Conservationists raise alarm over Air Force plan to land SpaceX Starships on bird sanctuary atoll
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
The U.S. military is considering Johnston Atoll, a remote Pacific island chain that serves as an important refuge for dozens of seabird species, for "two commercial rocket landing pads" to test giant cargo rocket landings for the Department of the Air Force's (DAF) Rocket Cargo Vanguard program, and it's getting push-back from environmentalists.
The Rocket Cargo Vanguard program aims to develop the technologies required to rapidly deliver up to 100 tons of cargo anywhere on Earth using commercial rockets. Though not explicitly named, Elon Musk's SpaceX is currently the only company —commercial or otherwise — capable of manufacturing rockets designed for landing and reuse, and its Starship megarocket is DAF's leading contender. The Air Force outlined its plans in a Federal Registry notice last month. Objections from the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), however, may hinder plans for the new landing pads on the South Pacific atoll.
Johnston Atoll lies about 825 miles (1,325 kilometers) southwest of Hawaii, and is home to several different species of seabirds, including the largest known colony of Red-tailed Tropicbirds. It was designated a refuge for native bird populations in 1926, but suffered environmental degradation through 2004, due to its use by the U.S. military as a nuclear weapons testing and chemical weapons disposal site. Since the military's departure from the islands, restoration efforts have helped raise Johnston Atoll's bird population back to nearly 1.5 million. Now, critics say the planned new rocket infrastructure could undo decades of conservation work.
'Installing rocket landing pads on Johnston Atoll cannot occur without significantly disrupting wildlife," said ABC president Michael Parr in a statement. DAF has stated that environmental reviews will be conducted before any operations move forward, but ABC say it's not enough.
ABC says the islands have become a crucial nesting habitat since the military's 2004 departure. Seabirds fly for thousands of miles across open water to reach Johnston Atoll, which sits alone amidst more than 570,000 square miles of ocean. Often times, the ABC says, it is the only land these birds see in their entire lives.
"The proposed 10 rocket landings per year would pose serious ecological risks, including hazardous debris, contamination, noise pollution, and other impacts from potential failures and explosions," it says in the ABC statement, adding, "opening Johnston's airstrip to planes would destroy the ground-nesting seabird colonies that have reclaimed the entire runway."
ABC expects the DAF to issue a Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in the near future, but believes the study will overlook the possible major impacts to the region's bird populations. Instead, they are requesting the DAF prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement "to better assess the potential hazards posed by the project."
Starship is SpaceX's newest rocket under development, and currently stands as the world's largest, most powerful launch vehicle. The company began orbital flight tests of the megarocket in April 2023, with a mostly steady progression of milestones over the course of eight launches. It's last two though, which launched a taller, upgraded version of Starship's upper stage, have stinted that progress, with both flights ending in the unexpected loss of the vehicle during ascent.
RELATED STORIES:
— SpaceX loses Starship rocket again, but catches giant Super Heavy booster during Flight 8 launch (video)
— Starship and Super Heavy explained
— Will 2025 be the year of Starship? SpaceX's megarocket is growing up.
SpaceX has already faced environmental scrutiny over its Starbase test site near Boca Chica Beach in South Texas, where it manufactures and launches Starship from a facility surrounded by other dedicated wildlife areas. Past launches have sparked legal action and criticisms from environmentalists there as well.
SpaceX has designed Starship to be fully reusable, and capable of carrying both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, the moon, and eventually Mars. It's built for high-capacity, rapid-turnaround spaceflight, and is central to SpaceX's long-term vision to make human life interplanetary. Beyond commercial and military applications, NASA has contracted a version of Starship under its Human Landing System (HLS) program to serve as one of the lunar landers for the agency's Artemis Program, which aims to return astronauts to the moon's surface later this decade. It is slated to land the first Artemis astronauts on the moon on the Artemis 3 mission no earlier than 2027.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk Says DOGE Hasn't Been as Effective as He Wanted — Are More Cuts Coming?
