FAA, FWS & other permits/licenses for Starbase, TX (Boca Chica) DISCUSSION (Thread 6)

[TomH]

Who is this Andrew Granston? Someone from TCEQ, living in Texas?

Possible result (all the same person-a patent attorney with J.D. and PhD. and an author re. space patents):

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Manned_Spaceflight_Patents_of_Max_Fa/H0HqswEACAAJ?hl=en

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/andrew-e-granston-jr

http://www.patentbuddy.com/Attorney/Profile/Andrew/E/Granston/38473/8597

https://lawyers.findlaw.com/profile/view/4082090_1

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

Ok but, someone any idea when could be flight 5??
 

The official word given repeatedly has been NET (No Earlier Than) late November.

My take is that the flight 5 date and flight profile is very much under review.

My reasoning is that the decision to spend a lot of money on recovering the aft section of B11 indicates that SpaceX are desperate to get hands on flown booster hardware to inform V2 design. The optimum way to do this is to catch B12, but with regulatory procrastination blocking the way they are trying an alternative approach.

If the examination of B11 debris is judged to provide adequate data then they may decide repeating the Flight 4 profile for flight 5 is the best option. 

Removal of the booster alignment pins suggests that they see the potential to fly soon; either because of success with their regulatory push-back campaign or, more likely imho, because they are willing to push the landing attempt to flight 6.

[DJPledger]

Ok but, someone any idea when could be flight 5??
 

The official word given repeatedly has been NET (No Earlier Than) late November.

Could be significantly earlier if SpaceX decides on booster water landing for ITF-5 on current launch licence. No destack of B11 + S30 may indicate that SpaceX wants to launch IFT-5 ASAP. They need flight data on new heatshield design. No point in wasting 2 months waiting for the new launch licence for booster catch attempt. Do the booster catch attempt on IFT-6 when the new launch licence has been issued.

[steveleach]

Ok but, someone any idea when could be flight 5??
 

The official word given repeatedly has been NET (No Earlier Than) late November.

Could be significantly earlier if SpaceX decides on booster water landing for ITF-5 on current launch licence. No destack of B11 + S30 may indicate that SpaceX wants to launch IFT-5 ASAP. They need flight data on new heatshield design. No point in wasting 2 months waiting for the new launch licence for booster catch attempt. Do the booster catch attempt on IFT-6 when the new launch licence has been issued.

They still don't have the correct permit for the launch deluge. TCEQ and the EPA were apparently happy with them using it anyway, but AFAIK the FAA won't issue a license without it.

[sdsds]

[...]TCEQ and the EPA were apparently happy with them using it anyway

Well, the EPA and SpaceX entered into a Consent Agreement under which administrative penalties were assessed. EPA alleged and SpaceX neither confirmed nor denied violations of the Clean Water Act. In particular, allegation (h)

On June 6, 2024, Respondent launched a Starship rocket from the facility. An
estimated 180,000 gallons of water from the deluge system were used in the launch.
An estimated 72,600 gallons were not captured. 38,400 gallons of the 78,500 gallons
were vaporized by heat and aerodynamic forces from the engines firing. Approximately
34,200 gallons from the water deluge system discharged to the wetlands.

EPA characterized this as an "unauthorized discharge."
https://www.epa.gov/tx/proposed-administrative-penalty-order-against-space-explorations-technologies-corp-spacex-clean

[steveleach]

[...]TCEQ and the EPA were apparently happy with them using it anyway

Well, the EPA and SpaceX entered into a Consent Agreement under which administrative penalties were assessed. EPA alleged and SpaceX neither confirmed nor denied violations of the Clean Water Act. In particular, allegation (h)

On June 6, 2024, Respondent launched a Starship rocket from the facility. An
estimated 180,000 gallons of water from the deluge system were used in the launch.
An estimated 72,600 gallons were not captured. 38,400 gallons of the 78,500 gallons
were vaporized by heat and aerodynamic forces from the engines firing. Approximately
34,200 gallons from the water deluge system discharged to the wetlands.

EPA characterized this as an "unauthorized discharge."
https://www.epa.gov/tx/proposed-administrative-penalty-order-against-space-explorations-technologies-corp-spacex-clean

Oops, yep. It was TCEQ and the FAA who were happy with previous launches, wasn't it? Then the EPA wanted them to get the industrial wastewater discharge permit from TCEQ, so now the FAA can't issue the launch license.

