Hacker News Reader

Comment by sidewndr46 | Hacker News Reader

Almost like regulatory capture is a real thing.

East facing also isn't even remotely a requirement for a launch, Israel launches westward on a regular basis

And they lose about 20% of their cargo capacity because they're fighting the Earth's spin rather than taking advantage of it.

It's not like the west coast has large stretches of undeveloped unprotected land either.

The only real alternative is Alaska, and that's suboptimal for other reasons.

Launching westward - on the Earth, from a non-polar site, to non-polar orbits - carries a large delta-v penalty, which translates into a huge payload penalty.

They aren't launching West because they want to, but because they _have_ to. A quick peek at the map will tell you why.

Launching westwards is working against the rotation of Earth, not the cheapest approach. Israel just does not have a large body of water, or a,large desert, to let the spent booster descend (or crash) into. I bet their launches all turn eastwards after reaching sufficient altitude.

You'd lose your bet :( .

That's pretty crazy. I'll check out.

Being able to launch from somewhere does not make that place an optimal location.

Corporations aren't entitled to optimality at the expense of the environment

You're telling me your giving up your car, and your computers, and everything else you use that comes with an environmental cost.

What's worse is non-optimal launches will have far more environmental impact because you have to do more of them or use more fuel. Talk about cutting off your own nose.

What SpaceX is doing in Boca Chica is completely irrelevant compared to other environmental damage being done completely legally ex, in Louisiana by shipping and the oil industry, simply because it is grandfathered in. Like, literally dredging thousands of acres of wetlands into the gulf as regular business.

Everything that happens affects the environment somehow, but the scrutiny here is wildly disproportionate to the actual impact, of disrupting a couple acres of beach.

The "corporation" of SpaceX is a unique national asset that no other nation currently has, and it provides incredible value to US citizens to maintain that edge (Starlink alone, and Starship would give us a launch capacity that dwarfs Russia or China).

That matters! That's important! This isn't a "corporations vs the people" issue. Industrial policy requires thoughtful tradeoffs, and this FAA/EPA action isn't one.

This. SpaceX gives the US unique advantages that the wildlife on this beach doesn't.

I'm surprised the DoD hasn't already overridden the EPA on this for matters of national security.

The DoD doesn't have veto power over the EPA, and executive leadership on industrial policy is completely AWOL.

The administration could massively accelerate it with a couple phone calls, but I doubt they are even aware of the situation.

It's a baffling suggestion anyway no matter which direction you look at it from, there's nowhere on the west coast of the US that would be friendlier regulatory environment SpaceX than Texas. They would still have to deal with the exact same federal government, except to launch west they'd also have to deal with California and that would be jumping out of the frying pan straight into the fire. So what exactly would you hope to solve by launching west? Launching west to solve SpaceX's problems at Boca Chica cannot be a serious suggestion, honestly just baffling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com