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,”

  • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months 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.

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months 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.

      • CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

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