Environmental groups sue the FAA over SpaceX launch from Texas

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/environmental-groups-sue-the-faa-over-spacex-launch-from-texas/

by rbanffy • 3 years ago

53 52 3 years ago

jackmott42• 3 years ago

I don't like that people are doing this, but I also feel like Elon has been bringing this kind of negative attention on himself by acting in an increasingly awful way over the past 5 years. I hope acting like a troll on twitter is worth all the lawsuits and lost Tesla sales for him. Such a strange state of affairs.

forgetfreeman5• 3 years ago

Nothing particularly strange about it, dude is literally just an echo of all the other talented grifters in history that have managed to ride other people's genius to notoriety.

misiti37802• 3 years ago

You cant possibly believe that.

throwaway606075• 3 years ago

Where are all the other grifters riding other people's genius to the orbit and then back to Earth in one piece? If it's as simple as just (ab)using some engineers, why can't Bezos do it?

Whatever you say, there is something unique about Musk that nobody else has been able to replicate.

eqvinox• 3 years ago

I have a feeling¹ other rocket launches (particularly "first" launches) get a similar amount of complaints from environmental groups, just like major infrastructure projects do. Except due to Elon becoming… clown in chief? … there's a spotlight on it. It's newsworthy because flaming Elon generates clicks.

Which doesn't mean the environmental groups are wrong, or that Elon is getting shitcanned for nothing… he really inflicted this on himself.

[¹] I have no idea how to dig up data on this, unfortunately.

chasd00• 3 years ago

I could not agree more, I've never met Musk but he's probably always been kind of a jerk. My-way-or-the-highway people with Asperger's usually are, however social media seems to magnify the worst traits of someone's personality and expose it to the world over a megaphone. IMO if he'd just logout of Twitter things would get a lot better for his companies, including Twitter, but social media got him. Very few people are immune to social media's grip.

neilv2• 3 years ago

always been kind of a jerk. My-way-or-the-highway people with Asperger's usually are

Could we could just say "My-way-or-the-highway people are jerks"?

I don't see a need to link that to people with Asperger's. Some of them have an extra challenge in some situations already, without negative prejudices adding to that.

justrealist2• 3 years ago

In a functioning legal system, being obnoxious should not actually be a legal risk!

ClumsyPilot2• 3 years ago

Being an ass increasses likelihood of getting attacked - verbally, legally, physically.

In you pisoff enough people, someone will eventually succeed

AlexandrB3• 3 years ago

I think doing legally sketchy things is what's causing most of the legal risk here. Being obnoxious just draws attention to said sketchiness and makes attempts at repercussions more swift.

api2• 3 years ago

I have never seen someone burn more goodwill than this. Funny part is he would not necessarily have to even change his political views, just act like a grown man.

It’s perhaps a cautionary tale about addiction and having one’s mind warped by social media. I really think he got his brain sucked out by Twitter.

hersko• 3 years ago

It’s perhaps a cautionary tale about addiction and having one’s mind warped by social media

I view it the same way, but in the opposite direction. Musk has arguably done more for the environment than anyone else alive, but his social media faux pas and the responding social media cult-like hate has made him a persona non grata to those who claim they hold the environment "sacred".

Social media drama is apparently more important than the environment to many on the left.

o0banky0o• 3 years ago

When the masses are watching, there is no action that does not offend some one of them. Miscommunication is in fact still at the bottom of most conflicts

theptip• 3 years ago

The trouble is, anyone trying to build anything gets this shit. The NEPA process is beyond busted. It’s even used to make it harder to build solar and wind farms.

The problem is that there are too many veto points. It’s easy to add new ones, very hard to remove them. There is no attempt at an ROI justification at any step, so “value of one person’s enjoyment of plovers” is held alongside millions of dollars of wages paid into a community.

I don’t want to bulldoze the wilderness, I know about the burning rivers, EPA is good on net, but I think we need to chop the worst 10% of planning/environmental regulations.

watwut3• 3 years ago

In here, actual avoidable environmental damage happened because one more veto was needed.

watwut3• 3 years ago

I agree as a general point, but this has nothing to do with Twitter or social media. Nor with Tesla.

This is just a separate area where musks companies do not care about collateral damage.

79522• 3 years ago

Not sure what is driving this case in particular, but I doubt the average naturalist or birder really cares about Musk or Twitter. They are just geeks who want to enjoy nature, and this kind of activity disrupts nature.

Coastal birds can be very fragile to disturbance and are already threatened by lack of habitat. They often have limited energy levels and regular disruption will cause them to take flight and expend that energy. This can have an effect on mortality. Not sure if this is the case at Boca Chica, but I can understand why people are worried.

themgt• 3 years 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• 3 years ago

It 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.

bryanlarsen2• 3 years ago

NASA 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.

v0idzer0• 3 years ago

This 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.

ohjfjfk2• 3 years ago

Right 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.

adolph3• 3 years ago

The main question is whether Texas gets to launch or if Florida and California keep a monopoly.

testbjjl• 3 years ago

Sounds like it’s not in your backyard so it’s not important, just business?

adolph3• 3 years ago

I'd say YIMB but live further up the coast. I think: * there is a lot to protect there, especially the migratory bird path and turtle nesting sites * the FAA struck an honest deal to balance innovation with protection * nature is more resilient than people give it credit

AlexandrB3• 3 years ago

Is there something about Boca Chica that makes it the only plausible launch site in Texas? I'm perpetually confused about Elon Musk's seemingly stubborn insistence on using this specific site.

michael_j_x• 3 years ago

I am sure any place that:

a. it is by the sea so that they are not flying over populated areas b. it is remote enough so that a 1000tonne methane explosion will not endanger anyone or their property and c. it is close enough to civilization so that they have a good access to skilled and un-skilled labour

will have the same issues as they are having in Boca Chica

bryanlarsen2• 3 years ago

Due to the direction of rotation of Earth, for most launches you want to launch East-SouthEast. And you need a corridor ~1000 miles long, so that basically means you want to be on the Atlantic. Being on the Gulf also works, but it does limit you on available launch corridors due to Florida and Cuba being in the way.

And you also need a 4 mile undeveloped radius from the launch site. It's really hard to find 8 miles of undeveloped East Coast coastline.

OTOH for polar launches you want to launch North or South. Vandenburg is a great site to launch South from, but if Alaska is acceptable then there are many possible launch locations there.

Environmental groups sue the FAA over SpaceX launch from Texas

Related Stories