SpaceX Launch: The ten-year battle between bureaucrats regarding the environmental impact of the world’s most powerful rocket was a discussion that covered everything from endangered species of birds to historical monuments, to noise from construction and exhaust however, it was clear that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did not anticipate one thing dust.
SpaceX’s Starship rocket launched this week in Texas and the United States, more than 2 dozen rocket engines fired off at one time, launching the massive vehicle into space and hurling it towards the launch facility as well as the ground beneath the gantry with over 6,000 ton of force.
All that energy caused to the ultra-strong concrete that was at the bottom of the structure used for launch to break up and hurl chunks of rubble into the sea and slam the area journalists had set up cameras remotely to document the action, even striking through a car that was parked on the spot. The areas are kept free of any people due to safety concerns However, the blast was far from the normal launch events at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg Air Force Base.
The dust generated by the rocket’s engines was widely felt. A dense layer of sand fell upon the surrounding communities particularly the port city of Port Isabel. Although the dust isn’t believed to be contaminated by the presence of any chemicals, breathing in particles is harmful to health. In the past, when evaluating the risks to the air quality of the Starship launch in the United States, the FAA determined that it could “not be expected to result in significant impacts to air quality.”
“The FAA is providing oversight to ensure SpaceX complies with its FAA-approved mishap investigation plan and other regulatory requirements,” the spokesperson said to Quartz. “The FAA will review, and must approve, the final report before the mishap investigation can be closed.”
Why did SpaceX have a plan for the huge rocket’s exhaust?
There’s a clear reason for such a large amount of debris being thrown into the air (and that the pad for launch was affected): SpaceX didn’t build an apparatus to divert flames or pump water in to absorb sound and heat energy. The majority of launch sites for rockets are surrounded by large concrete trenches that divert energies away from the launch pad and vehicle, and hundreds of tons of water flood the region. Here’s a shot from the Space Shuttle sitting above its trench of flames in 2009:
It’s not entirely clear what the reasoning behind why SpaceX hasn’t utilized this type of structure that is a component of the launch system to launch the Falcon rockets. One theory put forth by Eric Roesch, an expert in environmental impact analysis The idea is that obtaining approval to construct it through the US Army Corps of Engineers will take months or years of time that SpaceX did not want to invest in. SpaceX’s application to get such approval to the US Army Corps of Engineers was rejected in 2022, after it refused to look at alternative locations for Starship including the launch facility at Cape Canaveral.
Elon Musk, SpaceX’s chief executive has stated on Twitter that SpaceX began building the “massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount” three months ago. But, Musk claimed that the steel plate was not ready at the time, and SpaceX’s engineers pushed to launch believing that the high-strength concrete beneath the rocket was strong enough to handle the pressure. The reasoning was likely based on a test in which the rocket was launched at a half-force of thrust.
When will Starship be back in action?
Beyond the issue of preventing environmental contamination Musk and co. have a solid reason to address this issue The possibility is that the debris generated by the rocket caused the demise of multiple Starship engines, and consequently, the failure of the vehicle to launch it to space. The final word on any connections between the destruction on the site and damage during flight is dependent for a thorough analysis of engineering.
Musk has stated his launch facility could be ready within a couple of months, however, that’s probably an overly optimistic figure. In addition to figuring out what went not right with the rocket, it will also require the company to fix the launch site’s infrastructure and gain approval from the FAA once more.
