Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It seems like it would be a neat, happening place to be. But how dangerous would it be to live and work there? Is there the potential for the rockets to blow up and destroy the city or anything like that?

Working at SpaceX that may just be a hazard of the job, but if they want the location to be a real city with a post office and school and cafes and shopping and all that, it probably wouldn't work. But I'm not too familiar with how likely or how big adjacent city affecting disasters could be.



My guess would be not that dangerous. People would not live next door to the launch site, they would live a 20 minute drive away.

People live near KSC and Vandenburg, there are no dangers there. It will be loud when there are launches, but those are relatively uncommon and pre-scheduled events.


Forget safety, but wouldn't adding more people around the launch site make the required permits even more difficult to get? You have to close the roads, the beach, issue "over-pressure event" notices, and so on.


This isn't unique to Starbase. See also: Chernobyl/Pripyat.

Many cities arose around a major industrial operation, including the city I live in, Ostrava. Ostrava used to be a micro-town of around 1000 people from the 13th century (foundation) into the early 19th century, but with discovery of black coal, it swelled to its max size of 330 000 (reached around 1990), the entire urban area is close to a million people.

True, black coal mines and steel foundries cannot kill the entire city at once, but the pollution kills people slowly anyway.


Coal mining certainly can a hell of a lot of non-workers all at once

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster


I think what they're going for here is "base town" not a literal city with anything resembling a downtown.

IDK about Texas law and process but I assume having an incorporated municipality takes a lot of stuff that would be permitted or planned or have resource allocation determined on the county or state level and makes it the purview of the municipality so SpaceX would gain the ability to manage things more unilaterally.


It makes sense if you expect to have a lot of employees based there, which I imagine they want.

But it also seems odd to plan a big population center near to the launch site given the loud sonic booms it will be generating. And as you say, a city implies way more than just SpaceX employees, you also need all the services and infrastructure that people expect in life.


I think the noise emissions of a successful launch already make it an unattractive and potentially hazardous (for your hearing) place to live, especially considering SpaceX' launch frequency.


"The US Government studied what regular sonic booms do to people during the supersonic jet craze in the 1960s and 70s! It drives them to murderous rage. While the 1964 OKC test had multiple events per day, they were limited to 2 psf."

https://bsky.app/profile/bsky.esghound.com/post/3lc43jtf5422...


Would it really be any worse than living near an airport? Launches are loud, sure, but so is an airplane flying overhead.


With a difference of 5 dB, one approximation for a Starship flyback boom at 20 km is a ∼50% increase in loudness over the Concorde boom (where 9 dB represents a loudness doubling;)

https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jel/article/4/11/113601/3320807/Sta...

tl;dr - it's very loud


Sonic booms are way worse than general aviation noise. A one off boom, sure, but when its every day that's got to drive you crazy.


Yes, there are safety concerns, especially given SpaceX's track record at that site. They've already been fined for violating the Clean Water Act. Their pad design blows up and sends chunks miles away and into nearby towns.

But, Musk is on a b̶r̶i̶b̶e̶r̶y̶ campaign donation spree right now, so I'm sure he'll get this rammed through.


The pad was fixed prior to the second test launch with the addition of a water deluge system.

The clean water act issue involved a dispute between Texas and the EPA about which kind of Texas permit SpaceX needed for a potable (drinkable) water deluge at the pad. Texas regulators told SpaceX what they needed to do for permitting, SpaceX did it, and then the EPA came back and made them file different paperwork and pay a fine. My understanding is that the EPA did not require any changes to the deluge system, just different paperwork.

SpaceX concluded that paying the fine was faster than fighting the EPA.

SpaceX's version of events:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1823080774012481862


IIRC the Clean Water Act violation was discharge of potable water from the deluge system, which, while technically a violation, is a little absurd given the exact same effect would occur when it rains.

The debris from flight 1 you’re referring to did not reach any towns, and they have since added the above mentioned deluge system to prevent pad damage.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: