Author Topic: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval  (Read 93529 times)

Offline wes_wilson

  • Armchair Rocketeer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Florida
    • Foundations IT, Inc.
  • Liked: 542
  • Likes Given: 375
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #40 on: 05/02/2023 11:03 am »
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?
They're suing the FAA, which is located in DC.

Yes, it's a system problem, not unique here, and thus off topic.

Mostly because I could post about an hour of rants about it, but it won't help so let's not bother.

28 U.S. Code ß 1391

They had a choice of DC based on where the defendant is located or texas where a substantial part of the events occurred.  While there are plenty of mistakes to talk about in this lawsuit; the choice of venue isn't really one of them.  Had their facts been different, they might have chosen Texas.  This is routine


@SpaceX "When can I buy my ticket to Mars?"

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 1092
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #41 on: 05/02/2023 11:52 am »
Yup, and they incorrectly used the O:F ratio (3.6) when it should be (O+F):F = 4.6.
4500t total mass implies about 1000t of fuel.

I used incorrect O:F ratio in my post. My bad; updated, thanks for the correction. They did not use an incorrect O:F ratio. They did not to do the math, but used an incorrect value from the PEA (SH propellant vs. LCH4).

Offline Danrar

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #42 on: 05/02/2023 12:10 pm »
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?
They're suing the FAA, which is located in DC.

Yes, it's a system problem, not unique here, and thus off topic.

Mostly because I could post about an hour of rants about it, but it won't help so let's not bother.
You keep hammering on this point though so I feel like we need to address it (plus we're talking about this case so the venue isn't actually off topic).

Their issue is with the FAA's decision. Why on earth would you think it shouldn't be possible to sue them in the district within which the FAA is located? There's no system problem here it's every bit as valid a venue as Texas in this case. If they were suing SpaceX they'd be able to choose Texas or California. Given the numerous extensive errors in this filing it's pretty clear that the plaintiff is losing this case no matter which courtroom this was sent to. Why'd you change your tune when you figured out who the judge was?
« Last Edit: 05/02/2023 12:27 pm by Danrar »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 1092
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #43 on: 05/02/2023 12:58 pm »
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, and about 500 tons of that is non-prop mass. SpaceX confirmed the 4500 t total prop mass on the webcast for Flight 1.

The crux of the suit is that the FAA should have performed an EIS. The FAA's basis for not performing an EIS is the PEA

We need to be careful when making judgements about the validity of the suit based on information from outside the PEA (e.g., non-prop mass).

Yes, they make errors of fact in the suit. The impact that may have on the validity of the suit or its outcome I will leave to the legal eagles.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2264
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1773
  • Likes Given: 2860
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #44 on: 05/02/2023 02:47 pm »

You keep hammering on this point though so I feel like we need to address it (plus we're talking about this case so

The structural problem with "DC is the jurisdiction for everything" is stuff that nominally belongs to states is all decided in DC, which means corruption is far easier to start and maintain, and states lose autonomy.

Not civics 101, but it should be, if studying the details of Roman history and other empires were normally done in school, or for that matter just reading the Federalist Papers (whose writers knew all that history).

What should happen is that the majority state where the regulatory issue in question should be the federal district venue.  Or, as some have proposed, start moving the headquarters of various agencies out of DC.

To get this back to mildly on topic, it turns out the random judge chosen happens to be the least corrupt judge in DC.  Bad luck for the plaintiffs.  Which is amusing.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2023 02:48 pm by InterestedEngineer »

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2044
  • Liked: 2490
  • Likes Given: 2178
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #45 on: 05/02/2023 02:57 pm »
A guy who is actively buying stock in companies with a case before him is probably not the least corrupt judge in Washington.

Online Herb Schaltegger

Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #46 on: 05/02/2023 02:57 pm »

You keep hammering on this point though so I feel like we need to address it (plus we're talking about this case so

The structural problem with "DC is the jurisdiction for everything" is stuff that nominally belongs to states is all decided in DC, which means corruption is far easier to start and maintain, and states lose autonomy.

That is not even remotely accurate.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline tssp_art

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Fairfax Station, VA
  • Liked: 627
  • Likes Given: 431
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #47 on: 05/02/2023 03:36 pm »
A guy who is actively buying stock in companies with a case before him is probably not the least corrupt judge in Washington.
Allegations of corruption without evidence or citation is not a valuable contribution to the discussion. In fact it looks a lot like desperation and/or trolling.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2264
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1773
  • Likes Given: 2860
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #48 on: 05/02/2023 03:44 pm »
A guy who is actively buying stock in companies with a case before him is probably not the least corrupt judge in Washington.

