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.
Why is there mercury in the deluge water? Where is it coming from? It’s not ‘regular water’ somehow?
That confused me as well. It seems possible that this entire story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823378186836889699
CNBC updated its story yesterday with additional factually inaccurate information.
While there may be a typo in one table of the initial TCEQ’s public version of the permit application, the rest of the application and the lab reports clearly states that levels of Mercury found in non-stormwater discharge associated with the water deluge system are well below state and federal water quality criteria (of no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity), and are, in most instances, non-detectable.
The initial application was updated within 30 days to correct the typo and TCEQ is updating the application to reflect the correction.
Worker’s rights transgressions? Yes. Bulldozing a frog pond? Yes. Dumping mercury? No, that makes no sense. I can’t see where mercury would be introduced in any meaningful quantities.
Well, if *YOU * don’t see any reason to worry we should probably just assume they aren’t polluting then.
Thanks for setting us straight.
Well, I hope some will question the validity of this particular claim after reading my comment. Many more will probably question it after reading the comments, from others, that have found the measurements to likely be recorded incorrectly.
If someone made an accusation of pollution with a substance I could see them using or producing, I would be more inclined to believe it.
Why would anyone question anything based on your comment?
You didn’t link to an article presenting information that supports you. You didn’t link to information showing why mercury in this type of use would be low.
You didn’t present any factual… Anything.
You didn’t even claim to be someone with training in this area that would give your opinion weight.
Your comment is the equivalent to saying you don’t believe elephants are real, but not even saying it is because you have never seen one, which would have still been a weak argument.
Opinions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It’s what they voted for.
Guess what, sending rocket in orbit is one of the most polluting business out there and most of it it’s done for business
Is it? As far as I can tell rocket launches don’t cause that much pollution compared to a coal powerplant, or the hundreds of daily airline flights.
Cargo ships are probably up there as some of the worst. They burn copious amounts of really dirty fuel.
Yup. They burn heavy bunker fuel - the sludge that is too bad to be used for anything else.
Considering the amount of shipping, it’s horrendous.
But - and there’s always another view - I don’t know how much energy you’d need to use to haul that much cargo by other means like rail and trucks. One container ship carries as much as a thousand trains could carry. Vessels are really, really large, which make them quite effective.
And trains can’t cross Oceans. Even tho that cargo ships need a shit load of fuel it isn’t that much per ton of cargo due to the efficiency and sheer mass they are carrying
Oh you are right coal is worst we can keep blowing up rockets and send them in orbit so that billionares can have their nice trip to space
If a rocket gets to orbit, it most certainly hasn’t blown up ;) Furthermore if it is reusable (which only SpaceX has) then it doesn’t even crash into the ocean.
Let’s be very clear on what rockets generally do. Last year, there were just over 200 launches worldwide (a world record, btw). ~10 of these sent professional astronauts to space stations. The rest deployed satellites that do all sorts of amazing things, including astronomy research, weather and earth observation, and communications. If 1 or 2 are a tourist flight, what’s the big deal?
what’s the big deal?
Here’s the big deal, are you paying attention?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_applications
Personally, I think it’s a great thing that the US arguably has the best military surveillance and communication satellites. Certainly I prefer money going there than into literal bullets. In any case, doesn’t this have nothing to do with space tourism?
Personally, I think it’s a great thing that the US arguably has the best military surveillance
Nobody should have it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disclosures
Yo gen alpha with mercury in their brains?
I would be exactly 0% shocked to learn this was true.
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823378186836889699
CNBC updated its story yesterday with additional factually inaccurate information.
While there may be a typo in one table of the initial TCEQ’s public version of the permit application, the rest of the application and the lab reports clearly states that levels of Mercury found in non-stormwater discharge associated with the water deluge system are well below state and federal water quality criteria (of no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity), and are, in most instances, non-detectable.
The initial application was updated within 30 days to correct the typo and TCEQ is updating the application to reflect the correction.
Yeah i don’t believe this at all
Here is the actual application. Typo is on page 79, the actual figure is in the appendix on page 177.
I’d be shocked if Abbott didn’t try to give them a Texas Medal of Freedom award for doing this.
And for removing water breaks for workers when it’s really hot out
Or… I could see him mandating more water breaks… provided it comes from the test area. People in the biz refer to that as remediation.