[xyv]

Video of some of FAA Administrator’s testimony:

https://twitter.com/repkiley/status/1838668769880678403

Watching the FAA Admisitrator struggling to defend their decision, I couldn't help but be reminded of this scene...



 

[daveklingler]

I actually agree with the FAA Administrator: "Complying with the regulations would be the best path" to moving up the Starship flight 5 launch date.

I haven't yet seen any evidence that SpaceX placed compliance with the regs anywhere on their list of priorities.  These are all things that would have been done many months ago, as opposed to after Flight 4.  I'm not bashing them for it; I'm saying that regulatory compliance just hasn't been a priority.

SpaceX can protest and try to make the government change the regulations to comply with SpaceX, or they can try to comply with the regulations.  I think the second path is actually quite straightforward, if SpaceX decides to put a few people on it full time. 

You don't just say that what you're doing is safe.  You prove it. 

Because that's what's required.

This is not an ideological issue.  It's a regulatory compliance issue.

(Then that water could be pumped out and taken off-site to a facility licensed to dump it legally, or bottle it for sale as drinking water.)

I think that's a brilliant idea.  You might need to take out a little bit of copper, nickel and chromium.  Or maybe not.  I'd probably buy a bottle.  But...oh, wait a sec.  You'd have to prove that it was safe to drink...

[OTV Booster]

Personally, I think that claiming the deluge is hurting the wetlands is absurd but that's only an opinion. When the kabuki dance of regulatory compliance rears its head - valid or not, opinions don't count much.

Is this political? Maybe. Maybe not. Is the regulatory process sub optimal. Yes. Does whining about it like a spoiled child refused that which it demands... does that help? No.

The path of least resistance looks like learning kabuki dancing. THEN, if the evidence shows there is no valid concern, make another strong pitch to congress that, given the FAA mandate to facilitate commercial spaceflight, the FAA is not acting in the public interest and needs further guidance and funding.

It's a true PITA but Sun Tsu says the battle not faught often has the most profound impact.


Edit to add: Do judo, not karate.

[steveleach]

I actually agree with the FAA Administrator: "Complying with the regulations would be the best path" to moving up the Starship flight 5 launch date.

I haven't yet seen any evidence that SpaceX placed compliance with the regs anywhere on their list of priorities.  These are all things that would have been done many months ago, as opposed to after Flight 4.  I'm not bashing them for it; I'm saying that regulatory compliance just hasn't been a priority.

SpaceX can protest and try to make the government change the regulations to comply with SpaceX, or they can try to comply with the regulations.  I think the second path is actually quite straightforward, if SpaceX decides to put a few people on it full time. 

You don't just say that what you're doing is safe.  You prove it. 

Because that's what's required.

This is not an ideological issue.  It's a regulatory compliance issue.

(Then that water could be pumped out and taken off-site to a facility licensed to dump it legally, or bottle it for sale as drinking water.)

I think that's a brilliant idea.  You might need to take out a little bit of copper, nickel and chromium.  Or maybe not.  I'd probably buy a bottle.  But...oh, wait a sec.  You'd have to prove that it was safe to drink...

This isn't about proving that it is safe, it is about the time taken by the regulators to process the proof.

SpaceX spoke to TCEQ who told them what permit they needed, and tested the water, and gave them the permit. Then the EPA told them they need a different permit, so SpaceX sent in the application for that, with the same test results for the same water. The delay is just with the time it takes for TCEQ to process the paperwork for a different permit, one that they didn't even think was necessary.

TCEQ (and the FWS) said they are happy for SpaceX to continue to use the facility while that paperwork is in process, but the FAA have said that they won't give SpaceX a launch license until it is complete.

[thespacecow]

I think the second path is actually quite straightforward, if SpaceX decides to put a few people on it full time. 

How do you know they don't have people on it full time? If you actually read some of the Boca Chica EA, you'd know SpaceX environmental engineers wrote them.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Sorry to be asking an ignorant question, but can anybody summarize what's actually wrong with the water discharge in the real world?  At the point I stopped paying attention, it looked 100% like a paperwork snafu, complete with some typos/brainos from SpaceX on the application, and somebody (not quite sure who) freaking out about them.  Is there actually something wrong, or is it still pretty much at the typo/braino level?

