4 ms·
From the lawsuit: Plaintiffs have members whose interests are adversely affected by direct, indirect, and cumulative harm from the FAA-authorized activities to
by themgt 3y ago
From the lawsuit:
Plaintiffs have members whose interests are adversely affected by direct, indirect, and cumulative harm from the FAA-authorized activities to habitat areas that such members use and enjoy, including as habitat for ESA-listed wildlife. For example, Mary Angela Branch-who grew up in Brownsville and is a member of the Center, ABC, and Save RGV-regularly visits the Boca Chica area to enjoy the beach and to swim, picnic, fish, and view wildlife, including protected birds. She plans to continue visiting the area; however, her ability to enjoy Boca Chica beach and the surrounding areas and the wildlife they support has been, and will continue to be, adversely affected by SpaceX activities, including through closures to accommodate SpaceX construction and launch activities as well as from the noise, heat, light, explosions, and fires associated with such activities.
Plaintiffs also have members that have researched, studied, observed, and sought protection for habitats and species that are adversely affected by the SpaceX activities authorized by FAA. For example, Jim Chapman, a member of Save RGV who lives in Weslaco, TX, works to protect the Santa Ana and Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuges, and advocates for the animals that use the tracks of brush and forest habitat to migrate between populations. Mr. Chapman is highly invested in the preservation of the Boca Chica area, as it is essential for many of the native wildlife which he seeks out and enjoys. Mr. Chapman regularly visits the Boca Chica area to view wildlife, particularly birds such as the protected plovers and migratory species that rely on the area. Mr. Chapman is passionate about the native wildlife and enjoys exposing people to the unique ecosystems of the region. His interests in observing and protecting the Boca Chica area have been, and will continue to be, adversely affected by the SpaceX activities permitted by FAA, including harm from closures, increased vehicle traffic and resulting collisions with wildlife, the intense noise, heat, and light from rocket launch and testing activities, and "anomalies.
It may seem difficult to avoid creating subjectively negative impacts such as this when launching the largest rocket in history, but careful thought will demonstrate we as an enlightened modern society could avoid such deleterious harm on the preferences of a handful of individuals by simply banning all of human civilization.
- cstross 3y agoIt may seem difficult to avoid creating subjectively negative impacts such as this when launching the largest rocket in history This outcome was entirely avoidable, right from the beginning of development at Starbase -- and entirely predictable. It's not even as if SpaceX doesn't already have a second Starship launch pad at Launch Complex 39A, at Kennedy Space Center. (Where they routinely launch rockets without environmental damage lawsuits, up to and including (historically) Saturn V and the Space Shuttle, which are the only vehicles of remotely comparable size to Starship.) If they don't want lawsuits, they shouldn't have built a potentially explosive chemical plant on a space-constrained sites next to nature reserves full of protected species. Or should ship the Starship elements to KSC by barge for launch. Blaming the nature reserve and conservationists -- they were there first, before SpaceX moved in -- is a dick move.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoNASA has refused permission to launch Starship from the only American launch pad that provides access to the International Space Station. Also, they are running into capacity limits at Canaveral. KSC and Wallops are both also surrounded by nature reserves, so if that's the argument then KSC is out too.
- AlexandrB 3y agoThe size of the launch site at KSC is soooo much larger than the one at Boca Chica[1]. Basically almost none of the large debris that was ejected by starship into the surrounding wilderness would have left the bounds of the launch pad area at KSC. The Boca Chica launch site just seems under-provisioned for this size of rocket. [1] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0f2f8a95-d33f-4651-b647-301385378697_1539x656.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_...
- v0idzer0 3y agoThis comment is all over the place. “If they don’t want lawsuits, they shouldn’t have built a potentially explosive chemical plant on a space-constrained sites next to nature reserves”. The FAA is the one being sued. Did the FAA choose where SpaceX built their site? SpaceX got all required approval. There was no known damage to wildlife. These people sue every time. It gets tossed every time. This lawsuit is purely symbolic and frankly irrelevant. If Elon Musk wasn’t tangentially related, there’d be no market for this article, nobody would write about it and nobody would care about this lawsuit like they don’t care about all the other baseless suits these groups file.
- ohjfjfk 3y agoRight because rockets to nowhere are a divine mandate. You’re coming across like a giant baby. No one else owes deference to you either. Grow up, child; you’re not alone in this reality.