Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against the California Coastal Commission
I think Elon Musk’s recent lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission deserves more attention than it appears to be getting.
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/elon-musks-spacex-sues-california-coastal-commission/
Mr. Musk has asserted that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) denied permission for his company SpaceX to launch rockets from Vandenberg Space Force Base because of Mr. Musk’s political affiliations and apparent political views.
When I first heard that he had sued on that basis, I assumed that Mr. Musk might be speculating on the motivations of the CCC members who voted against his request, and thus might be stretching to make those allegations. But then I heard audio clips of the comments made by the CCC commissioners during the hearing on the request (the request actually came from the U.S. Space Force, not from SpaceX directly). They commented especially on Mr. Musk’s association with presidential candidate Donald Trump. The commissioners were quite vocal about their distaste (even contempt) for Mr. Musk’s political affiliations, a topic having nothing to do with the CCC’s mission of protecting the California coastline — creating a clear apparent presumption that their vote was based on Mr. Musk’s political affiliations.
It should be quite concerning if a government entity is permitted to grant or deny government permits on the basis of the permit applicant’s political affiliations or ideological (or other) beliefs. The California Coastal Commission has enormous power over people who own property on or near the ocean coast of California, including whether the property owner can build or remodel a house. If the CCC can grant or deny permission based on the property owner’s political views, affiliations or ideological beliefs, a large number of property owners and prospective property owners will be affected.
We had seen a little bit of this type of thing a few years ago when we saw a spate of cities and government-run universities denying building and operating permits for the chicken fast food chain Chick-fil-A because the politicians in those cities and universities did not like the political and cultural ideologies held by the founder of the fast food chain.
Many years ago there was an effort within the California State Bar (the state government licensing entity for lawyers) to factor into its operational decisions a potential vendor’s position on “Proposition 8,” which had to do with the public’s effort to define “marriage.” As a licensed California lawyer, I had worried that the Bar might start factoring that issue into licensing, but that didn’t happen in the subsequent fifteen or so years. But I suppose it could still happen.
Maybe we’d have fewer “conspiracy theories” about potential American totalitarian government regimes if the existing government entities didn’t provide so much evidence that they behave as totalitarian regimes.
And once again, although the Left keeps claiming that people of the Right are the nascent authoritarians, it’s the Left that keeps demonstrating authoritarian behaviors.
Published in Domestic Policy
He’s already moved much of SpaceX out of California, might be easier and better to just finish the job and not have to deal with their insanity at all.
Docket:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69265587/space-exploration-technologies-corp-v-california-coastal-commission/
Certain orbits need to have launches heading west or close to due south.
If that’s for “his own stuff” like StarLink, then I guess he has to do what he needs to in order to get those done. If it involves launching military satellites etc, he should get the military to overrule the commission for “National Security.” And stick it to them hard.
A lot of the Starlink launches come out of Canaveral. We get to see them sometimes here in Wilmington when the trajectory is to the North East .
Launches into polar orbit from Canaveral would have to go north over large population centers along the eastern seaboard or south over Cuba. Since a lot of polar launches are for military and reconnaissance satellites, I’m sure we would prefer they not go over Cuba. Polar launches south from Vandenburg go over the Pacific.
For reasons of physics, satellites that use synthetic aperture radar have higher resolution if they launch in a retrograde (westerly) orbit, which is only safely possible from Vandenburg. From Canaveral they would have to go over populated areas in Florida and the Midwest.
So it would hard to replace Vandenburg.
As suggested before, then, if military-related launches are a big part of it, then just tell the California Coastal Commission to stuff itself, and go ahead with what’s needed.
SpaceX could also launch from the Pacific Spaceport Complex in Kodiak Alaska.
But you see the problem? Kodiak Alaska is 57 N, the Falcon 9 could probably still make orbit from there – but with weight restrictions on the payloads…
Actually its not as bad as I’d thought… The Falcon 9 FT can launch from Kodiak with a 95.3% payload. 21.7 T…
From what I’ve read, there are two issues in the lawsuit. The CCC contends that the launches are a private affair and require CCC approval, while SpaceX and the USAF contend that they are a federal agency activity, which would only require USAF certification that it is in compliance with state laws and would give the CCC no authority to approve or reject.
The other issue is that several of the commissioners said the quiet part out loud at the hearings and said they were rejecting SpaceX’s application because of Musk’s political views, which obviously has nothing to do with coastal protection.
Yes, I think they’ll ignore the 1st amendment issues and just use federal authority to squash the CCC. The commissioners who made the comments should be forced to resign. SpaceX should win any lawsuit it brings against the commission.
Right, I think Musk should sue them and win, but the launches shouldn’t be delayed pending the lawsuit.
Right, I dont think they should either.
I think he gets an injunction or the feds step up to protect their authority. The FAA, USAF or whatever agency thinks it owns these rights.
Also sea launch might be a possibility… There are plenty of second hand drilling platforms out there that could be modified into a mobile launch platform. This would possibly slow down the launch cadence of the Falcon 9 – at least until a significant support fleet could be brought into service.
The second of the issues you have identified is what worries me. This is not the first time we have seen governmental bodies granting or withholding essential government approvals based on the politics (or perceived politics) of the applicant. It seems to be increasingly accepted – and even encouraged – for governmental bodies to factor into their decision-making the politics of the people involved. I see this almost exclusively as a function of the left, but maybe I’m not getting a full picture. Nonetheless, the idea of government treating citizens and residents differently based on the politics of the citizen or resident strikes me as antithetical to the concept of a government of laws, and thus dangerous to the very existence of a republic.
Hawaii.
There was a big push to put a major launch facility in on Hawaiis big island near the Kilauea Volcano in the 90’s. The area was depressed because all the canneries and plantations had shut down. A space port would have resulted in a building boom, great jobs and would have made Hawaii the space port for the Pacific.
While visiting to go see the volcano, we noticed lots of cars with bumper stickers of a rocket in a circle /slash. Asked out tour guide what that was and he told us lots of locals were opposed because of the ” pollution” from the rocket launches. I responded, ” you guys have a volcano thats been erupting since the 1980’s and are worried about the pollution from some rocket launches?” He gave me the stink face and couldn’t answer.
California seems headed down the same idiot road. A major complaint from a member of the coastal commission was ” Sonic booms scared some people in the channel islands.”
How much cost would it add to get everything out there first?
Yes, this bothers me, too. It even seems to be accepted by the victims of these partisan decisions.
OK. But Kodiak already exists. Hawaii being a very left very enviro-mental state, how much permitting red tape and regulatory litigation would have to suffer through just to get a shovel any where near a building site? Decades?
I would never build anything in Hawaii because every square inch of those islands is high holy ground for the Native Hawaiians. They have blocked construction of the Thirty-Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea since 2010, despite the consortium having raised over a billion dollars for it. The consortium even agreed to dismantle 4 of the existing telescopes on their “holy ground” and agreed that this would be the last telescope ever built on Mauna Kea. No dice. They also blocked the expansion of the Keck telescopes that were producing amazing scientific results at a cheap cost. Unfortunately there is only one access road up that mountain, and protesters periodically block it. I think part of being conquered is that we get to build telescopes all over your “holy ground” if we so desire. Let your “gods” stop it if they can.
Just imagine what Native Hawaiians would do if you were to pollute their “holy ground” with sonic booms and fumes of burnt rocket fuel.
Maybe like the Indians do about Casinos if the money was right.
Unfortunately the Thirty-Meter Telescope folks haven’t figured out what that right amount is. You would think with a billion dollars in hand, there would be some amount that would help the Native Hawaiians see that exploring the stars from Mauna Kea honors their ancestors or gods or whatever. But it’s 14 years into the process and they haven’t come to a meeting of the minds yet.
Sounds like Australia and their “spirit whales.”
At some point it might be time to just roll over them.
Or perhaps build a new island that they have no claim to.
The left has decided it’s time to just roll over the Constitution, so your precedent could be useful to them.
I suspect you need an EPA permit to build your own volcanic island.
Make a new volcanic island? Why? Make a NON-volcanic island.
If we need a telescope in the South Pacific, there are other islands that are U.S. Territories.
The problem is that Hawaii stands in some very deep water … 18 000 Ft deep… The amount of material needed to back fill to create even a small island is literally mountainous.
Back to SeaLaunch … Get a drilling platform, modify it to carry your rocket out to the middle of nowhere… Maybe you have to dock in a crazy port city like Long Beach or Portland… But all the important stuff is on the ship, you can load and fuel that ship nearly anywhere… The locals get too restless? Relocate your shore facilities fairly easily.
The problem with a telescope is that you cant just randomly plunk it anywhere and get reasonable results… You need terrain, elevation from sea level. This is why the Hawaiian Mountains, and the Andes Mountains in Chile are preferred sites. They’re very tall, but also are relatively accessible for construction equipment. This is a very rare combination.
Put in on (an) extendable post(s) like the Jetsons. Lower it for construction/resupply/etc, raise it up for observation.
Thats taller than any sky scraper ever constructed by several orders of magnitude.
Perhaps put a telescope on a large dirigible airship… Maybe keep it airborne for a week at a time… Just flying around the jet stream
And the large areas of water around the Hawaiian Islands make for temperatures that change slowly and thus laminar-flowing air, which results in better seeing.
The high altitude puts you above more of the turbulent, dirty, light-absorbing atmosphere.
Correct. Also issues worth considering.
This is why I also considered a Dirigible Airship for a telescope mount – If designed correctly, you could coast along above the jet stream and be above 80% of the atmosphere staying well away from all sources of light pollution.