I'm fairly sympathetic to actual rules, based on violations in the real world, being enforced.  That's just Bureaucracy 101.  But if the problem is just cut-and-paste errors on some measurements and thresholds causing a 3-month delay, that's a problem.

[Brigantine]

My own ignorant question: To what extent is this a turf war between Texas & Federal environment agencies?

Or do TCEQ and EPA genuinely disagree over whether the deluge water picks up sufficient contaminants from sitting in the storage tanks?

[EDIT: or TCEQ changed their minds and asked EPA to play bad cop for them?]

[Robotbeat]

I can’t see why FAA set a minimum date of November for Starship Flight 5. The 60 day consultation with the fish folk is a maximum time, not a minimum. If the fish folk are quick (unlikely but possible), in principle it can launch in October. Why did FAA say it’s AT LEAST November?

[steveleach]

I can’t see why FAA set a minimum date of November for Starship Flight 5. The 60 day consultation with the fish folk is a maximum time, not a minimum. If the fish folk are quick (unlikely but possible), in principle it can launch in October. Why did FAA say it’s AT LEAST November?

The FAA use IET* for their predictions.

*IET=Inverse Elon Time

[OTV Booster]

I actually agree with the FAA Administrator: "Complying with the regulations would be the best path" to moving up the Starship flight 5 launch date.

I haven't yet seen any evidence that SpaceX placed compliance with the regs anywhere on their list of priorities.  These are all things that would have been done many months ago, as opposed to after Flight 4.  I'm not bashing them for it; I'm saying that regulatory compliance just hasn't been a priority.

SpaceX can protest and try to make the government change the regulations to comply with SpaceX, or they can try to comply with the regulations.  I think the second path is actually quite straightforward, if SpaceX decides to put a few people on it full time. 

You don't just say that what you're doing is safe.  You prove it. 

Because that's what's required.

This is not an ideological issue.  It's a regulatory compliance issue.

(Then that water could be pumped out and taken off-site to a facility licensed to dump it legally, or bottle it for sale as drinking water.)

I think that's a brilliant idea.  You might need to take out a little bit of copper, nickel and chromium.  Or maybe not.  I'd probably buy a bottle.  But...oh, wait a sec.  You'd have to prove that it was safe to drink...

This isn't about proving that it is safe, it is about the time taken by the regulators to process the proof.

SpaceX spoke to TCEQ who told them what permit they needed, and tested the water, and gave them the permit. Then the EPA told them they need a different permit, so SpaceX sent in the application for that, with the same test results for the same water. The delay is just with the time it takes for TCEQ to process the paperwork for a different permit, one that they didn't even think was necessary.

TCEQ (and the FWS) said they are happy for SpaceX to continue to use the facility while that paperwork is in process, but the FAA have said that they won't give SpaceX a launch license until it is complete.

FWIU from earlier discussions, once FAA recognizes an environmental issue they redirect the process to the appropriate agency which then does analysis and passes it back to the FAA for final disposition. There were earlier issues about water discharge that got passed to fish and wildlife. Deja Vu, all over again.

As for Texas vs Federal, there is the 10th amendment that addresses delegation of authority but where the edge condition actually lies is a lawyerly food fight.

My personal opinion is that Texas considers argument on the edge condition to be a process, not an event, with any specific issue being part of that process.


Edit to add: nothing above addresses the right or wrong of the FAA assessment that there is an environmental impact to be addressed.

[billh]

Sorry to be asking an ignorant question, but can anybody summarize what's actually wrong with the water discharge in the real world?  At the point I stopped paying attention, it looked 100% like a paperwork snafu, complete with some typos/brainos from SpaceX on the application, and somebody (not quite sure who) freaking out about them.  Is there actually something wrong, or is it still pretty much at the typo/braino level?

I'm fairly sympathetic to actual rules, based on violations in the real world, being enforced.  That's just Bureaucracy 101.  But if the problem is just cut-and-paste errors on some measurements and thresholds causing a 3-month delay, that's a problem.

The permit the EPA wants them to obtain is for industrial wastewater discharge. That covers a lot of ground, and often industrial wastewater does have harmful stuff in it. In this case, tests have so far shown that the deluge water is pretty clean, but the EPA says they still need the permit. Also, there are other considerations. The discharge could change the salinity or temperature of the marsh water. The earlier analysis, as I recall, indicated it wasn't a large enough discharge to matter in that respect, relative to normal precipitation. But again, the EPA has their processes and are charged with ensuring full compliance, which means having the proper permits. Given that there's no evidence so far the discharge is actually harmful, SpaceX is frustrated. But the relevant authorities, in this case FWS and EPA, want to review the evidence and satisfy themselves there's no environmental issues.

