5 ms·

> superfluous environmental analysis. Maybe they should have thought about that before building their launch site next to a wildlife refuge. Maybe they shouldn

by tedivm 2y ago

> superfluous environmental analysis. Maybe they should have thought about that before building their launch site next to a wildlife refuge. Maybe they shouldn't have caused significant damage to that same reserve (requiring months of cleanup) when they ignored their own engineers and blew up their own launch pad. The fact that they repeatedly violated their permit isn't helping. The reality is SpaceX can't be trusted when it comes to compliance with rules, laws, and permits. They've proven this repeatedly (even when their own engineers point out better ways). Of course that means oversight agencies have to provide more oversight. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-launch-site-boca-chica-texas-60-minutes-plus/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-launch-site-boca-chica-t...

BobbyJo 2y ago
Its almost funny how important environmentalism is to Musk when Tesla is the context, and how unimportant it is when SpaceX is the context. It's wild how his image has gone from forward thinking genius businessman to bipolar self-serving workaholic in less than four years.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Every US launch site is next to a de facto or a de jure wildlife refuge. > requiring months of cleanup no it didn't.
- jwells89 2y ago
  > Every US launch site is next to a de facto or a de jure wildlife refuge. Yes, this is difficult to avoid for various reasons, perhaps the most pertinent being that all the safest places to launch things from are along coastlines where it's easy to divert wayward rockets into the ocean and away from populated areas. Coastlines have plenty of water and thus plenty of wildlife. Launching from e.g. an inland desert is much more risky and the environmental impact isn't necessarily all that much better to boot.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> SpaceX can't be trusted when it comes to compliance with rules, laws, and permits I suppose I’m confused why this is the FAA’s remit.
- foobarqux 2y ago
  To prevent ignoring other agencies/laws the FAA does not issue a launch permit unless the other agencies/laws are satisfied. Otherwise people would just do what the FAA directly regulates and ignore the rest and get a launch permit.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > prevent ignoring other agencies/laws the FAA does not issue a launch permit unless the other agencies/laws are satisfied Which is wild. This isn’t how regulation, including with the FAA, works in other contexts. (If an airline mucks up a securities filing, that isn’t the FAA’s jurisdiction.) The legislative fix may be in separating launch permits from environmental clearances.
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      No, you want to prevent contamination of the water supply. Being able to ignore that rule is not an improvement.
      - abigail95 2y ago
        Are they alleging launching the rocket will contaminate the water supply? Or that they do not have a permit to do what the launch will result in? Is there a discussion about what the actual harms are?
        foobarqux 2y ago
        They don't know because SpaceX hasn't gone through the procedure to show that they aren't/won't.

by tedivm 2y ago

BobbyJo 2y ago

Its almost funny how important environmentalism is to Musk when Tesla is the context, and how unimportant it is when SpaceX is the context. It's wild how his image has gone from forward thinking genius businessman to bipolar self-serving workaholic in less than four years.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Every US launch site is next to a de facto or a de jure wildlife refuge. > requiring months of cleanup no it didn't.

jwells89 2y ago
> Every US launch site is next to a de facto or a de jure wildlife refuge. Yes, this is difficult to avoid for various reasons, perhaps the most pertinent being that all the safest places to launch things from are along coastlines where it's easy to divert wayward rockets into the ocean and away from populated areas. Coastlines have plenty of water and thus plenty of wildlife. Launching from e.g. an inland desert is much more risky and the environmental impact isn't necessarily all that much better to boot.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> SpaceX can't be trusted when it comes to compliance with rules, laws, and permits I suppose I’m confused why this is the FAA’s remit.

foobarqux 2y ago
To prevent ignoring other agencies/laws the FAA does not issue a launch permit unless the other agencies/laws are satisfied. Otherwise people would just do what the FAA directly regulates and ignore the rest and get a launch permit.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > prevent ignoring other agencies/laws the FAA does not issue a launch permit unless the other agencies/laws are satisfied Which is wild. This isn’t how regulation, including with the FAA, works in other contexts. (If an airline mucks up a securities filing, that isn’t the FAA’s jurisdiction.) The legislative fix may be in separating launch permits from environmental clearances.
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    No, you want to prevent contamination of the water supply. Being able to ignore that rule is not an improvement.
    - abigail95 2y ago
      Are they alleging launching the rocket will contaminate the water supply? Or that they do not have a permit to do what the launch will result in? Is there a discussion about what the actual harms are?
      - foobarqux 2y ago
        They don't know because SpaceX hasn't gone through the procedure to show that they aren't/won't.