Ah yes, I forgot about that old fallback
Would you be more shocked to learn that it isn’t true? It is possible that this entire story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted (although you’re username would certainly give the impression you’re just defending musk).
The information you linked to does indeed cast doubt on the validity of the report. Corrected information will be needed before concrete conclusions can be drawn.
I hate Musk as much as the next person, and definitely wouldn’t be surprised if he was dumping chemicals in the water. But that doesn’t mean we should let confirmation bias cloud our ability to think critically.
It could be that they mod all the musk communities and are an elon stan but more than likely it’s because they’ve plastered the same comment over 14 times with now llama taking over who is also an active user in the same communities making it seem like brigading. If the case was stated in a single comment it might be upvoted more than others, at this point they’re just spamming anyone who comments regardless of the context.
I’m all for putting your truth out there, but it just seems like they’re trying to drown out everyone with a “nuh uh, believe me” over letting the facts play out. It’s not like this thread is gonna have any real impact on the company or perception at this point no matter what anyone says.
My dear friend, the report is factually false. I can’t speak for others, but I personally find it to only be responsible to help dispel false news. And for what it’s worth, Elon is an asshole in my view, but that is irrelevant in this context, wouldn’t you agree?
As for the facts, you may check them yourself. Here is the actual application. Typo is on page 79, the actual figure is in the appendix on page 177.
Maybe you’re wondering why I am keen on sharing all this. I am a big fan of spaceflight, it’s just something I like and find inspiring. False reports that lean heavily on “Elon Musk bad” make the spacefaring future I’m rooting for more difficult to achieve. Surely it’s ok to correct misinformation?
My dearest lover, I appreciate you reaching out to me in this way. I missed all the other links you’ve put up and so this copy/paste directly made for me has made my heart swell. I regret to inform you that you’re behind in your news updates and the reporting is only getting worse for you at this time. I apologize for the inconvenience and will never give up being your shelter and rock in the stormy sea of life.
Instant upvote. Well played, my friend, well played.
I went through the report, and the raw data at the end shows the two samples coming back at “0.139” and “ND”
And with Chevron ruling they wont face any repercussions!
Isnt crony capitalism great!?!?!?!
If you’re a star they let you do it.
I wish some good old boys would force musk and his lackeys to drink and swim in that water, it’s the right thing to do and rase them much higher in my eyes
SpaceX has replied to the CNBC report
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823080774012481862
For those not wanting to click an X link
CNBC’s story on Starship’s launch operations in South Texas is factually inaccurate.
Starship’s water-cooled flame deflector system is critical equipment for SpaceX’s launch operations. It ensures flight safety and protects the launch site and surrounding area.
Also known as the deluge system, it applies clean, potable (drinking) water to the engine exhaust during static fire tests and launches to absorb the heat and vibration from the rocket engines firing. Similar equipment has long been used at launch sites across the United States – such as Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Stations in Florida, and Vandenberg Space Force Base in California – and across the globe.
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.
When the EPA issued their Administrative Order in March 2024, it was done without an understanding of basic facts of the deluge system’s operation or acknowledgement that we were operating under the Texas Multi-Sector General Permit.
After we explained our operation to the EPA, they revised their position and allowed us to continue operating, but required us to obtain an Individual Permit from TCEQ, which will also allow us to expand deluge operations to the second pad. We’ve been diligently working on the permit with TCEQ, which was submitted on July 1st, 2024. TCEQ is expected to issue the draft Individual Permit and Agreed Compliance Order this week.
Throughout our ongoing coordination with both TCEQ and the EPA, we have explicitly asked if operation of the deluge system needed to stop and we were informed that operations could continue.
TCEQ and the EPA have allowed continued operations because the deluge system has always complied with common conditions set by an Individual Permit, and causes no harm to the environment. Specifically:
- 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.
- The launch pad area is power-washed prior to activating the deluge system, with the power-washed water collected and hauled off.
- The vast majority of the water used in each operation is vaporized by the rocket’s engines.
- 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.
- Retention ponds capture excess water and are specially lined to prevent any mixing with local groundwater. Any water captured in these ponds, including water from rainfall events, is pumped out and hauled off.
- Finally, some water does leave the area of the pad, mostly from water released prior to ignition and after engine shutdown or launch. To give you an idea of how much: a single use of the deluge system results in potable water equivalent to a rainfall of 0.004 inches across the area outside the pad which currently averages around 27 inches of rain per year.
