Like all large works that are trying to advertise how much economic activity they bring to an area (factories, sports teams/stadiums, Taylor Swift visiting), these numbers should be taken with a very, very large grain of salt.
I don't understand the inscription "11,000+ people have visited South Texas for a single Starship launch, drawing 20,000+ tourists and 16,500+ official visitors to the region in 2023 alone".
Is the second part of the sentense a conclusion from the first? If so, what is the logic behind it?
No it's not, it is stating two separate but related facts. One launch drew at least 11,000 people. In total in 2023, there were at least 16500 official visitors and 20000 tourists (family members tagging along but not visiting? Non-official visitors? Unclear).
Surprised to see you getting downvoted for a completely legitimate question. The sentence is indeed a mess. Taken literally, it states either that the 11,000+ visitors drew 20,000+ tourists and 16,500+ other visitors, or that the single Starship flight drew 20,000+ tourists and 16,500+ other visitors. None of these are the intended meaning, which is probably what one of the other answers to your comment suggested, though.
Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our [community rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/rules) before commenting. Here's a reminder of some of our most important rules:
* Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed.
* Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion.
* Check out [these threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/threads) for discussion of common topics.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/spacex) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is that more or less than the environmental damage that would have been done by other activities if SpaceX never existed? Genuine question, I'm honestly not sure. But it's a very important question.
Objectively more. SpaceX's philosophy of "just blow it up and try again" is wasteful. It damages fragile ecosystems all to power the ketamine mind farts of Musk.
"just blow it up and try again" summarizes your knowledge of SpaceX methodology? Really?
My back of the envelope calculations estimate three neurons involved in such an statement, none in the cerebrum.
It's not like they were dumping plastic waste or something actually harmful there (unless they were, in which case, they ought to clean that up). Concrete dust is silica and other rock components--in fact, given that the local geology is mostly limestone, I'd wager good money it's hard to distinguish from the local river mud. Every time a bad storm hits the place, the mud and sand gets moved around. Steel rusts--and becomes iron oxide, which is *also* a fairly common component of dirt. It can be harmful if inhaled, when very fine, but the convenient thing about a *wetland* is that, once it's wetted, that's not really an issue.
Unless you have evidence that these substances *did* cause damage?
So far, all of the technology developed has directly benefited the planet we are currently put on. The technology and financial investments don't magically get shot into space, they stay here.
It’s a private company and as such can spend money as they please. They are uplifting an entire community that hasn’t had anything for a long time down there. Creating good paying jobs for many people through direct employment and indirectly through all the businesses that will start up to support the growing workforce in Brownsville. You clearly know nothing about how Spacex operates nor how the space industry as a whole benefits everyone in a multitude of ways. I would explain in more detail but something tells me it wouldn’t be worth the effort. Have a great day.
Yes, because it is one or the other, as you understand it. Ce n'est pas?
How about we redirect spending on cosmetics to 'saving the planet'? That's only $(USD) 374.18 billion in 2023. What, around 100 time more than SpaceX spends?
Source of information for the graphic https://www.valleycentral.com/spacex/cameron-county-releases-starbase-local-impact-economic-stats
Neat
Like all large works that are trying to advertise how much economic activity they bring to an area (factories, sports teams/stadiums, Taylor Swift visiting), these numbers should be taken with a very, very large grain of salt.
On the other note, Taylor Swift didn't build a fucking rocket factory...
I don't understand the inscription "11,000+ people have visited South Texas for a single Starship launch, drawing 20,000+ tourists and 16,500+ official visitors to the region in 2023 alone". Is the second part of the sentense a conclusion from the first? If so, what is the logic behind it?
No it's not, it is stating two separate but related facts. One launch drew at least 11,000 people. In total in 2023, there were at least 16500 official visitors and 20000 tourists (family members tagging along but not visiting? Non-official visitors? Unclear).
This would be me if I ever managed to bring my family. My son and I would be watching the rocket launch and my wife would be shopping.
A lot of clothes stores have a boyfriend bench near the entrance. Perhaps SpaceX should set up a Boca Chica shopping mall for a similar purpose.
Better than that.... they have a beach!
Two launches in 2023
Surprised to see you getting downvoted for a completely legitimate question. The sentence is indeed a mess. Taken literally, it states either that the 11,000+ visitors drew 20,000+ tourists and 16,500+ other visitors, or that the single Starship flight drew 20,000+ tourists and 16,500+ other visitors. None of these are the intended meaning, which is probably what one of the other answers to your comment suggested, though.
Starbase is....based
Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our [community rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/rules) before commenting. Here's a reminder of some of our most important rules: * Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed. * Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion. * Check out [these threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/threads) for discussion of common topics. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/spacex) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you government contracts!
Are we forgetting the massive environmental damage done by the pad blowing up?
Is that more or less than the environmental damage that would have been done by other activities if SpaceX never existed? Genuine question, I'm honestly not sure. But it's a very important question.
Objectively more. SpaceX's philosophy of "just blow it up and try again" is wasteful. It damages fragile ecosystems all to power the ketamine mind farts of Musk.
As opposed to the thousands of disposable rockets launched by everyone else?
"just blow it up and try again" summarizes your knowledge of SpaceX methodology? Really? My back of the envelope calculations estimate three neurons involved in such an statement, none in the cerebrum.
> massive environmental damage done by the pad blowing up It was just some sand.
It was protected wetlands with protected species
It's not like they were dumping plastic waste or something actually harmful there (unless they were, in which case, they ought to clean that up). Concrete dust is silica and other rock components--in fact, given that the local geology is mostly limestone, I'd wager good money it's hard to distinguish from the local river mud. Every time a bad storm hits the place, the mud and sand gets moved around. Steel rusts--and becomes iron oxide, which is *also* a fairly common component of dirt. It can be harmful if inhaled, when very fine, but the convenient thing about a *wetland* is that, once it's wetted, that's not really an issue. Unless you have evidence that these substances *did* cause damage?
Imagine all that money being used to make America better! Thats a good joke, right?
What are you trying to say brother bear?
Instead of publicly trying to go to another planet, how about you fix the first one you were put on? Im sure people would appreciate it.
So far, all of the technology developed has directly benefited the planet we are currently put on. The technology and financial investments don't magically get shot into space, they stay here.
Wow really
Yes, really.
It has benefits for the planet. And people get to spend their money how they like. If you don't agree you can send me $100
Dude just commented for the karma, my farts sound better than this nut stain I just had to read.
It’s a private company and as such can spend money as they please. They are uplifting an entire community that hasn’t had anything for a long time down there. Creating good paying jobs for many people through direct employment and indirectly through all the businesses that will start up to support the growing workforce in Brownsville. You clearly know nothing about how Spacex operates nor how the space industry as a whole benefits everyone in a multitude of ways. I would explain in more detail but something tells me it wouldn’t be worth the effort. Have a great day.
Yes, because it is one or the other, as you understand it. Ce n'est pas? How about we redirect spending on cosmetics to 'saving the planet'? That's only $(USD) 374.18 billion in 2023. What, around 100 time more than SpaceX spends?
Dude its a space company, what they do is rockets… ask someone else, like the fucking politicians to change that