Elon Musk said his high-profile effort to cut government waste with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has made 'some progress but not enough.' The tempered assessment comes amid reported tensions between Musk and President Donald Trump, whose administration launched the initiative. Although Musk announced his intention to step down from leadership of DOGE, the department will continue in its attempt to cut unnecessary spending by the federal government. Be Aware: Find Out: Musk said DOGE hasn't been as effective as he wanted. So, are more cuts coming? Musk envisioned DOGE as a transformative force to streamline federal operations. His ambitious plan aimed to eliminate wasteful spending, reduce bureaucracy and modernize government technology, with the ultimate goal of saving up to $2 trillion in taxpayer money. In his first 100 days leading DOGE, Musk claimed the team saved $1.6 billion a day, ABC News reported. However, he admitted the results fall short of his trillion-dollar goal. He blamed entrenched interests and bureaucracy, calling the reform process 'like turning a fleet of supertankers.' Specifically, Musk emphasized that achieving the revised goal of $1 trillion in federal spending cuts would depend on 'how much pain is the cabinet and Congress willing to take.' 'It can be done,' Musk told reporters. 'But it requires dealing with a lot of complaints.' Read Next: While Musk said DOGE saved $160 billion by cutting waste, an analysis cited by CBS News estimated the initiative could ultimately cost taxpayers $135 billion this fiscal year. The report, attributed to the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, outlined expenses tied to mismanaged staff cuts, lost productivity and administrative disruptions. In addition, some experts said the deeper issue was the assumption that government should operate like a business. They said that applying corporate strategies to public systems could create more disruption than efficiency. 'Running a government isn't like running a business,' said George Carrillo, co-founder and CEO of the Hispanic Construction Council. Carrillo previously served as the Director of Social Determinants of Health for the state of Oregon. 'It's not about moving fast to sell products or meet quarterly goals,' Carrillo said. 'Instead, it's a slower, more thoughtful process, where every decision impacts real people's lives.' Despite mixed results, the Trump administration is doubling down on DOGE's mission. The White House has formally requested that Congress rescind $9.4 billion in previously approved spending, targeting programs flagged by DOGE. If approved, the move would cement many of DOGE's proposed cuts and freezes, with Trump aides claiming the reductions focus on programs promoting liberal ideologies. 'This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE's findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,' House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters, as reported by AP News. Johnson pledged the House would bring the package to the floor 'as quickly as possible.' Although Musk has formally stepped down from his leadership role at DOGE, he continues to advise the department behind the scenes. His influence still looms large over the initiative's direction, with Johnson citing his original vision when defending new rounds of cuts. Whether his continued involvement will help DOGE regain momentum or further politicize its mission remains to be seen. Still, some policy experts said that Musk's expectations may clash with the realities of public governance. 'From healthcare programs to safety nets, government work is layered with legal checks and balances designed to avoid harm, and Musk might be underestimating how much that complexity slows down big changes,' Carrillo said. 'Without fully understanding the governance structure, he likely views DOGE's progress as sluggish when, in reality, it reflects the careful deliberation necessary to ensure fairness and accuracy.' As Congress weighs the $9.4 billion rescissions package and potential expansions to DOGE, the coming months will test whether the initiative can sustain momentum without Musk at the helm. 'There could be longer delays or disruptions in receiving services like unemployment benefits, tax refunds or healthcare support, all because restructuring slows processes down before any improvements can take hold,' Carrillo said. 'Beyond that, large-scale changes also take a long time to bear fruit, so even with the best intentions, consumers and workers should expect a period where things might feel worse before they get better.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) 5 Types of Cars Retirees Should Stay Away From Buying This article originally appeared on Musk Says DOGE Hasn't Been as Effective as He Wanted — Are More Cuts Coming? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Trump Confirms Imminent Fed Decision—Bitcoin And Crypto Brace For Huge Price Earthquake
