1) Are the litigants the usual large organizations, or is this a group of lesser organizations?2) A complaint is usually a first draft on the claims. So the mistakes on basic facts can be corrected, although this might have an impact on their preliminary injunction arguments.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 05/01/2023 06:19 pm1) Are the litigants the usual large organizations, or is this a group of lesser organizations?2) A complaint is usually a first draft on the claims. So the mistakes on basic facts can be corrected, although this might have an impact on their preliminary injunction arguments.The mistake in starship/super heavy launch rate and fuel capacity per launch together combine to over an order of magnitude difference (taken at face value, a 4x exaggeration in launch rate combined with a 3.7x exaggeration in fuel per launch is a factor of about 15x exaggeration), exaggerating the claims and showing a pretty clear lack of even basic due diligence. They’re wasting the court’s time.They’ve got absolutely no grounds for complaining that the FAA didn’t do their job here.This will be a useful litmus test for which of the loud voices care about the truth and care to do even a tiny amount of basic digging and who don’t.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/01/2023 06:45 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 05/01/2023 06:19 pm1) Are the litigants the usual large organizations, or is this a group of lesser organizations?2) A complaint is usually a first draft on the claims. So the mistakes on basic facts can be corrected, although this might have an impact on their preliminary injunction arguments.The mistake in starship/super heavy launch rate and fuel capacity per launch together combine to over an order of magnitude difference (taken at face value, a 4x exaggeration in launch rate combined with a 3.7x exaggeration in fuel per launch is a factor of about 15x exaggeration), exaggerating the claims and showing a pretty clear lack of even basic due diligence. They’re wasting the court’s time.They’ve got absolutely no grounds for complaining that the FAA didn’t do their job here.This will be a useful litmus test for which of the loud voices care about the truth and care to do even a tiny amount of basic digging and who don’t.It's a litmus test for jurisdiction selection, the facts don't matter in some jurisdictions.DC being one of those.
You’re confusing “jurisdiction” and “venue” but don’t feel bad - plenty of real lawyers do that too. The fact of the matter is, venue for this action appears appropriate at first blush to me (bearing in mind I have not researched any venue-specific case law for probably a decade - it’s pretty well-established law in most circumstances). The defendant, being the United States or an agency thereof, and in the form of the FAA Administrator in his official capacity, the Federal District Court for D.C. is perfectly non-remarkable.
Quote from: envy887 on 05/01/2023 06:00 pmLots of basic factual errors in the claims, including claiming that FAA approved a plan to launch 20 Starship/ SuperHeavy rockets per year when the actual approval was 5 per year, and claiming that SuperHeavy holds 3,700 tons of liquid methane, when the full stack holds less than 1,000 tons.You miss-read. It says 20 in like 5 years.
Lots of basic factual errors in the claims, including claiming that FAA approved a plan to launch 20 Starship/ SuperHeavy rockets per year when the actual approval was 5 per year, and claiming that SuperHeavy holds 3,700 tons of liquid methane, when the full stack holds less than 1,000 tons.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 05/01/2023 06:35 pmYou miss-read. It says 20 in like 5 years.Nope. It says PER YEAR.
You miss-read. It says 20 in like 5 years.
para3 ...SpaceX ’s plan to launch 20 Starship/Super Heavy rockets per year over the next 5 years...para60 ...SpaceX ’s plan to launch 20 Starship/Super Heavy rockets per year over the next 5 years...para96 ...which include 20 launches over the next 5 years...
Quote from: envy887 on 05/01/2023 06:00 pmLots of basic factual errors in the claims, including claiming that FAA approved a plan to launch 20 Starship/ SuperHeavy rockets per year when the actual approval was 5 per year, and claiming that SuperHeavy holds 3,700 tons of liquid methane, when the full stack holds less than 1,000 tons.Appears they conflated "propellant" and "liquid methane" and used only SH numbers, not full stack. In any case, your figure is also incorrect according to the June-22 PEA (which presumably what they were looking at). With a 3.6:1 mass ratio, full stack propellant load "up to" 3700(SH)+1500(SS) = 5200/3.6 = 1444 LCH4. edit: oops, correct math
[Can't simply add those together because the max approved per stage is different than the max approved for the full stack. The full stack has an approximate maximum of 5,000 tons gross liftoff mass...
