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.

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/permitting/wastewater/title-iv/tpdes/wq0005462000-spaceexplorationtechnologiescorp-starbaselaunchpadsite-cameron-tpdes-adminpackage.pdf

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?

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.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/thursdays-starship-flight-provided-a-glimpse-into-a-future-of-abundant-access-to-space/

SpaceX can likely build and launch a fully expendable version of Starship for about $100 million. Most of that money is in the booster, with its 33 engines. So once Super Heavy becomes reusable, you can probably cut manufacturing costs down to about $30 million per launch.

This means that, within a year or so, SpaceX will have a rocket that costs about $30 million and lifts 100 to 150 metric tons to low-Earth orbit.

Bluntly, this is absurd.

For fun, we could compare that to some existing rockets. NASA's Space Launch System, for example, can lift up to 95 tons to low-Earth orbit. That's nearly as much as Starship. But it costs $2.2 billion per launch, plus additional ground systems fees. So it's almost a factor of 100 times more expensive for less throw weight. Also, the SLS rocket can fly once per year at most.

It's that simple!

A lot wrong here, I'm sorry to say, and I'm really not a fan of Musk. He is absolutely not selling Starlink to be used by Russia. That would be shut down real quick. (They may be using black-market terminals, but that's a different question.) And this new constellation will, as I understand it, be owned and operated by the US govt. Think like every single spy satellite ever: govt finds a contractor and asks them to do a thing.

Dang that was brutal to watch

🇺🇦🇺🇦 Героям слава!

I'm switching to back to Linux for the first time in 8 years. Grew up on Mandrivia for no reason other than that's what my dad liked, got a MacBook for school, and now that my OS isn't getting updates I want something fresh and free! Thinking of getting my toes wet with Linux Mint :)

You're right, that's my bad. I just meant to say the debris hasn't gone into orbit.

It blew up about 3000 km/hr short of orbit, so thankfully all of it has burned up in Earth's atmosphere already :)

It blew up about 3000 km/hr short of orbit, so thankfully all of it has burned up in Earth's atmosphere already :)

It blew up about 3000 km/hr short of orbit, so thankfully all of it has burned up in Earth's atmosphere already :)