Bitcoin has struggled to break out in recent months despite hitting a fresh all-time high in May and fears building over a $37 trillion 'ticking time bomb.' Front-run Donald Trump, the White House and Wall Street by subscribing now to Forbes' CryptoAsset & Blockchain Advisor where you can "uncover blockchain blockbusters poised for 1,000% plus gains!" The bitcoin price rocketed higher following U.S. president Donald Trump's November election victory but has struggled to hold onto that momentum as Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell grapples with a looming, 'cataclysmic' crisis that's headed for the U.S. dollar. Now, as Tesla billionaire Elon Musk quietly backs a shock dollar collapse warning, Trump has confirmed a decision on the next Federal Reserve chair will be coming out soon, priming the bitcoin price and crypto market. Sign up now for the free CryptoCodex—A daily five-minute newsletter for traders, investors and the crypto-curious that will get you up to date and keep you ahead of the bitcoin and crypto market bull run "It's coming out very soon," Trump told reporters on Air Force One, it was reported by Reuters, referring to his pick for the next Fed chair. 'If we had a good Fed chairman, he would lower rates and if inflation happened in a year from now or two years later, [he would] raise rates,' Trump said in a video posted to X, reiterating his earlier calls for Fed chair Powell to cut interest rates immediately. The Federal Reserve is now overwhelmingly expected to keep rates on hold during its June and July meetings, with the market split over its September decision, according to the CME FedWatch tool. Trump added that former Fed governor Kevin Warsh, who's currently the front-runner to be named as next Fed chair on the crypto-powered prediction platform Polymarket, is 'very highly thought of,' when asked what he thought of him. Last month, Warsh outlined how he believed the Fed could lower interest rates if he shrunk its balance sheet, telling a monetary policy panel at Stanford University's Hoover Institution that "if the printing press could be quiet, we could have lower policy rates." If the Fed were to cut rates, it 'would be bullish for risk assets like bitcoin,' bitcoin price and crypto market analysts with the Bitfinex exchange said in emailed comments. 'We believe if bitcoin maintains support above $105,000, it could target the $120,000 to $125,000 range in June. This will not be catalysed just from the labour market but it could be a domino in multiple catalysts prompting the Fed to cut rates at a faster than expected pace.' This week, Trump again called for Powell to lower rates, which have been held steady for months after the Fed surprised markets by beginning its rate cutting cycle in September. The Fed has pointed to the looming impact of Trump's global trade tariffs as the reason it has left rates on hold, predicting Trump's so-called Liberation Day barrage of tariffs will cause inflation to spike. Sign up now for CryptoCodex—A free, daily newsletter for the crypto-curious This coming week, the latest U.S. consumer price index (CPI) inflation data is expected to show an uptick in prices after inflation eased in the first few months of 2025. In April, the White House confirmed Trump was exploring whether he could fire Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell over Powell's refusal to lower rates, though Trump has since said he won't try to remove Powell before his term as chair ends next year. "With rate cuts looking less likely, Fed chair Jay Powell can expect to remain firmly in the president's firing line," Nicholas Hyett, investment manager at Wealth Club, said in emailed comments and pointing to Friday's stronger than expected jobs data. 'That will be taken as vindication by the Trump administration–which has been clear that the tariffs are aimed squarely at supporting Main Street rather than pleasing Wall Street. Less positive from the White Houses' point of view is that a strong economy and rising wages gives the Federal Reserve less reason to cut interest rates–pushing yields a touch higher and making the fiscal splurge built into Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' that bit more expensive.'
