California: No rockets because of political statements
-
California officials reject more SpaceX rocket launches, with some citing Musk's X posts
SpaceX's plans to launch more rockets from the California coast was rejected by a state commission this week, with some officials citing Elon Musk's political posts on X and raised 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 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.
The military also vowed to mitigate the reach of sonic booms that often span across 100 miles of coastline, an issue that has caused controversy.
Members of the California Coastal Commission commended Space Force and Air Force representatives for reaching an agreement, but some then cited their ongoing concerns about Musk, the owner of SpaceX, before rejecting the plan.
Among the issues raised by some commission members 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's made about the transgender community.
"We're dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race," said Commissioner Chair Caryl Hart.
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 in up to 87% of their flights, should be considered private activity instead. That would mean that Musk's company would have to obtain permission from the California agency for launches carrying private equipment.
Military officials have gone before the commission repeatedly this year to try and 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. But Musk's recent social media posts, and his growing presence and influence in national and global affairs have become an ongoing concern by commission members considering whether or not to approve an agreement that would see SpaceX increase its activities in California.
"This company is owned by the richest person in the world with direct control of what could be the most expansive communications system in the planet," said Commissioner Mike Wilson. "Just last week that person was talking about political retribution."
Wilson asked how could members of the commission be assured that equipment being launched would benefit U.S. interests if most of it was for the benefit of a private company.
"Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet," said Commissioner Gretchen Newsom.
Elon - "See you in court."
-
It’s kind of like Disney vs. Florida.
-
Yeah, gonna walk that Disney comparison back a little. Disney doesn’t play a vital role in National Defense, and it seems that California isn’t inhibiting other companies. So it’s not removing an unfair competitive advantage, it’s actively punishing a company over its owner’s politics.
-
Yeah, gonna walk that Disney comparison back a little. Disney doesn’t play a vital role in National Defense, and it seems that California isn’t inhibiting other companies. So it’s not removing an unfair competitive advantage, it’s actively punishing a company over its owner’s politics.
@LuFins-Dad said in California: No rockets because of political statements:
Yeah, gonna walk that Disney comparison back a little. Disney doesn’t play a vital role in National Defense, and it seems that California isn’t inhibiting other companies. So it’s not removing an unfair competitive advantage, it’s actively punishing a company over its owner’s politics.
Are you saying we're about to witness bald faced hypocrisy on the parts of those who hand wrung over DeSantis' treatment of Disney, as those same people either ignore or applaud this situation?
-
You’ve already witnessed it, Horace, just not where you want to see it. Who in this thread cheered DeSantis on for this and now is all butthurt when it happened to Elon?
For the record this is obviously wrong, just like the Disney case.
That coastal commission is pretty antidemocratic in nature. It seems like a convenient vehicle for the governor to make unpopular changes with plausible deniability. I have friends who fought them over motor vehicle access to the beaches near pismo.
-
You’ve already witnessed it, Horace, just not where you want to see it. Who in this thread cheered DeSantis on for this and now is all butthurt when it happened to Elon?
For the record this is obviously wrong, just like the Disney case.
That coastal commission is pretty antidemocratic in nature. It seems like a convenient vehicle for the governor to make unpopular changes with plausible deniability. I have friends who fought them over motor vehicle access to the beaches near pismo.
@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:
You’ve already witnessed it, Horace, just not where you want to see it. Who in this thread cheered DeSantis on for this and now is all butthurt when it happened to Elon?
For the record this is obviously wrong, just like the Disney case.
That coastal commission is pretty antidemocratic in nature. It seems like a convenient vehicle for the governor to make unpopular changes with plausible deniability. I have friends who fought them over motor vehicle access to the beaches near pismo.
There is no coherent principle stating that discretionary governmental relationships with private industry must be free from the political considerations of the electorate. People can actually have opinions about whether such discretionary relationships are entered into or disbanded, when it's their elected government on one side of the business relationship. They can have those opinions without violating any principle.
-
I didn't follow the DeSantis Disney story too closely.
Correct me if I'm wrong wrong, but wasn't that all about zoning and Disney getting perks that other businesses didn't get?
