News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Edit: and it looks like this entire story may have been based on a typo.
I mean, it depends how egregious / serious this violation is and how crucial it is to the rest of their overall successes.
Elon sucks, but for the same amount of money, NASA can either launch 150 tons of science missions 1 per year on SLS, or they can launch 170 tons of science missions every 2 weeks on Starship.
Quite frankly I don't understand why they've gotten the level of hate they've gotten (and why some people seem so intent on finding ways to hate them), other than their association with their dumbass ceo.
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.
People who blame the thousands of hard working engineers at SpaceX for Elon's follies are committing the exact same logical fallacies as the people who hero worship him and praise him for what is the hard work of all those engineers.
It's very easy to say in one sentence that Elon sucks and what SpaceX is doing is pretty wild and revolutionary, yet people like the OP I'm responding to seem bothered by even that.
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.
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.
They literally are.
That's what SLS is, a rocket built by NASA using their traditional contractors and it costs orders of magnitude more to do the literal exact same thing.
Again, I get that Musk sucks, but hating on the hardwork of thousands of engineers and personnel because of what one of the employees does in their free time is just as biased as everyone who irrationally praises Musk for what is the hardwork of thousands.
The folly of hero worship cuts both ways.
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.
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
*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
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.
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.
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.
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.
This story may have been one of the latter.
Lol at the blind downvotes for pointing out that people are blindly hating SpaceX, while linking to proof that the article is wrong.
It is possible that this entire story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.
Maybe the latter is like, bad for the planet?
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/state/2024/06/28/spacex-is-destroying-earths-ozone-layer-elon-musk-new-study/74171065007/
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....
What exactly do you think SpaceX is regularly launching into space? Because it isn't Starship.
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.
Your words? Because, again, it's not Starship they're launching every two weeks.
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.
And meanwhile, SpaceX will destroy the ozone layer with endless Starlink launches, so maybe let's not praise them, like I initially said?
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?
I don't. But even if I did, working for a company is not the same as being the company. I don't blame an Exxon oil rig worker for global warming.
Not to the extent SpaceX will since it's destroying the ozone layer. Not sure why you seem to think that's trivial.
You have literally said that nothing anyone does at SpaceX is worthy of praise and complained that people praise SpaceX's genuine accomplishments.
But they're not, they're slightly slowing it's rate of recovery. This is not a problem on the scale of CFCs that actually destroyed the ozone layer, both in terms of damage being done and potential scale it can grow to (4000 satellites vs millions and millions of refrigerators and freezers), and it's one that we literally just discovered now and have literally only started trying to address now.
Doing new things will have unexpected results and won't be perfect the first try. News at 11. You wanna demonize the engineers who try and build new things for not having them 100% perfect the first time, then you're free to be a Mennonite and separate yourself from all of t chbogy and modern society's benefits too.
Literally? Please quote me.
Please do show a study that rivals the University of Southern California which claims the exact opposite.
Scroll up.
So I didn't literally say what you claimed I literally said, or even close.
If I had said, "maybe people will finally stop praising Starbucks," would you tell me that I was literally saying that baristas are bad at their jobs?
K, so when people praise SpaceX's engineers for designing unprecedented machines that do things that no one has ever seen before, that doesn't bother you?
You were referring specifically to all those times that people are praising SpaceX's environmental regulation compliance?
When people praise SpaceX, the company, it bothers me.
When people praise an engineer at SpaceX that does something cool, I am happy for the engineer.
Again- saying I hate Starbucks doesn't mean I hate the baristas who work there. Saying I hate Exxon doesn't mean I hate an oil rig worker who's just trying to make money to feed their family.
And sticking just with Musk-owned companies, saying I hate Tesla doesn't mean I hate some random Tesla employee I've never heard of.
I'm really not sure why I have to explain this to you.
You don't have to explain either of those things to me, you can just answer the question I asked:
i.e. when people praise SpaceX's rockets and launches, does that bother you? Is that praising the company or praising the engineer in your mind?
