Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Last week, the California Coastal Commission rejected a plan for SpaceX to launch up to 50 rockets this year at the Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County. The company responded yesterday with a lawsuit, alleging that the state agency's denial was overreaching its authority and discriminating against its CEO.
The Commission's goal is to protect California's coasts and beaches, as well as the animals living in them. The agency has control over private companies' requests to use the state coastline, but it can't deny activities by federal departments. The denied launch request was actually made by the US Space Force on behalf of SpaceX, asking that the company be allowed to launch 50 of its Falcon 9 rockets, up from 36.
While the commissioners did raise concerns about SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's political screed and the spotty safety records at his companies during their review of the launch request, the assessment focused on the relationship between SpaceX and Space Force. The Space Force case is that "because it is a customer of — and reliant on — SpaceX’s launches and satellite network, SpaceX launches are a federal agency activity," the Commission review stated. "However, this does not align with how federal agency activities are defined in the Coastal Zone Management Act’s regulations or the manner in the Commission has historically implemented those regulations." The California Coastal Commission claimed that at least 80 percent of the SpaceX rockets contain payloads for Musk's Starlink company rather than payloads for government clients.
The SpaceX suit filed with the Central District of California court is seeking an order to designate the launches as federal activity, which would cut the Commission's oversight out of its future launch plans.
(Score: 0, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Thursday October 24, @12:57PM (17 children)
By almost any measure, California is a failing state. Residents are fleeing. Businesses are fleeing. With a dwindling tax base, it needs every last cent of revenue it can get.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-08/why-californians-are-fleeing-this-once-golden-state [latimes.com]
California's answer? To double down on political hate. They've already lost the jobs Tesla and SpaceX took with them when the companies moved their headquarters to Texas. It wouldn't be at all surprising if Musk also moves the launches to a more business friendly red state that would be more than happy with the dollars the launches bring to the local economy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Thursday October 24, @01:29PM (3 children)
Seems to me that article is trying to put the emphasis for the decline on death, a lack of new babies and the insane housing prices, about $800,000 for a house. I would get a mansion or a luxury yacht for that kind of money. Not that I would want either. Still it's not like there is a lack of people, 38ish million people. There is a lot of room left for the spiral. It should be enough. Perhaps even beneficial for the population, less competition for the work that is left, more room, less system strain. But I guess it goes against the every demanding grow-grow-grow mentality as the only way forward.
So 36 launches was ok, but 14 more was to many?
Seems to me that Starlink products appears to be largely for government clients, supporting various warzones across the globe at a moments notice with communications.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Thursday October 24, @04:02PM (2 children)
If the regulations they're working to include a cap on the amount of harm done to "protect California's coasts and beaches, as well as the animals living in them", and whatever means they are using to assess and quantify that means that SpaceX would breach that limit somewhere between 36 and 50 launches per annum, then yes, it would be too many. Space launches are far from environmentally friendly, even if individually they're not all that significant in the overall scheme of things, and that is going to add up and will absolutely cross thresholds for any cumulative environmental control rules somewhere along the way.
Also, you'll note that SpaceX is fighting this on grounds of being exempt due to acting as a Federal Agency, and is saying nothing about how much harm they may or may not be doing, or challenging the methods by which that harm is quantified. I'd take that to mean SpaceX knows full well that 50 launches would take them over some threshold and is trying to do an end-run around it, or they'd be making those counter claims as well just in case one of those succeeds instead.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Thursday October 24, @07:45PM
The quickest way out of this conflict is to challenge jurisdiction. If SpaceX can be declared exempt, they don't have to address the merits at all.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 24, @08:23PM
The Commission has made statements that seem to indicate an unconstitutional bias with respect to SpaceX's activities:
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @01:58PM (2 children)
(Score: 0, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Thursday October 24, @03:02PM (1 child)
Oh no, what are you talking about? California is GREAT!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vc6CHRrtH8 [youtube.com]
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @04:18PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by epitaxial on Thursday October 24, @04:09PM (6 children)
Where are you getting your figures from, Fox? Back in the reality California's GDP is steadily growing https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CARGSP [stlouisfed.org] and so is the population. https://apnews.com/article/california-population-growth-pandemic-decline-0d2bfc2c0a4ced0c3c2ad934207818bc [apnews.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Thursday October 24, @04:25PM (4 children)
Reading comprehension is key.
