FAA, FWS & other permits/licenses for Boca Chica DISCUSSION (Thread 5)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

New thread to clear the air from the previous end of thread.

This is a thread for discussion of FAA and other regulatory assessments and approvals for SpaceX operations at Boca Chica.

The updates only thread is: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60934.0

[InterestedEngineer]

This is an information question, not a debate or insinuation question:

What laws or rules or agreements cover lots of Starship heat shield tile chunks showing up on South Padre Island beaches?

SN24 was exploded over international waters, so my assumption is whatever international law of the sea rules are for debris.    Do they specify any corrective action?

Does the EA agreement cover this?

Are there domestic laws about leaving floating bits of material in the oceans outside our territorial or economic zone waters?

[JayWee]

This is an information question, not a debate or insinuation question:

What laws or rules or agreements cover lots of Starship heat shield tile chunks showing up on South Padre Island beaches?

SN24 was exploded over international waters, so my assumption is whatever international law of the sea rules are for debris.    Do they specify any corrective action?

Does the EA agreement cover this?

Are there domestic laws about leaving floating bits of material in the oceans outside our territorial or economic zone waters?

I believe pieces of spacecraft are treated differently than shipping debris, thanks to the OST. Expendable fairings get back to the launch company if they wash up.

[launchwatcher]

SN24 was exploded over international waters, so my assumption is whatever international law of the sea rules are for debris.    Do they specify any corrective action?

Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty says recovered spacecraft parts found outside the territory of the country which launched them must be returned to the country that launched them:

... Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

(Above was cut & pasted from https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm )

[InterestedEngineer]

SN24 was exploded over international waters, so my assumption is whatever international law of the sea rules are for debris.    Do they specify any corrective action?

Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty says recovered spacecraft parts found outside the territory of the country which launched them must be returned to the country that launched them:

... Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

(Above was cut & pasted from https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm )

what about pollution related laws?

[Robotbeat]

SN24 was exploded over international waters, so my assumption is whatever international law of the sea rules are for debris.    Do they specify any corrective action?

Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty says recovered spacecraft parts found outside the territory of the country which launched them must be returned to the country that launched them:

... Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

(Above was cut & pasted from https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm )

The objects in question never made it to outer space.

[eeergo]

This is an information question, not a debate or insinuation question:
What laws or rules or agreements cover lots of Starship heat shield tile chunks showing up on South Padre Island beaches?
SN24 was exploded over international waters, so my assumption is whatever international law of the sea rules are for debris.    Do they specify any corrective action?
Does the EA agreement cover this?
Are there domestic laws about leaving floating bits of material in the oceans outside our territorial or economic zone waters?

I don't have answers to your questions, but I do have a relevant nit:

All elements of the launch fell in exclusive economic zone waters, which are considered international waters but not out of national jurisdiction. There are only two patches of high seas in the Gulf of Mexico, beyond 200 nmi of any coast.


There is some level of uncertainty as to how much of the remains might have fallen in Mexican, as opposed to USA, EEZ waters, depending on how much of a drift in the observed plume was from winds dispersing it or from vehicle motion. In fact, it could well be most of the debris didn't make it out of the contiguous zone next to US/Mexico territorial waters (24 nmi out, i.e. around 45 km, when the RUD was estimated to have happened at 40 km offshore: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58669.msg2478560#msg2478560)

[Asteroza]

Does SpaceX need some teenagers on ATV's to go scouring the beaches for broken tiles floating in for the next few weeks?

[Zed_Noir]

Does SpaceX need some teenagers on ATV's to go scouring the beaches for broken tiles floating in for the next few weeks?

SpaceX should already have people checking the beachline regularly for status of the birds and animals there. Presumably they will also do rocket debris beachcombering as well.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/tylerg1998/status/1658517134245257217

#SpaceX has filed a FCC permit request for the second test flight of #Starship from Starbase, Texas.

Not much pertinent information, aside from a start date of NET June 15 (of course pad repairs, vehicle testing, etc. will prevent that from happening).

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=124565&RequestTimeout=1000

[Vahe231991]

https://twitter.com/tylerg1998/status/1658517134245257217

#SpaceX has filed a FCC permit request for the second test flight of #Starship from Starbase, Texas.

Not much pertinent information, aside from a start date of NET June 15 (of course pad repairs, vehicle testing, etc. will prevent that from happening).

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=124565&RequestTimeout=1000

SpaceX will almost certainly notify the FCC about delaying the second Starship launch to July given that repair of the launch pad for the Starship is underway.

[Herb Schaltegger]

SpaceX will almost certainly notify the FCC about delaying the second Starship launch to July given that repair of the launch pad for the Starship is underway.

STA's (Special Temporary Authorizations) are for a window of time during which transmissions are authorized. They are not for a particular launch date. This one extends the window of time for an existing STA.

[envy887]

SN24 was exploded over international waters, so my assumption is whatever international law of the sea rules are for debris.    Do they specify any corrective action?

Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty says recovered spacecraft parts found outside the territory of the country which launched them must be returned to the country that launched them:

... Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

(Above was cut & pasted from https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm )

The Outer Space Treaty isn't US law so you need to actually look at US law to determine what happens. The outer space treaty binds against US state to enforce it, but only US law binds US companies and federal agencies directly.

