[vatueil]

The video is of cars parked next to the launch pad area, taken by remotely operated cameras. No one was endangered.

Also, as dramatic as it looks, it is hardly an environmental disaster. I daresay paving over the land with asphalt and concrete had a larger impact.

And there have already been several launches since then. Those went more smoothly and were not delayed. The reasons for the delay this time have nothing to do with this.

[FireBeyond]

How quick your argument went from "what are you talking about, the only damage was to the launch pad" to "yeah, so it flung chunks of concrete into the ocean miles away, hit cars parked at the facility and stuff, but so what?"

[vatueil]

I am not the previous commenter, and your description of the video is inaccurate.

The point that the launch did not cause major environmental issues remains true.

The fact that subsequent launches were approved demonstrates as such.

I would also point out that other rocket launches routinely dump their boosters containing solid or liquid fuel in the ocean.

[FireBeyond]

> I am not the previous commenter

My apologies - that was an oversight on my part.

> The fact that subsequent launches were approved demonstrates as such.

No it doesn't. SpaceX made several changes to the launchpad and supporting structures. Implying that there were zero changes between that launch and the subsequent is not accurate.

[vatueil]

SpaceX did make changes to prevent damage to the launch pad in the future, true. I did not mean to suggest otherwise.

My point is that the "mess" the original comment complained about was not a major environmental issue, as they implied, and that it did not prevent subsequent launches from being approved.