California's case seems to be about mean tweets.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
They managed to write a law that didn’t mention the word ‘Disney’, rather it specified specific criteria that, by happy coincidence, included Disney and no one else.
But deniability became implausible when the perps bragged that they punished Disney for their political speech.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
I didn't follow the DeSantis Disney story too closely.
Correct me if I'm wrong wrong, but wasn't that all about zoning and Disney getting perks that other businesses didn't get?
California's case seems to be about mean tweets.
@George-K said in California: No rockets because of political statements:
I didn't follow the DeSantis Disney story too closely.
Correct me if I'm wrong wrong, but wasn't that all about zoning and Disney getting perks that other businesses didn't get?
California's case seems to be about mean tweets.
Disney got sweet heart deals for some regulations because they historically had such a tight relationship with the government. Those deals were discretionary and optional. The state was motivated to make those deals less sweet, as Disney played politics against the political interests of the people who voted the government in. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people, might be expected to do just that.
-
You realize that defense works just fine for the coastal commission I assume.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:
You realize that defense works just fine for the coastal commission I assume.
Yes, I am an actually reasonable human being who understands the implications of his ideas.
I can also coherently think CA is being idiotic, without thinking they are violating a fanciful principle against political considerations in discretionary relationships with private industry.
-
They managed to write a law that didn’t mention the word ‘Disney’, rather it specified specific criteria that, by happy coincidence, included Disney and no one else.
But deniability became implausible when the perps bragged that they punished Disney for their political speech.
@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:
They managed to write a law that didn’t mention the word ‘Disney’, rather it specified specific criteria that, by happy coincidence, included Disney and no one else.
E Jean Carroll smiled.
-
Interesting. You were licking your chops waiting for the delicious hypocrisy to emerge, and when I pointed out that it already had and it’s all on your side, you suddenly define away hypocrisy as it relates to states punishing actors for their politics.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:
You realize that defense works just fine for the coastal commission I assume.
Not really. It did at first blush before I had my coffee. And I wouldn’t call any of the posters on here butthurt. I was more bemused than anything.
But this is interesting that California Coadtal Commission wants to go to war with a company that is vital to National Defense and is also one of the most critical parts of the Hurricane recovery efforts in the Blue Ridge over political disagreements.
-
Interesting. You were licking your chops waiting for the delicious hypocrisy to emerge, and when I pointed out that it already had and it’s all on your side, you suddenly define away hypocrisy as it relates to states punishing actors for their politics.
@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:
Interesting. You were licking your chops waiting for the delicious hypocrisy to emerge, and when I pointed out that it already had and it’s all on your side, you suddenly define away hypocrisy as it relates to states punishing actors for their politics.
First of all, I don't actually believe you would have come out against this, but for having been painted in the corner with your fanciful "principle" that doesn't actually exist, which you used back in the DeSantis/Disney discussions. But be that as it may, I see nobody else using generally applicable principle to argue one way or another. In order for someone to be hypocritical, you'd have to define which standards they are mixing and matching.
For instance, I enjoyed DeSantis' treatment of Disney, and I think CA's actions here against Musk are idiotic and anti-social. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, because I haven't invented a principle to give either of my opinions more rhetorical punch. That is what you did, and now you're having to live with that alleged principle.
-
Without the sweetheart government money in the form of tax credits for EVs, Tesla would probably have gone bankrupt. The motivation for those deals was essentially political. Of course those weren't targeted specifically at Tesla EVs, but the effect was outsized for Tesla alone.
-
The principle that the state shouldn’t punish entities for political speech predates me by a considerable amount of time.
@jon-nyc said in California: No rockets because of political statements:
The principle that the state shouldn’t punish entities for political speech predates me by a considerable amount of time.
I understand you've fixated on your personal definition of "punish", but an adjustment to a discretionary sweetheart deal is not the sort of "punishment" meant to be outlawed by the first amendment.
As an example that you've failed to grapple with before, imagine a vendor with a huge government contract in San Francisco, becomes extremely politically active, and was spending their profits to support a bunch of abhorrent right-wing causes, as far as the population of SF was concerned. Does the first amendment block SF from changing vendors? Obviously no, and obviously this defeats your principle.
Education is extremely important.