Back in reality, my citation is from the Los Angeles Times.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @04:50PM (2 children)
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by DadaDoofy on Thursday October 24, @09:00PM (1 child)
Oh, but I have. Let's review.
From the owner of the LA Times (emphasis his):
“The Editorial Board was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation,” he wrote.
“Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision. Please #vote,” he continued.
The Editorial Board was given instructions to provide a factual analysis. They were unwilling or, more likely, unable to do so without significant risk to their candidate's campaign. The idea of engaging in actual journalism even triggered one of the editors to rage quit. If demanding journalistic rigor and balance in the paper's reporting is "MAGA", so be it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @09:09PM
lol! "the guy on my side denies it!"
you lot are so easy to play. hint- no, you did not drill into the story at all. that's why your echo chamber didn't bring it to you sooner.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Frosty Piss on Thursday October 24, @05:28PM
Back in reality, the LA Times is MAGA.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/la-times-editor-resigns-non-endorsement_n_671a2b0fe4b00589e7dbfcad [huffpost.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Thursday October 24, @05:31PM
We should model ourselves after North Korea because lines on graph go up and that is the sole definition of good and desired.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @05:43PM (2 children)
the common factor of those two companies moving being a feelz-driven narcissist who is trying to blame the state for his inability to accept his own daughter.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 24, @05:58PM (1 child)
Yeah, there's no such thing as Elon derangement syndrome. The people whom irrationally hate him are actually the rational ones. Uh huh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @06:13PM
"lock her up!" "go brandon!" "tampon tim!" "cameltoe!" super rational.
btw even if he was called something bad like "poopy-head", those two companies leaving because one guy's feelz boiled over still isn't a flex. what happened to the fuck-your-feelings-crowd, mmm?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday October 24, @03:01PM (17 children)
What this glosses over is that four of the ten commissioners raised such unconstitutional concerns over Musk's speech (from SpaceX's court filing [courtlistener.com]):
The key point to this part of the filing is that four commissioners brought up legal political speech during their public considerations even though it was illegal for them to do anything about the speech they brought up.
(Score: 4, Flamebait) by epitaxial on Thursday October 24, @04:15PM (1 child)
Sounds like a member of the fuck your feelings crowd got his feelings hurt when he was called a dipshit. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/tim-walz-elon-musk-wisconsin-rally/ [cbsnews.com] https://preview.redd.it/skipping-like-a-dipshit-v0-ymsmckpsvkwd1.jpeg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=c1144126856ff53e10d9371fcfb356acc3332e3b [preview.redd.it]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 24, @06:07PM
So he got four of his buddies to turn down SpaceX's application for increased launches?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @05:32PM (10 children)
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Thursday October 24, @06:09PM (9 children)
Unconstitutional on those very grounds. Injecting oneself into an election is exact an exercise of speech and thus, protected by the First Amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @06:15PM (8 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 24, @06:59PM (4 children)
Of course, you didn't. But it is speech. So doesn't matter what you thought was being "injected".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @07:16PM (3 children)
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Thursday October 24, @07:45PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @07:51PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 24, @07:55PM
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Thursday October 24, @09:56PM (2 children)
"read the news"
What news? Provide a citation if you hope to convince anyone your opinion is supported by something other than the voices in your head.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @10:18PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 24, @10:53PM
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday October 25, @08:06PM (1 child)
I thought this was obvious. Anyone with a couple of brain cells would immediately suspect political motivations for this move, given Musk's siding with Trump, the upcoming election, and California's... staunch political opinions.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 25, @10:09PM
(Score: 1) by day of the dalek on Saturday October 26, @01:08PM (1 child)
Ever heard of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 [grants.gov], for example?
Lobbying is political speech and is protected under the First Amendment. But federal funds cannot be used to pay for such political speech, which is why applicants for federal funding have to disclose lobbying activities. It would be a massive abuse to use federal funds to pay for lobbying officials, whether that lobbying is for a more favorable regulatory environment or to receive more federal funds. It would also be a massive abuse to use federal funds to pay for any activities that might influence an election, especially if the politician receiving the support could enact more favorable regulations or award more federal funds to the business doing the lobbying. For obvious reasons, government launch sites aren't open for general public use and require permits. If Musk is using his permits at the launch site for commercial purposes, and if money from that company is being spent to influence an election and get a favorable candidate elected, it's the same type of conflict of interest. You don't get to use limited government resources like funding and facilities with specialized equipment to lobby officials or influence elections. Otherwise, you could use those resources to influence officials to act in your favor, which is unethical and highly improper.