You should see the other judges

least corrupt.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2264
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1773
  • Likes Given: 2860
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #49 on: 05/02/2023 03:46 pm »

You keep hammering on this point though so I feel like we need to address it (plus we're talking about this case so

The structural problem with "DC is the jurisdiction for everything" is stuff that nominally belongs to states is all decided in DC, which means corruption is far easier to start and maintain, and states lose autonomy.

That is not even remotely accurate.

Blanket statement contradicting the existence of a structural problem noted by political scientists since before Locke.

Amusing.

« Last Edit: 05/02/2023 03:49 pm by InterestedEngineer »

Offline Danrar

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #50 on: 05/02/2023 03:46 pm »
A guy who is actively buying stock in companies with a case before him is probably not the least corrupt judge in Washington.
Allegations of corruption without evidence or citation is not a valuable contribution to the discussion. In fact it looks a lot like desperation and/or trolling.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2022/06/24/federal-judge-apple-microsoft-conflict-of-interest/?sh=1f13e78f71a7

They were wrong on one point though. He allegedly bought and held bonds, not stocks.

Edit:
A guy who is actively buying stock in companies with a case before him is probably not the least corrupt judge in Washington.

You should see the other judges

least corrupt.

Since I provided a citation for a different claim I think it's fair to ask for evidence of this claim.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2023 04:02 pm by Danrar »

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2264
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1773
  • Likes Given: 2860
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #51 on: 05/02/2023 04:05 pm »
A guy who is actively buying stock in companies with a case before him is probably not the least corrupt judge in Washington.
Allegations of corruption without evidence or citation is not a valuable contribution to the discussion. In fact it looks a lot like desperation and/or trolling.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2022/06/24/federal-judge-apple-microsoft-conflict-of-interest/?sh=1f13e78f71a7

They were wrong on one point though. He allegedly held bonds, not stocks.

Edit:
A guy who is actively buying stock in companies with a case before him is probably not the least corrupt judge in Washington.

You should see the other judges

least corrupt.

Since I provided a citation for a different claim I think it's fair to ask for evidence of this claim.

Ah, the muh citation argument.  I note *I* didn't ask for a citation, it was someone else.

I'm sure there's someone in corrupt WA DC press tha compiles such a list, right?  No?  So the muh citation argument builds in bias from the very beginning.

A friend goes to a DC area law school.  It's common knowledge.

 It's also 100% predictable.

"Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

But the "muh citation" types don't accept wise saying by our wise ancestors, so I'm not going to bother to dig up a half a dozen similar sayings or essays on the topic.   You should already know them if you had any sort of decent civics class in high school.

You did read the Federalist Papers, right?  No?

 The fact that someone doesn't know these kind of historical facts or observations about political power structures is proof of educational system corruption.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2023 04:08 pm by InterestedEngineer »

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2264
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1773
  • Likes Given: 2860
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #52 on: 05/02/2023 04:07 pm »
Let's argue about sources!   See, I told you this rabbit hole is endless.  at some point I'll just let y'all have the last word.

https://www.aliesq.com/articles/2018/11/6/the-corruption-report-us-political-corruption-at-the-local-state-amp-federal-levels

Quote
Similarly extremely high levels of corruption are detailed about New York, Massachusetts, and Washington DC, as noted in these various reputable sources.

I note the word `Texas` doesn't appear in this article

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #53 on: 05/02/2023 04:25 pm »
Dumb lawsuit = dumb thread. See above.

Locked.

Oh god, we have to unlock it again....

Please don't be dodgy with the comments.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2023 10:48 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #55 on: 05/23/2023 06:20 am »
https://twitter.com/derekdotspace/status/1660772985664417797

Quote
Reading through the motion filed and there are some interesting points, but also one of our first concrete looks at some of the finances behind Starship. A quote directly from SpaceX on the cost of the launch facility at Boca Chica as "Over 3 Billion". (Page 12/16)

IANAL, does the amount spent have any *legal* significance to the case? For example, do the relevant environmental laws/regulations require the balancing of any environmental and economic impact?

Offline AmigaClone

Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #56 on: 05/23/2023 07:46 am »

Quote
Reading through the motion filed and there are some interesting points, but also one of our first concrete looks at some of the finances behind Starship. A quote directly from SpaceX on the cost of the launch facility at Boca Chica as "Over 3 Billion". (Page 12/16)

IANAL, does the amount spent have any *legal* significance to the case? For example, do the relevant environmental laws/regulations require the balancing of any environmental and economic impact?

Does the motion includes information on how much SpaceX spent in studying the local environment and determining ways to lessen the impact of a large methane rocket launching from that site while also developing ways to mitigate damage caused by mishaps? If so, that would take away one of the arguments for the lawsuit.