This is important as treaties are open to interpretation, but the interpretation that the US decides and writes into US law (which again must be interpreted) is what is actually followed. (Side note, this is part of what the Artemis Accords are, a US sanctioned re-interpretation of the outer space treaty.)

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ''the supreme Law of the Land.''

[Herb Schaltegger]

SN24 was exploded over international waters, so my assumption is whatever international law of the sea rules are for debris.    Do they specify any corrective action?

Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty says recovered spacecraft parts found outside the territory of the country which launched them must be returned to the country that launched them:

... Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

(Above was cut & pasted from https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm )

The Outer Space Treaty isn't US law ...

That's absolutely not true. Treaties entered into by the United States have absolute force of law. There is no debate, argument or claim to be made otherwise.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

United States Constitution, Art. VI, para. 2.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/timfernholz/status/1694001950092837289

Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I dug in on the regulatory challenges SpaceX is facing as it tries to launch Starship from Boca Chica

https://qz.com/spacex-convince-faa-launch-starship-rocket-in-texas-1850758869

In particular, I spoke to Brian Mosdell, who built out SLC-40 for SpaceX and warned Musk that building a brand new spaceport wouldn't be easy

One piece of news in the story: After Starship's April anomaly, the FAA paused engagement with other launch firms do to concerns about erroneous debris modeling

And one more: The Texas regulator responsible for wastewater is actively working with SpaceX to determine what, if any, permits they need for the new deluge system.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

I hope, probably in vain, that this calms down some of the internet bashing the FAA has been unfairly getting:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700303119417291011

In fairness to the FAA, it is rare for them to cause significant delays in launch.

Overwhelmingly, the responsibility is ours.

[InterestedEngineer]

I think this is the right place for this.

Given the new rules posted in regards to the Sackett ruling, how does this change the licensing, EIS, and involvement of the Army Corps of Engineers?

https://www.epa.gov/wotus/amendments-2023-rule

A cursory inspection of maps show no permanent waterways immediately around the OLM area.

I think this implies ACE doesn't need to sign off on on runoff from the deluge (as an example)

[edzieba]

I think this is the right place for this.

Given the new rules posted in regards to the Sackett ruling, how does this change the licensing, EIS, and involvement of the Army Corps of Engineers?

https://www.epa.gov/wotus/amendments-2023-rule

A cursory inspection of maps show no permanent waterways immediately around the OLM area.

I think this implies ACE doesn't need to sign off on on runoff from the deluge (as an example)

I can't see any reason why the Sackett ruling would have any effect.
There is no change to the 'Wetlands' definition (only to 'Interstate Wetlands'), and no change to 'Territorial Seas' which the Boca Chica wetlands are adjacent to. As well as being adjacent to Boca Chica Bay, which comes under the 'were used in the past' definition of 'waters' under 40 CFR 120.2(a)(1)(i), as that used to be a navigable passage as acknowledged in the original pre-Starship Boca Chica EIS. The small boat visible in the bay in the current Google Maps satellite view is also a dead giveaway of the waters being navigable. 

[deltaV]

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ''the supreme Law of the Land.''

Some treaties (or portions thereof) are called "self-executing" which means they are automatically federal law enforceable in US courts. Non-self-executing treaties bind the US internationally but don't have any effect in US law unless there's separate legislation to implement them. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_executing_treaty. It appears it's unclear which provisions of the outer space treaty are self-executing.

[DistantTemple]

I think this is the right place for this.

Given the new rules posted in regards to the Sackett ruling, how does this change the licensing, EIS, and involvement of the Army Corps of Engineers?

https://www.epa.gov/wotus/amendments-2023-rule

A cursory inspection of maps show no permanent waterways immediately around the OLM area.

I think this implies ACE doesn't need to sign off on on runoff from the deluge (as an example)

I can't see any reason why the Sackett ruling would have any effect.
There is no change to the 'Wetlands' definition (only to 'Interstate Wetlands'), and no change to 'Territorial Seas' which the Boca Chica wetlands are adjacent to. As well as being adjacent to Boca Chica Bay, which comes under the 'were used in the past' definition of 'waters' under 40 CFR 120.2(a)(1)(i), as that used to be a navigable passage as acknowledged in the original pre-Starship Boca Chica EIS. The small boat visible in the bay in the current Google Maps satellite view is also a dead giveaway of the waters being navigable.

"South Bay" immediately North of rt4 and the launch site "is" clearly unaffected by Sackett, as it is contiguous with Brownsville Ship Channel, effectively part of the same body of water, is completely tidal, and thus flowing. It is also navigable by small boats. SX is not planning to expand there so that is mute.
However the wetlands immediately south of the launch site, seem to fill and drain from the Rio Grande through only about one small channel. They don't really form a contiguous body of water with the river, except at high spring tides. (The main test in Sackett I think). Therefore it appears more nuanced. Do we have any legal experts here that can give an opinion. Historically some of it was expected to be built on....

I read most of Sackett - several days ago. I thought there was a major change about "adjacent", giving the effect that if a wetland is more or less cut off from a river etc, then it is not covered.