This is exactly why when you apply for federal grant funding, you're required to disclose lobbying activities. There's a form that accompanies grant proposals and addresses this possible conflict of interest. It sounds like there were serious concerns about possible unmitigated conflicts of interest.
Some of those that burn crosses, are the same that hold office [youtu.be]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 26, @11:18PM
First, no actual violation has been shown. There is no use of federal funds for lobbying even if the scenario were as you claim. Similarly, there's no actual conflict of interest. The Vandenberg managers get their military launches, SpaceX gets its commercial launches - any profits of which BTW aren't federal funding, and any lobbying that SpaceX does -rather than what Musk does - is on SpaceX's dime. I think what's particularly peculiar about your argument is that you haven't shown that SpaceX doesn't disclose its lobbying activities per law. This is merely insinuated without even a shred of evidence.
Where is your concern about conflicts of interest in the CCC? The fact that these "serious concerns" exist at all is an indication that the conflicts of interest lie in the CCC instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24, @04:12PM (1 child)
The Governor is in favor of more launches.
(Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Thursday October 24, @05:25PM
It doesn't matter. In California, the Governor has one of the weakest executive authorities in the country. He can jump and yell and make speeches all he wants, but he can't override the commission. Disclosure: Lifelong California resident.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by VLM on Thursday October 24, @05:47PM (3 children)
Is this like a create a problem so as to sell the solution situation?
I'm not sure why the state wanna be beach rentacops have any jurisdiction over federally licensed rockets flying over "their" beach that apparently only allows people who agree with their politics. Maybe he can just fly his rockets over the nude beach section or the "non-democrat bootlicker" beach section. That in itself is a strange "separate but equal" problem. But why do the beach jannies have any jurisdiction over federal acts at all? Do they also have total control over national and international licensed jetliners like airbus and 747 airliners that happen to fly over "their" beach? I hope someone tells them "Russian satellites overfly 'our' beach without permission" Maybe they'll send a sheriff to try and arrest the Russian spacecraft, should be fun to watch.
What I mean by create the problem to sell the solution, is lets say at a thought experiment "they" wanted to shut down the CCC intentionally with planning and on purpose as an official goal. Well, one strategy for that thought experiment would be to intentionally cause a civil rights violation by implementing a chilling effect against protected political speech in the context of a state agency trying to overrule and regulate a federally licensed activity (FAA, military ops, etc). It's almost like they're intentionally trying to get the Federal supreme court to declare their entire "commission" unconstitutional and order it shut down. Perhaps, they wanted to shut it down all along and successfully are implementing that plan, but afterwards instead of taking the blame for shutting down the commission, the PR news release can all be about how "Trump's Supreme Court in Washington DC destroyed our beloved CCC now lets have a two minutes hate for Orange Hitler." and all the other typical derangement-syndrome symptoms. Thats just how those mentally ill people are, all the time. Like... what do the members of the CCC get out of having the CCC shut down by the feds? I don't immediately know. Campaign contributions or cushy jobs at spacex after the commission is shut down? Maybe some unmentioned 3rd party wants them shut down and they don't want to be in the news at all so make it all about Spacex and Elon and TDS? Hmm.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 24, @06:14PM (2 children)
I strongly doubt it. Even if the CCC's decision gets completely overturned, there's no basis for shutting down the CCC. They would be merely acting improperly and illegally (which IMHO they are) in this case. There's no case for saying that their normal operation is similarly so. That's what I think it'd take.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 24, @06:43PM (1 child)
It will be interesting to see the results of the discovery process. Yes, this individual very well documented intentionally implemented footgun is being discussed, although possibly they have been doing other corrupt, carefully documented activities. Possibly, they are super casual about creating written documentation of a civil rights violation, because they do it all the time, and in CA nobody could ever call them on it. CA is a failed state, so it's not surprising it could be very corrupt. Which does not prove it is, but it probably is, and discovery will be fun to watch.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 24, @07:00PM