California officials have rejected further rocket launches by SpaceX, a company owned by Elon Musk. Some of the officials have cited his posts on social media platform 𝕏, which he owns.

According to the Los Angeles Times [emphasis added]:

SpaceX’s plans to launch more rockets from the California coast were rejected by a state commission this week, with some officials citing Elon Musk’s political posts on 𝕏 and raising 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 on 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 1st Amendment protects American citizens from being silenced, censored, or otherwise punished over lawful speech. It was written specifically regarding laws passed by Congress, but applies to all levels of government and is not exclusive to the legislative branch.

Of course, the First Amendment also applies to the non-legislative branches of government—to every government agency—local, state, or federal. — Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 168 n.

In other words, it is blatantly unlawful for California officials to enact government policies against Musk or anyone else based in any way on their opinions of his speech. That didn’t stop California Coastal Commission Chair Caryl Hart from citing Musk’s politics in their decision.

“We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” Hart said.

It may not matter what the California Coastal Commission believes. SpaceX is a leading contractor for Vandenberg Space Force Base. Federal officials do not need a permit or permission from the commission to launch rockets as long as they agree to mitigate negative effects from their actions.

As free speech advocate Michael Shellenberger noted:

California regulators have blocked @SpaceX launches because they disagree with @elonmusk ‘s politics. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a gross abuse of power, even in increasingly totalitarian California.

California regulators have blocked @SpaceX launches because they disagree with @elonmusk's politics. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a gross abuse of power, even in increasingly totalitarian California. pic.twitter.com/T7YZdTb0xJ

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 12, 2024

Shellenberger went on to lambast politicians across the state, particularly Governor Gavin Newsom:

The California Coastal Commission rejected SpaceX’s proposal to increase rocket launches for political not environmental reasons. Just look at what they said

— “We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” said CCC Chair Caryl Hart.

— “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 another commissioner.

— “Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] while claiming his desire to help hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” said another one.

All California regulators take their cues from California Gov. @GavinNewsom.

As such, this could be payback by Newsom, who has been at war with @elonmusk ever since Newsom signed legislation that makes it easier for teachers to brainwash children into believing they are the opposite gender and can change their sex through drugs and surgery.

The governor of America’s richest and most populous state yesterday doubled down on his new law, which requires that schools hide a psychiatric disorder known as gender dysphoria from parents.

California Governor Gavin Newsom claims his law “protects the child-parent… pic.twitter.com/ntyEjyUcmO

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 17, 2024

That war escalated when @GavinNewsom got the legislature to ban AI parody videos relating to elections after @elonmusk shared one mocking @KamalaHarris

Ten days ago, a federal judge blocked the implementation of Newsom’s censorship law for being an obvious violation of the First Amendment:

California's recent ban on election-related "misinformation," including political parody, is unconstitutional, a federal court has just ruled. Free speech, not censorship, is the solution to bad info. Wonderful repudiation of totalitarians @GavinNewsom @KamalaHarris & @Tim_Walz pic.twitter.com/YiUmyChqu4

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 2, 2024

Having implemented policies that increased homelessness by 40%, and that increased violent crime so much that it is now 31% higher than the national average,
@GavinNewsom is spiraling into nihilism.

Since Newsom took office in 2019, California’s population saw a net decline of around 500,000 people, resulting in the loss of a Congressional seat.

Newsom’s radical lockdowns destroyed thousands of family-owned small businesses and stunted a generation of children.

Now, Newsom appears determined to chase California’s most successful entrepreneurs out of the state.

Newsom will go down in history as the worst, most destructive governor in California’s history.

RECEIPTS:

CRIMEhttps://t.co/Ftd5iAkNmc

HOMELESSNESShttps://t.co/QTDcdqWepq pic.twitter.com/WMEINd4dM7

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) August 13, 2024

Elon Musk tends to come out on top even when there is ambiguity surrounding an issue. This is a violation of his 1st Amendment rights prima facie, so he should have no trouble smacking it into the totalitarian abyss where it belongs.