As a space geek it's personally frustrating, but bureaucrats live and die by the regulations. And, hey, that's their job.

[MDMoery]

Sorry to be asking an ignorant question, but can anybody summarize what's actually wrong with the water discharge in the real world?  At the point I stopped paying attention, it looked 100% like a paperwork snafu, complete with some typos/brainos from SpaceX on the application, and somebody (not quite sure who) freaking out about them.  Is there actually something wrong, or is it still pretty much at the typo/braino level?

I'm fairly sympathetic to actual rules, based on violations in the real world, being enforced.  That's just Bureaucracy 101.  But if the problem is just cut-and-paste errors on some measurements and thresholds causing a 3-month delay, that's a problem.

The permit the EPA wants them to obtain is for industrial wastewater discharge. That covers a lot of ground, and often industrial wastewater does have harmful stuff in it. In this case, tests have so far shown that the deluge water is pretty clean, but the EPA says they still need the permit. Also, there are other considerations. The discharge could change the salinity or temperature of the marsh water. The earlier analysis, as I recall, indicated it wasn't a large enough discharge to matter in that respect, relative to normal precipitation. But again, the EPA has their processes and are charged with ensuring full compliance, which means having the proper permits. Given that there's no evidence so far the discharge is actually harmful, SpaceX is frustrated. But the relevant authorities, in this case FWS and EPA, want to review the evidence and satisfy themselves there's no environmental issues.

As a space geek it's personally frustrating, but bureaucrats live and die by the regulations. And, hey, that's their job.

Plus FAA is being sued for being too fast to permit Starship so there is probably some CYA too.

[Nevyn72]

I can’t see why FAA set a minimum date of November for Starship Flight 5. The 60 day consultation with the fish folk is a maximum time, not a minimum. If the fish folk are quick (unlikely but possible), in principle it can launch in October. Why did FAA say it’s AT LEAST November?

Speaking as someone from another country it's hard not to see a coincidence with a certain event in early November and unspoken agendas....

[TheRadicalModerate]

Sorry to be asking an ignorant question, but can anybody summarize what's actually wrong with the water discharge in the real world?  At the point I stopped paying attention, it looked 100% like a paperwork snafu, complete with some typos/brainos from SpaceX on the application, and somebody (not quite sure who) freaking out about them.  Is there actually something wrong, or is it still pretty much at the typo/braino level?

I'm fairly sympathetic to actual rules, based on violations in the real world, being enforced.  That's just Bureaucracy 101.  But if the problem is just cut-and-paste errors on some measurements and thresholds causing a 3-month delay, that's a problem.

The permit the EPA wants them to obtain is for industrial wastewater discharge. That covers a lot of ground, and often industrial wastewater does have harmful stuff in it. In this case, tests have so far shown that the deluge water is pretty clean, but the EPA says they still need the permit. Also, there are other considerations. The discharge could change the salinity or temperature of the marsh water. The earlier analysis, as I recall, indicated it wasn't a large enough discharge to matter in that respect, relative to normal precipitation. But again, the EPA has their processes and are charged with ensuring full compliance, which means having the proper permits. Given that there's no evidence so far the discharge is actually harmful, SpaceX is frustrated. But the relevant authorities, in this case FWS and EPA, want to review the evidence and satisfy themselves there's no environmental issues.

As a space geek it's personally frustrating, but bureaucrats live and die by the regulations. And, hey, that's their job.

I thought they had the permit application already filed with the TCEQ, but there were some fairly obvious typos in the measurements.

I agree that the regulations are what they are, and complaining about them, while not completely pointless in the long run, is pointless in the short run.  But it's not unreasonable that reasonable errors should be able to be remedied in something less than 3+ months (not sure how long, because I can't remember when the application was filed).

Plus FAA is being sued for being too fast to permit Starship so there is probably some CYA too.

FAA is being sued for issuing a FONSI, which the plaintiffs suggest was unwarranted.  I guess that's not completely orthogonal to the issue at hand, but the correlation is low.