You're surprised by emotional content of politicized issues, such as the environment and anything Elon Musk?
I do understand being emotional about the environment and a desire to preserve it in the presence of people and the activities that we have to do to survive. So I understand being emotional about an administration rolling back EPA restrictions on coal power waste water release[2] (for example).
Analogy: I don't understand a co-worker being "mad" at you for driving 10 miles to the office because they ride their bike that same distance and are therefore doing more for the environment than you are. Proud of their own efforts? Sure. Mad because not everyone can do what they do? No, I don't understand that.
[1] https://www.texasobserver.org/methane-abandoned-oil-wells/
[2] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/trump-epa-rol...
> What people "get" for SpaceX running that activity is a space capability that is superior to every other nation on the planet.
The US already has had that for 50 years, and SpaceX is nowhere near the pinnacle of space capability. NASA has a helicopter flying around Mars, will soon have a new telescope out at (L2?), is operating in interstellar space, put humans on the moon 50 years ago, etc. etc.
SpaceX is good at launches to orbit, but being a private business they can sell that to any country. The US public doesn't own that capability like they do for NASA, any more than they own the new Ford truck line.
They do, because ITAR means that SpaceX can't ship that capability overseas without the US governments approval, but ford can ship their truck line overseas (and has in fact been known to do so).
They aren't directly entitled to control it (beyond their ability to pass new laws that effect it, like taxes if they want to capture the profit, or laws forbidding SpaceX sell services to foreign entities they dislike, or so on), but the capability is very much tied down to the nation.
Wouldn't a "responsible way" include applying for a NEPA permit correctly?
A big problem with this PEA is this pipeline + fracking hypothesis. The pipeline, and the wells, are completely missing from the document.
The document has clearly made assumptions: they assume that a pipeline has built, and they seem to assume raw natural gas. But there's literally no disclosure about the infrastructure.
As such: SpaceX is already making an irresponsible move. A responsible company would disclose the details of their planned pipeline and/or mining operations.
What I do know is that SpaceX wants to launch rockets from Starbase and they want to have the infrastructure to do that. I know they have a lot of experience operating out of Cape Canaveral and are familiar with the infrastructure NASA put there to support NASA's launching activities. And I know that even though it annoys them that agencies like the FAA aren't really equipped yet with processes to deal with companies like SpaceX, they do follow the existing rules.
As a result, it would surprise me if they hadn't aligned all of the respective agencies on what they were doing and jumping through the hoops that were put there by those agencies to get to the other side.
