SpaceX accused of dumping polluted Starship wastewater in Texas for years
www.popsci.com
The bombshell allegations may violate the EPA's Clean Water Act.

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.

    • Atrichum@lemmy.world
      132·
      3 months ago

      SpaceX fans have known about this for a long time now, and they just don’t care. They’ve shouted down anyone who has pointed it out for well over a year now

      • Pennomi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        302·
        3 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
        214·
        3 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.worldEnglish
          5·
          3 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
        72·
        3 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
          43·
          3 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.caEnglish
          22·
          3 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@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            44·
            3 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@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          34·
          3 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.caEnglish
          36·
          3 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…

            • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
              24·
              3 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@lemmy.world
                32·
                3 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.caEnglish
                  22·
                  3 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@lemmy.world
                    43·
                    3 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?

          • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
            54·
            3 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.caEnglish
              25·
              3 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…

                • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
                  11·
                  3 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”.