At the end of the day what the company does is an output of the workers. When people praise what SpaceX does they are praising the workers, unless you view the company as just the CEO, in which case you're falling into the folly of hero worship.
This is some real "corporations are people" bullshit.
No, that is referring to the idea of a corporation having legal rights the way that a person does. That is not what we're talking about. We're talking about the output of a corporation. Is the output of a corporation the result of the CEO or of a bunch of workers?
See, the fun thing here is that I've answered the question you keep rephrasing multiple times the same way. You just don't like my answer because it goes against your whole claim that this has something to do with Elon Musk.
And you are doing everything you can to defend a company which is destroying the ozone layer.
You literally have not answered the question.
When people praise what SpaceX does, does that bother you?
Simple question, answer it, not questions that you insert.
I, once again, have no idea why this has to be spelled out for you, but of course it bothers me when people praise a corporation that is destroying the ozone layer.
Similarly, it would bother me if someone praised Shell Oil or Nestle.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that SpaceX is destroying the ozone layer and that is a bad thing?
OK so when people praise SpaceX for destroying the ozone layer, which is totally a real thing that people praise them for, that bothers you.
But you're ok with it when people praise SpaceX for creating reusable rockets that are more environmentally friendly than single use rockets?
Or no, people should shit on them for creating reusable rockets because something something musk makes you angry?
End of the day you think that because SpaceX is a Musk owned company, praise for what SpaceX does is praise for Musk, whereas people who don't engage in hero worship view it as praise for the hardworking engineers who actually did those things.
And stop bringing up the ozone issue, we've been over this. Yes, it's an issue that was literally just discovered and reported on, usually once you discover an issue you give people time to address it. That's what happens when people try to do new things that have never been done before. If they ignore the issue and keep destroying the ozone layer then they will be the world destroying villains that you want them so badly to be.
Got it. And when Exxon ends up heating the world beyond 2 degrees C, then we can criticize them. Until then, criticizing Exxon means criticizing every secretary in their branch office in Des Moines.
I've never once said you can't criticize them. This started because you said people can't praise them.
And Exxon isn't the bad guy for producing a product people want, they're the bad guy for knowing the dangers of that product and not only ignoring them for decades, but also gas lighting the public about it.
That is a lie.
This is what I said:
Why you think you can get away with lying to me about what I said is beyond me.
Precisely, as in, you are bothered by the fact that people currently praise SpaceX, and are hoping that this revelation about mercury levels (which seems to be based on a typo), would make them stop.
You clearly are unwilling or incapable of acknowledging that you're committing the folly of hero worship when you're bothered by people praising SpaceX's accomplishment because of their CEO.
I'm not going to block you in case you eventually come to your senses and post something worthwhile, but I am done with this conversation.
This is what you said:
I did not say people can't praise them. People can praise anyone they want. I am unable to tell anyone else what to do apart from my child.
You lied. You're done with this conversation because you know you lied and you refuse to admit it.
I said I was done, but I'll just leave this here since you're apparently unfamiliar with the concept:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paraphrase
It wasn't a paraphrase, it was a lie. I never said anything about what anyone can't do. In fact, I asked a question about whether or not people will stop doing it.
It's such an obvious lie that I'm not sure why you're even trying to attempt this 'paraphrase' nonsense.
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?
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....
They are literally monitoring it and telling us. You just don't like what you're being told.
No they're not. You're sitting here asking open ended questions like "do you think that will be good for the upper atmosphere".
It was a rhetorical question.
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.
The article I showed you about SpaceX destroying the ozone layer was not talking about methane:
I guess you didn't read it.
But yes, NASA does monitor methane emissions.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/methane-super-emitters-mapped-by-nasas-new-earth-space-mission/
Lol I know. Then you brought up their methane missions.
Your 'bashing everything remotely associated with a villain' is just as flawed as people's hero worship. You see company's as their CEO, I see them as a large collection of workers.
Good thing that's not what I'm doing then.