Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Thursday October 24, @11:47AM   Printer-friendly

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday October 25, @08:06PM (1 child)

    by darkfeline (1030) on Friday October 25, @08:06PM (#1378673) Homepage

    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!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 25, @10:09PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 25, @10:09PM (#1378691) Journal
    For me, the surprise was that they would discuss it publicly. While this lawsuit isn't a sure thing, you can't get much more blatantly illegal than that and win the resulting lawsuit.