Close Menu
    Weltraum

    Kalifornische Beamte lehnen weitere Raketenstarts von SpaceX ab und berufen sich dabei teilweise auf Musks X-Beiträge


    Kalifornische Beamte lehnen weitere Raketenstarts von SpaceX ab und berufen sich dabei teilweise auf Musks X-Beiträge

    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-10-11/la-me-spacex-coastal-commission

    View 6 Comments

    6 Comments

    1. icon42gimp on

      These rationale sound like clear 1st Amendment & Arbitrary/Capricious violations if the board is ever able to circumvent the “federal activity” designation.

    2. somewhat_brave on

      It seems like they may have opened themselves up to lawsuits with that statement.

    3. TS_76 on

      At some point musk will be forced from the company. Between his drug use, political affiliations, and just general weirdness he will start to effect the finances of the company. Same with Tesla, but to a lesser degree..

      SpaceX is now a critical national security asset and it can’t be run by a lunatic.

    4. reddit-suave613 on

      > 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, regardless of whether the payloads being carried by the rockets are for the government or for Musk’s private satellite internet company, Starlink.
      >
      > 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. That would mean that Musk’s company would have to obtain permission from the California agency for launches carrying private equipment.

      I think the commissioners have a fair point here. You can literally spin any launch as a ‘benefit to military objectives’, the military are over stepping and need to be reigned in.

    5. ninjahosk on

      Space launch should be controlled exclusively by the federal government with keeping regional impacts in mind. International law as it stands really doesn’t allow for anything else. The California Coastal Commission can kick rocks. (I currently live on that coast and they actually do great work but still)

    6. Decronym on

      Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:

      |Fewer Letters|More Letters|
      |——-|———|—|
      |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1g1khf4/stub/lrhcuwq “Last usage”)|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
      | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
      |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1g1khf4/stub/lrhg62r “Last usage”)|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
      |[USAF](/r/Space/comments/1g1khf4/stub/lrhbuzi “Last usage”)|United States Air Force|

      |Jargon|Definition|
      |——-|———|—|
      |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1g1khf4/stub/lrhf2ix “Last usage”)|SpaceX’s world-wide satellite broadband constellation|

      **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.

      —————-
      ^([Thread #10678 for this sub, first seen 11th Oct 2024, 22:50])
      ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)

    Leave A Reply