With Starship, we’re revolutionizing humanity’s ability to access space with a fully reusable rocket that plays an integral role in multiple national priorities, including returning humans to the surface of the Moon. SpaceX and its thousands of employees work tirelessly to ensure the United States remains the world’s leader in space, and we remain committed to working with our local and federal partners to be good stewards of the environment.
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.
I think this discrepancy may have been caused by a typo in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.
Wow.
I wonder what CNBC is gonna say about that.
That’s pretty embarrassing if that’s what happened partially triggering this article.
Also that poor person who wrote the report up is probably going to get an earful too now.
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823378186836889699
CNBC updated its story yesterday with additional factually inaccurate information.
While there may be a typo in one table of the initial TCEQ’s public version of the permit application, the rest of the application and the lab reports clearly states that levels of Mercury found in non-stormwater discharge associated with the water deluge system are well below state and federal water quality criteria (of no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity), and are, in most instances, non-detectable.
The initial application was updated within 30 days to correct the typo and TCEQ is updating the application to reflect the correction.
Texas allows pollutors to self-report in “good faith”. Why would we give any credence at all to a self-report (or hired self-report)?
If the EPA or TCEQ didn’t measure it themselves during an unscheduled visit, then all measurements should be disregarded.
If the TCEQ measured it, the EPA needs to double check their work. The typos in the report are a cause for concern, and the Texas agency needs to be put under scrutiny.
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823378186836889699
CNBC updated its story yesterday with additional factually inaccurate information.
While there may be a typo in one table of the initial TCEQ’s public version of the permit application, the rest of the application and the lab reports clearly states that levels of Mercury found in non-stormwater discharge associated with the water deluge system are well below state and federal water quality criteria (of no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity), and are, in most instances, non-detectable.
The initial application was updated within 30 days to correct the typo and TCEQ is updating the application to reflect the correction.
Interesting, glaring red flag and no one caught it, or cared, until someone made a stink about it. Credit where credit’s due, that’s what journalism does. This tells me there were zero eyes that cared on this entire permit process.
Can you stop spamming the fucking thread.
So you still think there’s a mercury problem?
Water is hauled off… where? Beyond the environment?
Probably to a proper treatment facility like all other potentially bad water goes.
It’s OK. There’s a creek down the road that doesn’t have any fish left. It goes right out to the gulf, so it’s all good.
Mars.
we have explicitly asked if operation of the deluge system needed to stop
If that question is being asked then maybe it should be stopped.
What a weird take to make.
They are constantly in talks with these people. They probably ask this exact question every time they’ve used it and sent them more data about it.
Should you stop eating? I think you better since the question is being asked!
My point is that Space X obviously think this is a concern. If they were totally confident their actions are sufficient they wouldn’t keep asking.
Any and all claims being made by SpaceX should be verified by an objective third party. We should never simply take a company at their word, but that is especially true of a company that has Elon Musk, a man known to disseminate falsehoods as its Chair, CEO, and CTO.
Musk != SpaceX
Related, yes, but not equivalent.
The cornerstone of all annual business ethics training so many drones (like me) have to endure every year: If you’re known for being dishonest, people will stop believing you. According to the training, they’ll also stop doing business with you, so maybe it’s a bit out of date.
According to the training, they’ll also stop doing business with you, so maybe it’s a bit out of date.
It is baffling. I, for one, would never buy any product or service from a company associated with Musk, but many other people are not so discerning.
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823378186836889699
CNBC updated its story yesterday with additional factually inaccurate information.
While there may be a typo in one table of the initial TCEQ’s public version of the permit application, the rest of the application and the lab reports clearly states that levels of Mercury found in non-stormwater discharge associated with the water deluge system are well below state and federal water quality criteria (of no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity), and are, in most instances, non-detectable.
The initial application was updated within 30 days to correct the typo and TCEQ is updating the application to reflect the correction.
Y’all actually need to read the article before commenting:
One of the major initial concerns—the wastewater’s mercury content—stems from what experts believe may be egregious typos within SpaceX’s records. Lab reports indicate polluted waters contained 0.113 μg/L of mercury, while subsequent summaries appear to misplace the decimal point to show 113 μg/L. If the former measurement is accurate, then Starship’s wastewater contains roughly 1/17th the legal mercury limit.