Offline sebk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Europe
  • Liked: 968
  • Likes Given: 26742
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #57 on: 05/23/2023 01:49 pm »
Thank you Chris B for unlocking this thread.  Regardless of what SpaceX fans think of the merits of the case, it is absolutely worth discussing.  Now everybody behave, OK?  And trim your quotes!!! :)

Last week I heard this long interview with Eric Roesch on the Planetary Radio show (in their monthly space policy edition); it's a full hour long but worth listening too.  Via his experience in the petrochemical industry and their site licensing activities, Mr. Roesch is familiar with the environmental regulations at play here and provides some good insight.

https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/space-policy-edition-spacexs-starship-vs-the-environment-with-eric-roesch

It's listenable directly on that web page or also via podcast aggregators (iTunes, Stitcher, etc.) by searching for "Planetary Radio" and then scrolling down to the May 5th episode.
Better known as the infamous ESGHound.
...which... should tell you about all you need to know about the, um, objectivity of this Eric Roesch fellow.

(He has made several confident predictions and claims about Starship, Starbase, etc, which turned out to be completely false. And he remains passionately non-objective about SpaceX on his Twitter account. Just providing this as a heads up to those who wish to listen to the podcast... remember, appearing on a podcast is no correlated with being authoritative or objective on any particular topic... He's not at all an environmental expert, in spite of the billing and in spite of writing a blog on the topic... It's a little sad to see Casey Dreier give this fellow a platform.)
LOL considering some of the pro Space X posts Iíve seen on this forum over the years itís kind of ironic to see someone complaining about the platforming of biased opinions elsewhere.

There's a little tiny difference between posts in a forum and giving someone 1h interview.

But to add to the subject:

* Mr. Roesch was banned from this very forum by Chris Bergin's decision. It takes some doing to get such a ban.
* Mr. Roesch'es claims about the whole environmental process were so bad, that he achieved statistically significant negative correlation, i.e. if you wanted to learn something you'd do pretty well by taking Mr. Roesch'es opinion, reversing in 180į and then applying it. IOW. his voice was worse on the subject than random noise.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14107
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13974
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #58 on: 05/23/2023 03:53 pm »
Thank you Chris B for unlocking this thread.  Regardless of what SpaceX fans think of the merits of the case, it is absolutely worth discussing.  Now everybody behave, OK?  And trim your quotes!!! :)

Last week I heard this long interview with Eric Roesch on the Planetary Radio show (in their monthly space policy edition); it's a full hour long but worth listening too.  Via his experience in the petrochemical industry and their site licensing activities, Mr. Roesch is familiar with the environmental regulations at play here and provides some good insight.

https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/space-policy-edition-spacexs-starship-vs-the-environment-with-eric-roesch

It's listenable directly on that web page or also via podcast aggregators (iTunes, Stitcher, etc.) by searching for "Planetary Radio" and then scrolling down to the May 5th episode.
Better known as the infamous ESGHound.
...which... should tell you about all you need to know about the, um, objectivity of this Eric Roesch fellow.

(He has made several confident predictions and claims about Starship, Starbase, etc, which turned out to be completely false. And he remains passionately non-objective about SpaceX on his Twitter account. Just providing this as a heads up to those who wish to listen to the podcast... remember, appearing on a podcast is no correlated with being authoritative or objective on any particular topic... He's not at all an environmental expert, in spite of the billing and in spite of writing a blog on the topic... It's a little sad to see Casey Dreier give this fellow a platform.)
LOL considering some of the pro Space X posts Iíve seen on this forum over the years itís kind of ironic to see someone complaining about the platforming of biased opinions elsewhere.

There's a little tiny difference between posts in a forum and giving someone 1h interview.

But to add to the subject:

* Mr. Roesch was banned from this very forum by Chris Bergin's decision. It takes some doing to get such a ban.
* Mr. Roesch'es claims about the whole environmental process were so bad, that he achieved statistically significant negative correlation, i.e. if you wanted to learn something you'd do pretty well by taking Mr. Roesch'es opinion, reversing in 180į and then applying it. IOW. his voice was worse on the subject than random noise.
To paraphrase Amazon's patent, he was spewing SIBS...
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8133
  • Liked: 6781
  • Likes Given: 2961
Re: Environmental groups sue FAA over SS approval
« Reply #59 on: 05/23/2023 04:05 pm »
https://twitter.com/derekdotspace/status/1660772985664417797

Quote
Reading through the motion filed and there are some interesting points, but also one of our first concrete looks at some of the finances behind Starship. A quote directly from SpaceX on the cost of the launch facility at Boca Chica as "Over 3 Billion". (Page 12/16)

IANAL, does the amount spent have any *legal* significance to the case? For example, do the relevant environmental laws/regulations require the balancing of any environmental and economic impact?

Injunctive relief has to balance serving the public interest, which includes considering whether thousands of people will get laid off work at Starbase.

https://www.butzel.com/alert-Non-Competes-the-Public-Interest-and-Substantial-Harm-to-Others

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1