Environmental groups sue the FAA over SpaceX launch from Texas
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
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.
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.
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.
[1] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_...
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.
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.
My hunch is that construction will have a lot of effect on birds close to the site (say within a few hundred metres). But actual rocketry will be less of a problem as it is currently so irregular. Also, the presence of tourists may cause a lot of disturbance and closing parts of the beach, and banning dogs (scary to birds) could help a lot. Part of the solution could be making other parts of the reserve better.
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
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.
Whatever you say, there is something unique about Musk that nobody else has been able to replicate.
Musk is able to convince or bully others into giving him investment money - including goverment. That is real contribution for sure. Just not an engineering.
Then we could talk about NASA's SLS... (Branson isn't even worth discussing at this point)
Both organizations have the money and the engineers and scientists, only those working for Musk have a landing rocket. Clearly there's something special about Musk.
> In 1990, he entered Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario.[37][38] Two years later, he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), where he completed studies for a Bachelor of Arts degree in physics and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from the Wharton School.[39][40][41][42] Although Musk claims he earned the degrees in 1995, UPenn maintains it awarded them in 1997.[43]
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-physics-degree/
A court ruled in Musk's favor about this. Do you want to challenge that? Then bring more than empty claims about some donations, pls. He didn't even have the money back then - he co-founded Zip2 in 1996 and sold in 1999. Perhaps you meant the 2009 donation, but he had the degrees long enough by then ;-)
But the one thing he actually does understand is engineering. He's not a grifter pretending to be an engineer, he's an engineer who thinks he knows everything (he doesn't). Link below contains statements by other engineers on their experience working with him:
https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden...
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.
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.
It hurts feelings to sincerely ask if such people should have massive influence in ver humanity?
Tough. Look at Elon being a snowflake who needs a safe space while trashing everyone else. In his case at least he’s earned being mocked.
In you pisoff enough people, someone will eventually succeed
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.
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.
I've been calling social media companies the tobacco companies of the mind for a long time. It's an addictive vehicle for poison.
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.
This is just a separate area where musks companies do not care about collateral damage.
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.