3 ms·

What are you talking about? They knew or should have known they would need these permits for years. ESGHound pointed it out years ago. This isn't a surprise tha

What are you talking about? They knew or should have known they would need these permits for years. ESGHound pointed it out years ago. This isn't a surprise that was dropped on them. Every other launch facility somehow managed to do it without any significant problems.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> knew or should have known they would need these permits for years Link to the ESGHound source?
- foobarqux 2y ago
  https://blog.esghound.com/p/elon-musk-really-hates-getting-permits https://blog.esghound.com/p/elon-musk-really-hates-getting-p...
  - ripjaygn 2y ago
    > the world’s most visibly divorced man What does this even mean? Sounds like a really unbiased source.
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      I think you are right to ignore the ad-hominems and stick to the facts he presented.
      - ripjaygn 2y ago
        The pure vitriol and ad hominems ensure that facts against their narrative will not be presented.
        foobarqux 2y ago
        I'm sure you are intelligent enough to read his arguments and then go search out contradicting arguments and figure out for yourself which make more sense.
        ripjaygn 2y ago
        His arguments like this? https://x.com/esghound/status/1511730625333665799 https://x.com/esghound/status/1511730625333665799 He's worthless as a source and not worth paying attention to.
        foobarqux 2y ago
        That's funny because he predicted that they were in violation of the Clean Water Act a year ago, while people like you kept saying it was bullshit. It seems like there is definitely someone not worth listening to but it isn't him.
        vatueil 2y ago
        ESGHound has lobbed many accusations, most of which did not pan out. Some of his accusations, such as the idea that SpaceX's development was a front for their real goal to drill for fossil fuel, could be considered conspiracy theories. Throw enough at the wall and something will stick. I am not convinced he is correct in this case either, just that he's gotten the ear of a likeminded journalist.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      ESGHound is notoriously deranged. He lost a bunch of money shorting Tesla years back and has been on the warpath ever since.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Thank you. Not getting the NPDES permit does seem like something they had time to do. Still confused why this is an FAA issue. (Is there any indication these are what is causing the delay?)
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      As I said in another comment if it were otherwise everyone would ignore all the other laws to get a launch permit. If you read esghound's Twitter/threads he argues that the violations are so serious/done-in-bad-faith/contrary-to-submitted-paperwork that they would require a significant redo of the environmental impact permitting. In particular the FAA initially ruled that there was a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and they did not require a (time-consuming) environmental impact statement (EIS). Esghound argues that they will legally need to complete an EIS which will take months. I wouldn't necessarily bet on that given how powerful Musk is. https://x.com/ESGhound/status/1833544766019276923 https://x.com/ESGhound/status/1833544766019276923
    - dotnet00 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - foobarqux 2y ago
        I don't know what "bad faith actor" means to you, but reasonably, albeit mistakenly, concluding that SpaceX violations would prevent launches isn't it. Your rebuttal linked in that article is simply the "Elon Musk says so" that is the original tweet, with a bunch of easily falsified claims already discussed in the comments here, like that the water is potable. I don't know what a "TMSG" permit is, searching Google and Twitter doesn't produce anything. I assume you mean the storm water permit which is not for industrial waste water and I can guarantee that no agency ever told them it was good for that purpose, if they had SpaceX would be posting the communication all over Twitter. I did not "refuse to accept" SpaceX's public document filings I simply, correctly, said that third-party test results are not the same as a permit, this isn't difficult to understand. To get a permit you go through the permitting process, you don't invent your own rules. Finally, when someone presents ad-hominem arguments, as you have, it doesn't mean the rest of the arguments are wrong. For example, your arguments are wrong for the reasons I explained above, irrespective of your ad-hominems.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> knew or should have known they would need these permits for years Link to the ESGHound source?

foobarqux 2y ago
https://blog.esghound.com/p/elon-musk-really-hates-getting-permits https://blog.esghound.com/p/elon-musk-really-hates-getting-p...
- ripjaygn 2y ago
  > the world’s most visibly divorced man What does this even mean? Sounds like a really unbiased source.
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    I think you are right to ignore the ad-hominems and stick to the facts he presented.
    - ripjaygn 2y ago
      The pure vitriol and ad hominems ensure that facts against their narrative will not be presented.
      - foobarqux 2y ago
        I'm sure you are intelligent enough to read his arguments and then go search out contradicting arguments and figure out for yourself which make more sense.
        ripjaygn 2y ago
        His arguments like this? https://x.com/esghound/status/1511730625333665799 https://x.com/esghound/status/1511730625333665799 He's worthless as a source and not worth paying attention to.
        foobarqux 2y ago
        That's funny because he predicted that they were in violation of the Clean Water Act a year ago, while people like you kept saying it was bullshit. It seems like there is definitely someone not worth listening to but it isn't him.
        vatueil 2y ago
        ESGHound has lobbed many accusations, most of which did not pan out. Some of his accusations, such as the idea that SpaceX's development was a front for their real goal to drill for fossil fuel, could be considered conspiracy theories. Throw enough at the wall and something will stick. I am not convinced he is correct in this case either, just that he's gotten the ear of a likeminded journalist.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    ESGHound is notoriously deranged. He lost a bunch of money shorting Tesla years back and has been on the warpath ever since.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Thank you. Not getting the NPDES permit does seem like something they had time to do. Still confused why this is an FAA issue. (Is there any indication these are what is causing the delay?)
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    As I said in another comment if it were otherwise everyone would ignore all the other laws to get a launch permit. If you read esghound's Twitter/threads he argues that the violations are so serious/done-in-bad-faith/contrary-to-submitted-paperwork that they would require a significant redo of the environmental impact permitting. In particular the FAA initially ruled that there was a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and they did not require a (time-consuming) environmental impact statement (EIS). Esghound argues that they will legally need to complete an EIS which will take months. I wouldn't necessarily bet on that given how powerful Musk is. https://x.com/ESGhound/status/1833544766019276923 https://x.com/ESGhound/status/1833544766019276923
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      I don't know what "bad faith actor" means to you, but reasonably, albeit mistakenly, concluding that SpaceX violations would prevent launches isn't it. Your rebuttal linked in that article is simply the "Elon Musk says so" that is the original tweet, with a bunch of easily falsified claims already discussed in the comments here, like that the water is potable. I don't know what a "TMSG" permit is, searching Google and Twitter doesn't produce anything. I assume you mean the storm water permit which is not for industrial waste water and I can guarantee that no agency ever told them it was good for that purpose, if they had SpaceX would be posting the communication all over Twitter. I did not "refuse to accept" SpaceX's public document filings I simply, correctly, said that third-party test results are not the same as a permit, this isn't difficult to understand. To get a permit you go through the permitting process, you don't invent your own rules. Finally, when someone presents ad-hominem arguments, as you have, it doesn't mean the rest of the arguments are wrong. For example, your arguments are wrong for the reasons I explained above, irrespective of your ad-hominems.