The astronauts, who have been aboard the ISS since early June, were initially set to return after an eight-day mission. However, technical issues with the Starliner, including thruster malfunctions and helium leaks, have led NASA to extend their stay until February next year, when a SpaceX vehicle will facilitate their return.

During a briefing, Nelson emphasized NASA’s commitment to safety, stating, “Our core value is safety, and it is our north star.” This decision follows weeks of deliberation between NASA and Boeing, aiming to assess the risks associated with the Starliner’s return capabilities.

Boeing, which has invested over a decade and faced numerous challenges with the Starliner, including significant financial losses, expressed disappointment through its vice president Mark Nappi. Despite the setback, Nappi confirmed Boeing’s readiness to support NASA’s revised plan, prioritizing crew and spacecraft safety.

The extended mission for Wilmore and Williams, both seasoned astronauts, now includes them staying aboard the ISS for nearly eight months, integrating with a new crew set to arrive via SpaceX in September. NASA has adjusted supply missions to accommodate this longer stay, ensuring no shortages, as humorously noted by NASA’s Dana Weigel, “No one has had to go on a diet or calorie restrictions.”

This decision not only impacts the immediate mission but also raises questions about the future of Boeing’s Starliner program, which was intended to provide NASA with a second, independent means of crew transport to the ISS, reducing reliance on Russian spacecraft post the retirement of the Space Shuttle.

SpaceX, under the leadership of Elon Musk, has now solidified its role as a pivotal partner for NASA, handling not just crew rotations but also pivotal missions like lunar landings and satellite launches. Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president, affirmed their readiness to support NASA’s needs.

The shift underscores the competitive and cooperative nature of space exploration, where safety and reliability dictate the pace and partnerships of space missions. As NASA and Boeing continue to troubleshoot the Starliner’s issues, the space community watches closely, understanding the implications for future manned spaceflight missions.

Article generated from corporate media reports.

According to an internal US military report made public on Monday, landing a rescue force at a US embassy in Africa threatened by a Benghazi-style siege is only one of the potential military uses for Elon Musk’s Starship vessels.

The document refers to a 2020 partnership agreement between SpaceX and the United States Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), but it is still a wish list because the Starships are far from operational.

The US military announced the TRANSCOM partnership with SpaceX in October 2020. The Defense Department was seeking the ability to transport the equivalent of a C-17 cargo – just under 80 tons, or a single M1 Abrams tank – “anywhere on the globe in less than an hour,” according to official documents.

The Pentagon has other objectives, according to the latest “midterm report” (pdf below) obtained by the Intercept through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

A fleet of military Starships may provide “an alternative method for logistics delivery” in the Pacific, as well as bring “a collection of shelters, vehicles, construction equipment, and other gear” anywhere on the globe on short notice, allowing the US Air Force to set up an airbase.

The “Embassy Support” scenario involves a “rapid theater direct delivery capability” from the US to an embassy in Africa, possibly involving a “quick reaction force.” The Military stated that even demonstrating such capability “could deter non-state actors from aggressive acts toward the US.”

While the report does not draw this comparison, the scenario closely resembles the attack on the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, when an ambassador and three security contractors were killed while waiting for a rescue squad that never arrived.

While SpaceX has yet to respond on the story, TRANSCOM spokesman John Ross told the Intercept that the military believes a rocket-deployed rapid response force is “possible within the next 5-10 years.”

The Starship is still in its early stages of development. After a series of experiments that resulted in explosions, the first successful landing of a prototype occurred in May 2021. Aside from technical difficulties, Musk is attempting to obtain permission to launch tests from his SpaceX facility in southern Texas.

According to National Geographic, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued SpaceX preliminary environmental approval last week, but the corporation will need to create “a historical context report… of the Mexican War” and meet 74 other requirements before receiving the full approved license.

Even so, the FAA license would only be valid for ten launches each year. According to a leaked FAA assessment, authorities are concerned that SpaceX lacks “a strong safety culture.”

Read the report given at Great Game India.