SpaceX has done some shady shit regarding their environmental practices, but this claim about mercury just ain’t it. Some of the comments further down go into more detail.
That says if the former figure is accurate… But if it’s the latter? Then it’s 100 times more than 1/17th which would mean it’s waaay more than the legal limit… So it depends in which is the typo.
I’m going to assume a lab report is more accurate than its summary.
What would they even be using mercury for?
Slippery consistency helps the highest bidder to slide up Elon’s bumhole more easily and efficiently. What you really want in this situation is a low energy threshold for financial turnover - in this case the point at which dollar bills are more than 50% up musks arse. Mercury gets that done, and Elon likes the taste, but unfortunately on this occasion it got into the water supply which is sad to see.
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823378186836889699
CNBC updated its story yesterday with additional factually inaccurate information.
While there may be a typo in one table of the initial TCEQ’s public version of the permit application, the rest of the application and the lab reports clearly states that levels of Mercury found in non-stormwater discharge associated with the water deluge system are well below state and federal water quality criteria (of no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity), and are, in most instances, non-detectable.
The initial application was updated within 30 days to correct the typo and TCEQ is updating the application to reflect the correction.
Pretty annoying the article doesn’t even explain.
It is possible that this entire story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.
This confused me as well. Upon closer inspection, it seems possible that this entire story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.
Dumping into the water. It is an overall expense, and not related to the business interests. They just needed some evil villain stuff going on because Elon really wants to meet Captain Planet.
If you make earth unlivable you can sell 8 billion tickets to Mars.
Where did Captain Planet go when he wasn’t summoned?
Sawcon.
Elon probably picked up old timey hat making during one of his ketamine binges or something.
That would mean that Elon has any amount of skill.
I very much doubt it.
Oh it just means he acquired a servant that has 30+ years experience in old timey hat making. But he’s rich, so we speak as if it’s him that’s doing it.
Elon’s daily dose. It takes a lot to get on his level.
Just kidding, but it seems like something to do with the fuel/exhaust.
I’ve read multiple articles and the most I’ve gotten is that their first launch didn’t have the cleaner fuel that future launches did. I am not sure how that would cause repeated incidents… perhaps it’s from metal parts in the rockets? 🤔 I could have missed something as I was reading but hopefully someone else will know the answer.
If that kind of shit gets released on the ground, what gets released into the upper atmosphere?
CO2 and water. The rocket fuel is not the source of the mercury.
The pumps need to be running full bore before ignition and keep running after cut off. Watch a video of shut off and tell me where they’re keeping all that CO^2 and water on the rocket.
What?
At shut off and start up the rocket pumps methane and oxygen into the atmosphere before ignition. The Falcon 9 pumps kerosene and oxygen. Watch the live streams and look at the engines at meco.
Cleaner fuel? It’s oxygen and methane. Carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, no mercury. Still I can’t think of a source.
The article I read said they didn’t use that until after the first launch. I did not look into it further.
I couldn’t think of a source either. Upon closer inspection, it seems possible that this entire story is based on two typos in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report.
Texas government probably requires you poison people to operate in the State.
Naturally. If people forget to turn off the poison sockets before bed, that’s their own problem!
Can we revoke his government contracts now?
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823378186836889699
CNBC updated its story yesterday with additional factually inaccurate information.
While there may be a typo in one table of the initial TCEQ’s public version of the permit application, the rest of the application and the lab reports clearly states that levels of Mercury found in non-stormwater discharge associated with the water deluge system are well below state and federal water quality criteria (of no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity), and are, in most instances, non-detectable.
The initial application was updated within 30 days to correct the typo and TCEQ is updating the application to reflect the correction.
I think we would’ve noticed if they had crashed an entire planet into Texas, right?
Drop the hammer on them.
CNBC - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for CNBC:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourcePopular Science - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Popular Science:
MBFC: Pro-Science - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.popsci.com/category/spacex/
https://www.popsci.com/science/starship-fourth-launch/
https://www.popsci.com/science/spacex-mercury-water-pollution/
https://www.popsci.com/technology/spacex-starship-super-heavy-booster-explosion/
https://www.popsci.com/technology/spacex-starship-damage/
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/12/spacex-repeatedly-polluted-waters-in-texas-tceq-epa-found.html
