Connect with us

Published

on

SpaceX’s Starship has been grounded by the U.S. government following claims that the rocket’s explosive first launch spread plumes of potentially hazardous debris over homes and the habitats of endangered animals.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) — the U.S. civil aviation regulator — has stopped SpaceX from conducting any further launches until it has concluded a “mishap investigation” into Starship’s April 20 test launch. The massive rocket’s dramatic flight began by punching a crater into the concrete beneath the launchpad and ended when the giant rocket exploded in mid-air around 4 minutes later.

Dust and debris from the test reportedly rained down on residents in Port Isabel, Texas — a town roughly 6 miles (10 kilometers) from the launchpad — and across Boca Chica’s beaches, which are nesting grounds for endangered animals, including birds and sea turtles. 

Related: Geomagnetic storm sends 40 SpaceX satellites plummeting to Earth

Dave Cortez (opens in new tab) , a chapter director for the Sierra Club environmental advocacy group, said that Port Isabel residents reported broken windows in their businesses and ash-like particles covering their homes and schools. 

SpaceX’s launchpad was also left with extensive damage that includes charred, twisted metal and shattered concrete. The force from the rocket’s engines blew a hole in the launchpad and created a crater beneath it. “Concrete shot out into the ocean,” Cortez told CNBC (opens in new tab) , creating shrapnel that “risked hitting the fuel storage tanks which are these silos adjacent to the launch pad.” 

Debris surrounding Starship’s launch pad at Boca Chica, Texas. (Image credit: Patrick Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

Unlike other launch sites for large rockets, SpaceX’s Boca Chica site lacks both a deluge system, which floods pads with shockwave-suppressing water or foam, and a flame trench to safely channel burning exhaust away.

“Aspiring to have no flame diverter in Boca, but this could turn out to be a mistake,” SpaceX founder Elon Musk wrote in an October 2020 tweet.

The FAA’s mishap investigation is standard practice when rockets go astray. The FAA’s investigation will need to conclude that Starship does not affect public safety before it can launch again. As debris spread far further than anticipated, the FAA’s “anomaly response plan” has also come into force, meaning SpaceX must complete extra “environmental mitigations” before reapplying for its launch license.

Musk wrote on Twitter that SpaceX began work on “a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount” three months prior to the launch, but it wasn’t ready in time.

“Looks like we can be ready to launch again in 1 to 2 months,” he added.RELATED STORIES— Ethereal whirlpool of light grows into a giant, perfect spiral above Alaska. What was it?

— NASA announces Artemis astronauts who will fly to the moon for the 1st time in 50 years

— How long will it take for humans to colonize another planet?

Standing at 394 feet (120 meters) tall and propelled by a record-breaking 16.5 million pounds (7.5 million kilograms) of thrust, SpaceX’s Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built. Able to carry 10 times the payload of SpaceX’s current Falcon 9 rockets, Starship was designed to transport crew members, spacecraft, satellites and cargo to locations in the solar system.

After blasting off from its launchpad at Boca Chica, Starship climbed to a maximum altitude of 24 miles (39 km) before problems with as many as eight of the rocket’s 33 Raptor 2 engines caused Starship to flip and roll, leading SpaceX to order the rocket to self-destruct.

Despite the rocket’s unexpectedly messy takeoff and fiery demise, SpaceX and Musk have hailed the test as a success that enabled engineers to gather essential data for the next launch. On April 16, four days before the test, Musk lowered expectations, warning in a Twitter discussion (opens in new tab) that if any of the rocket’s engines went wrong “it’s like having a box of grenades, really big grenades.”

“This is really kind of the sort of first step in a very long journey that will require many, many flights,” Musk said. “For those that have followed the history of Falcon 9, and Falcon 1 actually, and our attempts at reusability, I think it might have been close to 20 attempts before we actually recovered a stage. And then it took many more flights before we had reusability that was meaningful, where we didn’t have to rebuild the whole rocket.”

Continue Reading

Politics

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

Published

on

By

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

After nearly a year of legal proceedings, a South Korean court acquitted former Wemade CEO Jang Hyun-guk of market manipulation charges.

Continue Reading

Politics

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules?

Published

on

By

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules?

Are Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules quite as iron clad as she insists?

How tough is her armour really? And is there actually scope for some change, some loosening to avoid big tax hikes in the autumn?

We’ve had a bit of clarity early this morning – and that’s a question we discuss on the Politics at Sam and Anne’s podcast today.

Politics Live: Reeves to reform financial regulations

And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.

You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.

For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.

And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.

But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.

And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.

There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.

And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.

It’s outlined in paragraph 3.6 on page four of the Charter for Budget Responsibility.

This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.

In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.

Rachel Reeves during a visit to Cosy Ltd.
Pic: PA
Image:
A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA

Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.

But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.

This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.

But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?

The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.

But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?

Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?

And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?

I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.

And this morning, they issued one.

A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”

So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?

Read more:
Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn
Tough decisions ahead for chancellor

The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.

But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?

I’m still unsure that change has been ruled out.

Continue Reading

Politics

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

Published

on

By

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.

Continue Reading

Trending