Exaggerations of the lengths of closures… 800 hours of safety-related closures implies over 90% of the time, the beach is open.And ironically, those closures are probably also more important for protecting the environment than any additional review the FAA and SpaceX could do.
Quote from: envy887 on 05/01/2023 06:00 pmLots of basic factual errors in the claims, including claiming that FAA approved a plan to launch 20 Starship/ SuperHeavy rockets per year when the actual approval was 5 per year, and claiming that SuperHeavy holds 3,700 tons of liquid methane, when the full stack holds less than 1,000 tons.Appears they conflated "propellant" and "liquid methane" and used only SH numbers, not full stack. In any case, your figure is also incorrect according to the June-22 PEA (which presumably what they were looking at). With a 3.6:1 mass ratio, full stack propellant load "up to" 3700(SH)+1500(SS) = 5200/3.6 = 1444 LCH4. Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/01/2023 06:40 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 05/01/2023 06:35 pmYou miss-read. It says 20 in like 5 years.Nope. It says PER YEAR.You are both correct.Quotepara3 ...SpaceX ’s plan to launch 20 Starship/Super Heavy rockets per year over the next 5 years...para60 ...SpaceX ’s plan to launch 20 Starship/Super Heavy rockets per year over the next 5 years...para96 ...which include 20 launches over the next 5 years...p.s. Attached is an OCR'd copy (not perfect but usable). Please use to avoid posting screen shots.edit: oops, correct math
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/01/2023 05:09 pmExaggerations of the lengths of closures… 800 hours of safety-related closures implies over 90% of the time, the beach is open.And ironically, those closures are probably also more important for protecting the environment than any additional review the FAA and SpaceX could do.So much this. These people could care less about the environment. If they did they would welcome beach closures not oppose them.
Quote from: joek on 05/01/2023 08:03 pmQuote from: envy887 on 05/01/2023 06:00 pmLots of basic factual errors in the claims, including claiming that FAA approved a plan to launch 20 Starship/ SuperHeavy rockets per year when the actual approval was 5 per year, and claiming that SuperHeavy holds 3,700 tons of liquid methane, when the full stack holds less than 1,000 tons.Appears they conflated "propellant" and "liquid methane" and used only SH numbers, not full stack. In any case, your figure is also incorrect according to the June-22 PEA (which presumably what they were looking at). With a 3.6:1 mass ratio, full stack propellant load "up to" 3700(SH)+1500(SS) = 5200/3.6 = 1444 LCH4. edit: oops, correct mathCan't simply add those together because the max approved per stage is different than the max approved for the full stack. The full stack has an approximate maximum of 5,000 tons gross liftoff mass, and about 500 tons of that is non-prop mass. SpaceX confirmed the 4500 t total prop mass on the webcast for Flight 1.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/environmentalists-sue-faa-over-spacex-launch-license-texas-2023-05-01/Quote one of several groups bringing the suit in federal court in the District of Columbia.That's some fun court shopping. Shouldn't they have to use a Texas federal court?
one of several groups bringing the suit in federal court in the District of Columbia.
Quote from: InterestedEngineer on 05/01/2023 06:41 pmhttps://www.reuters.com/technology/space/environmentalists-sue-faa-over-spacex-launch-license-texas-2023-05-01/Quote one of several groups bringing the suit in federal court in the District of Columbia.That's some fun court shopping. Shouldn't they have to use a Texas federal court?They're suing the FAA, which is located in DC.
Let me guess funded by Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.
According to the courtlistener link above, the case was assigned to Carl Nicholshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_J._Nichols
