This looks like a bunch of college kids building small little rockets. I'm probably taking a much bigger risk walking on the street, where I live in India.
It's a little risky. But do the stuff far enough away from people and they'll be fine.
Everything in life involves risks. And there are cultural differences in attitude to risk. But some of these risks are quite unnecessary.
Also, I would consider making your own fuel (without sufficient expertise), as more than 'a little risky'. Especially if they move on to bigger rockets.
Twice now Starship has exploded over the Gulf of Mexico and caused massive and dangerous disruptions to commercial passenger air travel. Flights were delayed and some diverted because of fuel limitations.
I get the impression that SpaceX's attitude is that it is cheaper to learn by blowing stuff up, than it is to meticulously plan everything (as NASA is famous for). However, SpaceX don't have to pay for the externalities (such as disrupted air travel). I don't see SpaceX attitude changing now that Musk seems to be running[1] a sizeable chunk of the US government.
> Starship has exploded over the Gulf of Mexico and caused massive and dangerous disruptions to commercial passenger air travel
Disruptive, yes. Dangerous, no. (They’re disruptive because the planes avoid the debris field. Launches are also scheduled such that no plane should be pinned down by debris.)
I’d also note that, apart from two deaths in 2014, SpaceX’s track record with human lives is pristine.
Let huge rockets blow up over active airspace?
This looks like a bunch of college kids building small little rockets. I'm probably taking a much bigger risk walking on the street, where I live in India.
It's a little risky. But do the stuff far enough away from people and they'll be fine.