this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
492 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59166 readers
1947 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
492
California officials reject more SpaceX rocket launches, with some citing Musk's X posts (www.latimes.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by lettruthout@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

archive (But really, if you're in the Southland please subscribe, they have consistently good/important articles)

SpaceX’s plans to launch more rockets from the California coast were rejected by a state commission this week, with some officials citing Elon Musk’s political posts on X and raising concerns about the billionaire’s labor record at his companies.

The plan to increase the number of rocket blasts into space up to 50 a year was rejected by the California Coastal Commission on Thursday despite assurances from Space Force and Air Force officials that they would increase efforts to monitor the effects that rocket launches have on nearby wildlife.

Among the issues raised were Musk’s decision to insert himself in the presidential race, his spreading of conspiracy theories, the labor record of his companies and derogatory comments he has made about the transgender community.

Military officials argue that launches by SpaceX, a leading contractor at Vandenberg Space Force Base, should be considered a federal activity because all of its launches benefit military objectives... As such, Space Force officials don’t have to obtain a permit or permission from the California Coastal Commission for rocket launches; they only need to reach an agreement to mitigate the effects.

But commissioners in recent months have questioned whether SpaceX launches, which carry private Starlink equipment on up to 87% of their flights, should be considered private activity.

Military officials have gone before the commission repeatedly this year to try to significantly increase the number of SpaceX launches, and officials said they plan to once again ask for another increase — for up to 100 annually — by early next year.

“Today’s vote hasn’t changed the [Department of the Air Force’s] or Vandenberg’s unwavering commitment to preserving the California coastline and the precious species that reside there,”

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 122 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

More proof that SpaceX exists despite Elon not because of him.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I have no doubt that the hardest part of Shotwell's job is Elon-management.

[–] CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago

Coming from several people who work with SpaceX, there is a dedicated group of people that exist to distract Elon from all vital SpaceX functions.

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 64 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Fucking finally

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 19 points 3 weeks ago

More holding people accountable for their actions please

[–] oce@jlai.lu 62 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

assurances from Space Force and Air Force officials that they would increase efforts to monitor the effects that rocket launches have on nearby wildlife.

Right, those are certainly the best people to trust with wildlife protection.

[–] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 60 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Hopefully between this and the mess they've gotten themselves into with the FAA and EPA and Texas Environmental authority, the US government will get their head out of their ass and take the Artemis contract away from this idiot and SpaceX.

If the primary way they "save taxpayer money" per launch is skirting regulations and law around the environment and labor, we don't need to keep supporting them.

[–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

They won't, because there's no other company that can credibly meet the Artemis objectives for a lunar lander in a reasonable time frame. Boeing is the main competitor but they're already struggling to satisfy all of their current contracts: Starliner was supposed to be operational in 2017, but it had its first crewed test flight this year and it malfunctioned seriously enough that they decided it wasn't safe to bring the astronauts home on it. NASA pulling SpaceX off of the Artemis project would functionally be the end of it.

[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I am a huge space nerd. Love SpaceX. But Starlink is a thing I hate. Polluting the sky with thousands of satellites, destroying the planet with all the launches. I'm also not sure if the whole Artemis/SLS (and SpaceShip) are something we really need now.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'm also not sure if the whole Artemis/SLS (and SpaceShip) are something we really need now.

Then when? If we don't do it now it could be another 60 years before anybody seriously takes a look at space again. The space shuttle disaster was basically the end of human space flight beyond Earth orbit, it was supposed to be replaced by SLS that thing still hasn't launched humans yet and is already technologically obsolete.

[–] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

NASA still has the SLS.

NASA is Already changing it's plans because of a lack of a starship to test so I would say whether or not the Artemis mission gets delays by another ten years or if SpaceX gets shitcanned and they use the SLS depends entirely on their next flight test

[–] CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

SLS is on track to be more expensive when adjusted for inflation per moon mission than the Apollo program. It is wildly too expensive, and should be cancelled.

This coupled with the fact that the rocket is incapable of sending a manned capsule to low earth orbit which is the the lunar gateway is planned to a Rectilinear Halo Orbit instead.

Those working in the space industry know that SpaceX’s success is not because of Elon but instead Gwynne Shotwell. She is the President and CEO of SpaceX and responsible for all things SpaceX. The best outcome after the election is to remove Elon from the board and revoke his ownership of what is effectively a defense company for political interference in this election. Employees at SpaceX would be happy, the government would be happy, and the American people would be happy.

[–] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

SLS is on track to be more expensive when adjusted for inflation per moon mission than the Apollo program.

You do realize that Artemis III requires 15 Starship launches just to fuel the thing enough to get to the moon? Why are you comparing it to Apollo?

[–] CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

I don’t know why you are mentioning Starship when I made no mention of that. Starship HLS is also a dumb idea, but that’s beside the point.

SLS is horribly expensive for what it provides.

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. I work in the industry, and this is absolutely true. I’ve been saying give it to Gwynne for years.

[–] vzq@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The best outcome after the election is to remove Elon from the board and revoke his ownership of what is effectively a defense company for political interference in this election.

I’m pretty sure that the US constitution has amendments that prohibit unreasonable seizures and guarantee freedom of expression.

I despise Elmo as much as much the next guy, but this is just silly ass wishing well stuff.

[–] CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The Defense Production Act could be used to meet these ends. SpaceX is a defense contractor and exists at the privilege of the US Government for the US Government.

[–] vzq@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yes. Too bad that the US federal government consist of three branches. Have you seen your SCOTUS lately?

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

We can't afford to use SLS. If you want to use SLS for all of the missions we have slated for starship, you'll need to multiply NASA's budget by 2 or 3.

Honestly, I'm not worried about starship reaching its goals, it's moving along. They're attempting their next major launch tomorrow morning, the first launch to include returning the booster and catching it with the tower.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

take the Artemis contract away from this idiot and SpaceX

What? And give it to who? Besos? Boeing? China?

I guess the only workable option would be to have the ESA do every Artemis launch. That could work, but it'll likely cost 10 times more and take another 20 years.

Also, the primary ways they save money is through reusable rockets and building everything in house. As far as I know, SpaceX isn't skirting regulation more than any other launch provider. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a higher number of regulatory breaches than other providers, after all, they have a much higher number of launches than other providers.

Don't get me wrong Elon is a complete asshole, an addict, and at this point a detriment to society. But SpaceX is probably doing the most important work on the planet right now. Fully reusable rockets could usher in a whole new era of humanity. This could easily be just as transformative as the automobile.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ime when it comes to the environment all tax payers really care about is saving their money. In taxes.

Nevermind the savings if we had renewable energy as the norm vs the 2.75 is saved you annual in taxes to keep denying progress to get us there.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago

Ha!

[–] Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 3 weeks ago

How about preserving the climate?

[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Nice.