, I swear, the aversion and hostility towards "evil technology" is so disheartening. It's not just SpaceX, but certainly nowadays SpaceX is definitely in the cross-hairs. Yuck.
What I WOULD like to see is even cursory enforcement in the places that are supposed to be off limits to motor vehicles. When I was out there in March there were people driving cars and ATVs up and down the beaches...right past the signs. IMO the impact from daily motor and foot traffic in the (un)protected areas is far worse than the rocket launches.
Quote from: daveklingler on 07/20/2024 06:54 pmWhat I WOULD like to see is even cursory enforcement in the places that are supposed to be off limits to motor vehicles. When I was out there in March there were people driving cars and ATVs up and down the beaches...right past the signs. IMO the impact from daily motor and foot traffic in the (un)protected areas is far worse than the rocket launches.People don't /can't read notices. I used to volunteer on a nature reserve - we often found boats moored up to the signs saying "Nature Reserve - No Landing. No Mooring". They where every 50-100 yards along the beach. (Boats could land and moor elsewhere on the Island)
Looks like the judge has denied the plaintiff’s motion for a supplemental complaint (regarding the approval of flight 2 and associated launch pad modifications), and instead instructed that this should be brought as an amended complaint to supersede the original complaint. Deadline for filing is August 19.
MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs' 27 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. While Plaintiffs can add claims in this case based on events that took place after the date of the original complaint, the most efficient and cohesive way to do so would be for Plaintiffs to file a single comprehensive pleading (likely an amended complaint) that supersedes the complaint. Plaintiffs shall file any such pleading on or before August 19, 2024. So ORDERED by Judge Carl J. Nichols on July 30, 2024. (lccjn2)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reconsider how disadvantaged communities could be harmed by the development of Texas LNG, as well as Rio Grande LNG and its Rio Bravo pipeline."We appreciate the significant disruption vacatur may cause the projects," said Judge Brad Garcia, writing the opinion for the court. "But that does not outweigh the seriousness of the Commission’s procedural defects."
The D.C. Circuit's decision "vindicates our longstanding position that the cumulative impacts of functionally dependent facilities must be considered, which removes a polluter’s loophole," said Jared Hockema, city manager of the city of Port Isabel, in a statement. "This latest setback for corporate polluters is a clear sign that these LNG projects should be abandoned, and the damage that’s already been caused should be cleaned up."
Per the latest NSF video stating that up to 24,000 trucks per year may be needed at Starbase for LNG and water. Brownsville is considering a water pipeline to BC. The environmentalists should be demanding an LNG pipeline be added in parallel. But given past behavior, the odds of that are zero.
I know this isn't going to happen, but I really wish there could be a referendum (or at least an HONEST poll), on Starbase by the people of that area. I have a suspicion that the vast majority of the population there are in favor of SpaceX, and that the environmental activists are a tiny percentage of that. The media loves to make it sound like it's a lot more. Do the various "watchers" have any info on this?
Quote from: darkenfast on 08/09/2024 02:36 amI know this isn't going to happen, but I really wish there could be a referendum (or at least an HONEST poll), on Starbase by the people of that area. I have a suspicion that the vast majority of the population there are in favor of SpaceX, and that the environmental activists are a tiny percentage of that. The media loves to make it sound like it's a lot more. Do the various "watchers" have any info on this?Depending on how broadly you define "that area". In the immediate area the population is probably overwhelmingly SpaceX employees, so...(now, if you mean the entirety of Cameron County, who knows)
Quote from: Vultur on 08/09/2024 02:42 amQuote from: darkenfast on 08/09/2024 02:36 amI know this isn't going to happen, but I really wish there could be a referendum (or at least an HONEST poll), on Starbase by the people of that area. I have a suspicion that the vast majority of the population there are in favor of SpaceX, and that the environmental activists are a tiny percentage of that. The media loves to make it sound like it's a lot more. Do the various "watchers" have any info on this?Depending on how broadly you define "that area". In the immediate area the population is probably overwhelmingly SpaceX employees, so...(now, if you mean the entirety of Cameron County, who knows)The county judge seems to feel free to be a big supporter.
MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the 35 Joint Status Report. The Court stated in its July 30, 2024, Minute Order (among other things) that Plaintiffs shall file any such pleading—not Plaintiffs shall move to file any such pleading—on or before August 19, 2024. Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint on or before that date. Defendants and Defendant-Intervenor shall respond to such an amended complaint by September 13, 2024. And the parties shall file a joint status report by September 27, 2024, proposing next steps in this matter. SO ORDERED by Judge Carl J. Nichols on 08/16/2024. (lccjn2) (Entered: 08/16/2024)
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/16/2024 01:12 amQuote from: aporigine on 07/13/2024 11:10 pmImo the bigger problem is one that was recently publicized: stratospheric aluminum oxide particulates formed when satellites e. g. Starlink are deorbited. Catalytic long-duration ozone killers. Perhaps adiscussion with its own thread.That affects all launchers from all launch sites, not just Starship from Boca Chica, so its relevance here is tenuous. If you are worried about aluminum oxide, you should check out solid rocket boosters like those on SLS, Atlas V, Vulcan Centaur, and Ariane 6. SRBs generate many tons of alumimum oxide per launch. Starship does not use them.They place almost all of it below the ozone. One thing I remember about alumina is that different processes lead to a wide range of sorbent properties. Could be a big difference in the activities of solid rocket exhaust alumina and that from hypersonic reentry well above the layer. That said, I desist.
Quote from: aporigine on 07/13/2024 11:10 pmImo the bigger problem is one that was recently publicized: stratospheric aluminum oxide particulates formed when satellites e. g. Starlink are deorbited. Catalytic long-duration ozone killers. Perhaps adiscussion with its own thread.That affects all launchers from all launch sites, not just Starship from Boca Chica, so its relevance here is tenuous. If you are worried about aluminum oxide, you should check out solid rocket boosters like those on SLS, Atlas V, Vulcan Centaur, and Ariane 6. SRBs generate many tons of alumimum oxide per launch. Starship does not use them.
Imo the bigger problem is one that was recently publicized: stratospheric aluminum oxide particulates formed when satellites e. g. Starlink are deorbited. Catalytic long-duration ozone killers. Perhaps adiscussion with its own thread.
Quote from: aporigine on 07/16/2024 11:10 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/16/2024 01:12 amQuote from: aporigine on 07/13/2024 11:10 pmImo the bigger problem is one that was recently publicized: stratospheric aluminum oxide particulates formed when satellites e. g. Starlink are deorbited. Catalytic long-duration ozone killers. Perhaps adiscussion with its own thread.That affects all launchers from all launch sites, not just Starship from Boca Chica, so its relevance here is tenuous. If you are worried about aluminum oxide, you should check out solid rocket boosters like those on SLS, Atlas V, Vulcan Centaur, and Ariane 6. SRBs generate many tons of alumimum oxide per launch. Starship does not use them.They place almost all of it below the ozone. One thing I remember about alumina is that different processes lead to a wide range of sorbent properties. Could be a big difference in the activities of solid rocket exhaust alumina and that from hypersonic reentry well above the layer. That said, I desist.Probably you should learn some basic physics. Ozon layer is at 20-40km. Pretty much all booster burn up to 45km. (some do to 60km, but I dunno why). More of it pretty much everything they burn at the ground level will go to 20-25km layers (because of physics). One year Chinese launch history produces more al crap in precisely "right region" that SpaceX total launch weight would ever produce. The "funny thing" it is still irelevant because of scales.
Quote from: dondar on 08/19/2024 02:45 pmQuote from: aporigine on 07/16/2024 11:10 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/16/2024 01:12 amQuote from: aporigine on 07/13/2024 11:10 pmImo the bigger problem is one that was recently publicized: stratospheric aluminum oxide particulates formed when satellites e. g. Starlink are deorbited. Catalytic long-duration ozone killers. Perhaps adiscussion with its own thread.That affects all launchers from all launch sites, not just Starship from Boca Chica, so its relevance here is tenuous. If you are worried about aluminum oxide, you should check out solid rocket boosters like those on SLS, Atlas V, Vulcan Centaur, and Ariane 6. SRBs generate many tons of alumimum oxide per launch. Starship does not use them.They place almost all of it below the ozone. One thing I remember about alumina is that different processes lead to a wide range of sorbent properties. Could be a big difference in the activities of solid rocket exhaust alumina and that from hypersonic reentry well above the layer. That said, I desist.Probably you should learn some basic physics. Ozon layer is at 20-40km. Pretty much all booster burn up to 45km. (some do to 60km, but I dunno why). More of it pretty much everything they burn at the ground level will go to 20-25km layers (because of physics). One year Chinese launch history produces more al crap in precisely "right region" that SpaceX total launch weight would ever produce. The "funny thing" it is still irelevant because of scales.Since you offer an unwarranted aspersion on my scientific literacy, I will ask you one thing. This particulate alumina being produced well above the ozone layer: in which direction does it travel, on average?also, Can you produce numbers that demonstrate that one year’s Chinese aluminum load exceeds the thousands/annum Starlink deorbit since the constellation is populated?
