4 ms·
The EPA doesn't have a dog in this fight - the feds don't have much of a role at all, unless it is on federal lands of a particular class that would trigger spe
by Qworg 5y ago
The EPA doesn't have a dog in this fight - the feds don't have much of a role at all, unless it is on federal lands of a particular class that would trigger special protections (ie National Park).
Piping gas across state lines can involve the feds, or if they impign on a wetland or waterway. There's no interstate commerce to trigger any substantial federal involvement that I can see.
Texas was an inspired choice - California would have been a knife fight regulatorily.
- gpm 5y ago> Texas was an inspired choice - California would have been a knife fight regulatorily. California is also just on the wrong coast. You almost always want to launch eastward so you get the free rotational velocity from the earth to help you reach orbit, for the same reason you want to be as close to the equator as possible, and you can't (regulatory/safety wise) have a flight path over land. From within mainland US the only reasonable options are Texas and Florida. The exceptions to this are polar orbits (for which the rotation of earth just doesn't help) and the rare military spy satellite that wants a retrograde orbit for ... reasons. The US/SpaceX does launch out of california for those orbits, but it's a small fraction of launches.
- bserge 5y agoNot being able to fly over land seems ridiculous. Planes fly over land, right? Sounds like the same shit as nuclear power plant regulations. As a civilization or even a species, we'll "safety" our way into extinction.
- geenew 5y agoRockets also drop parts as they fly - see what's happened in China with their inland launches. https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/01/04/photos-long-march-rocket-stage-falls-in-rural-china/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/01/04/photos-long-march-rock...
- bserge 5y agoHere's hoping they get ahead of everyone else technology wise.
- lvs 5y agoThis is not entirely true. The EPA has federal authorities under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Safe Water Drinking Act to regulate wastes derived from extraction activity into air and water supplies. The exemptions and authorities are complex, but it's incorrect to say there's no federal regulation over this activity in the state of Texas.
- ESGHound 5y agoIt's not true at all. Federal regulations dictate most environmental standards and in top of that TCEQ is a very competent and at times tough regulator. EPA definitely has a dog in the fight, especially considering that a 250 megawatt power plant would be a literal "major stationary source" under the clean air act
- Qworg 5y agoI was speaking directly to the well complex, not any future power plant. The EPA is definitely involved in that.
- gpm 5y agoI don't know anything about this sort of regulation, but it might be worth noting that the PEA does indicate that SpaceX will be seeking a permit from TCEQ (on page 42 of the PEA) > SpaceX would apply for authorization under the Oil and Gas Standard Permit with the TCEQ and adhere to any permit conditions https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship/media/Draft_PEA_for_SpaceX_Starship_Super_Heavy_at_Boca_Chica.pdf https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_star...
- wolverine876 5y ago> Texas was an inspired choice - California would have been a knife fight regulatorily. Inspired in the immediate profit sense, not in the long term affects on your planet sense. SpaceX lives here too; it's their planet too.
- willvarfar 5y agoIt’s like the one company on earth actually concretely trying to change that …
- wolverine876 5y agoNot in this case, apparently, and definitely not the only company, not even in the auto industry.
- avianlyric 5y agoErm Space X is in the aerospace industry, not the auto industry. I mean, the name is a bit of a giveaway.
- danielheath 5y agoI believe that was a reference to the mars colony goal, not to protecting this planet