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
The Bluesky bubble hurts liberals and their causes
Ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter, changed the social media site's name to X and altered its moderation policies, progressives have been hunting for a substitute. To judge how their search is going, consider a recent item from Politico's Playbook, which notes that 'a number of prominent commentators, experts and groups' are pledging to post on other platforms before X. 'The 'X-last' strategy,' says Playbook, 'led by Indivisible and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, is an effort to shift discourse from Elon Musk's platform to Bluesky.' Note that they're not demanding that people stop posting to X. They're just asking them to post a bit less. It's certainly inventive, but a little wistful, as though they're aware how unlikely this is to work. A recent Pew Research Center analysis found that many news influencers have Bluesky accounts (I'm one of them) but that, like me, two-thirds post irregularly. By contrast, more than 80 percent still post to X on most days. Engagement on Bluesky appears to have peaked in mid-November. It's now down about 50 percent, and the decline shows no sign of leveling out. This is the tyranny of social media network effects. When a network grows, each new user makes it more valuable to every other user, enabling exponential growth. When the users start leaving, however, those network effects also hasten the decline. Nor is this process likely to be halted by organizing your pals and exhorting people to be better, or getting progressive writers to post to Bluesky before X. Yes, seeding platforms early with a small group of influential individuals can help it grow, as other users flock to be around them. But when that movement is organized by liberal groups, it's most likely to appeal to folks who are very interested in progressive politics — which is to say, the other people who have already moved to Bluesky. You can't blame them for trying, I suppose. But wait, actually, I can. Because even if this works, moving progressives off X into Bluesky's beautiful blue bubble isn't a great idea for the movement. This effort isn't just a doomed attempt to re-create the old Twitter. It's likely to sap already-waning progressive influence and make the movement itself less politically effective. Consider why progressive groups are so eager to hasten the demise of X and move their users to other platforms. One reason is simply that they are mad at Musk for supporting Donald Trump and allowing the alt-right to flourish on X. But another is that they are trying to duplicate what used to be an incredible platform for liberal influence. For roughly a decade, Twitter hosted what is lightheartedly called the 'national conversation' on issues of the day, particularly social justice and public health. Twitter never had that many users, compared with Instagram or Facebook. But it had a big group of influential users — politicians, policymakers, journalists and academics, all of whom were engaged in a 24/7 conversation about politics and current events. That was a boon to progressives, who wielded outsize influence on the platform because they were early adopters who outnumbered the conservatives. They were also better organized and better networked, and had the sympathy of Twitter's professional-class employees, who proved increasingly susceptible to liberals' demands for tighter moderation policies on things such as using male pronouns to refer to a transgender woman. Moderation suppressed conservative users and stories that hurt the left — most notoriously, the story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which Twitter throttled as 'disinformation' in the run-up to the 2020 election. Of course, progressive Twitter mobs also policed the discourse themselves, securing high-profile firings that made many people afraid to cross them. Thus, that national conversation ended up skewed toward liberal views, creating the illusion that their ideas were more popular than they actually were. That's a major reason that institutions went all-in on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and why the 2020 Democratic primary field moved so far to the left that Kamala Harris was still struggling to backtrack four years later. All that changed when Musk bought Twitter. It's not surprising that progressives want to return to the good old days. But it's not working, and I'm skeptical it ever will. The people who have migrated to Bluesky tend to be those who feel the most visceral disgust for Musk and Trump, plus a smattering of those who are merely curious and another smattering who are tired of the AI slop and unregenerate racism that increasingly pollutes their X feeds. Because the Musk and Trump haters are the largest and most passionate group, the result is something of an echo chamber where it's hard to get positive engagement unless you're saying things progressives want to hear — and where the negative engagement on things they don't want to hear can be intense. That's true even for content that isn't obviously political: Ethan Mollick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School who studies AI, recently announced that he'll be limiting his Bluesky posting because AI discussions on the platform are too 'fraught.' All this is pretty off-putting for folks who aren't already rather progressive, and that creates a threefold problem for the ones who dream of getting the old band back together. Most obviously, it makes it hard for the platform to build a large enough userbase for the company to become financially self-sustaining, or for liberals to amass the influence they wielded on old Twitter. There, they accumulated power by shaping the contours of a conversation that included a lot of non-progressives. On Bluesky, they're mostly talking among themselves. One can say the same about Truth Social, of course, but that's not an example the left should be eager to emulate. Segregating yourself in a political silo amplifies any political movement's worst tendencies, giving free rein to your most toxic adherents and cutting you off from vital feedback about, say, your unpopular tariff policies. Something similar has happened on Bluesky. The nasty fringe has become even nastier: A Bluesky technical adviser recently felt the need to clarify that 'The 'let's tell anyone we don't like to kill themselves' crowd are not welcome here' because left-wing trolls kept urging people who disagreed with them to commit suicide. And without the leavening influence of their opponents, Bluesky discourse appears even more censorious and doctrinaire than what progressives were saying on old Twitter. When you never hear from the other side, it's pretty easy to talk yourself into a political dead end. That might be enough for the political dead-enders. But it's a terrible mistake for any political movement that actually hopes to rack up some durable victories.
