Author Topic: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities  (Read 107911 times)

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • UK
  • Liked: 1874
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #220 on: 09/25/2024 03:50 pm »
Regardless, by the time of the October 10 session, Falcon 9 probably will have launched its currently allowed 36 times for the year.

As of today, they've launched 32 times out of Vandenberg this year, with the next on September 30th.

Will SpaceX be forced to halt at the limit, and what about important launches like SDA Tranche 1, that affect national security?

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2727
  • Liked: 2646
  • Likes Given: 10879
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #221 on: 09/25/2024 07:29 pm »
Regardless, by the time of the October 10 session, Falcon 9 probably will have launched its currently allowed 36 times for the year.

As of today, they've launched 32 times out of Vandenberg this year, with the next on September 30th.

Will SpaceX be forced to halt at the limit, and what about important launches like SDA Tranche 1, that affect national security?

I vaguely understand that if the EA process is not final, then SpaceX cannot launch beyond 36 flights.

Part of that finalization is an opportunity for concurrence by the California Coastal Commission.  If the Commission doesn't answer within a certain number of days (45 days? 60? 90?), then they will be assumed to have concurred.  The Commission can ask for more time, but the Space Force may deny that request even if usually they would more or less automatically get the extension.

Usually, this process would be collegial and the results predictable.  But both the Space Force and Commission seem to be in a fighting mood, so who knows what will happen.

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • UK
  • Liked: 1874
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #222 on: 10/11/2024 01:41 pm »
California Commissioners Reject Expansion of SpaceX Launches, a Non-Binding Rebuff of Musk [Oct 11]

Quote
Members of the California Coastal Commission voted 6-4 on Thursday against a request by the US military to approve a larger annual number of SpaceX launch activities from Vandenberg Space Force Base, northwest of Los Angeles.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2311
  • Liked: 2841
  • Likes Given: 2392
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #223 on: 10/11/2024 02:01 pm »
California Commissioners Reject Expansion of SpaceX Launches, a Non-Binding Rebuff of Musk [Oct 11]

Quote
Members of the California Coastal Commission voted 6-4 on Thursday against a request by the US military to approve a larger annual number of SpaceX launch activities from Vandenberg Space Force Base, northwest of Los Angeles.

Non-binding rebuffs are the best kind of rebuffs.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13905
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 11790
  • Likes Given: 9361
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #224 on: 10/11/2024 02:43 pm »
California Commissioners Reject Expansion of SpaceX Launches, a Non-Binding Rebuff of Musk [Oct 11]

Quote
Members of the California Coastal Commission voted 6-4 on Thursday against a request by the US military to approve a larger annual number of SpaceX launch activities from Vandenberg Space Force Base, northwest of Los Angeles.

Non-binding rebuffs are the best kind of rebuffs.


It was before the Coastal Commission was created, but the Air Force (at that time) launched a whole lot more than it does today, and the coastline didn't suffer.

Orbital Launches only:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58617.msg2631408#msg2631408

Orbital and Suborbital
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58617.msg2631384#msg2631384
« Last Edit: 10/11/2024 02:48 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13905
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 11790
  • Likes Given: 9361
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #225 on: 10/11/2024 06:57 pm »
California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches


Quote
State officials cited Musk’s antics in rejecting SpaceX’s plan to launch more rockets off the Central California coast.

“I really appreciate the work of the Space Force,” said Commission Chair Caryl Hart. “But here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”
« Last Edit: 10/11/2024 06:59 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39443
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25546
  • Likes Given: 12224
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #226 on: 10/11/2024 10:58 pm »
California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches


Quote
State officials cited Musk’s antics in rejecting SpaceX’s plan to launch more rockets off the Central California coast.

“I really appreciate the work of the Space Force,” said Commission Chair Caryl Hart. “But here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”
Citing politics as part of the rationale for rejecting launch approval sounds mega-illegal.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2727
  • Liked: 2646
  • Likes Given: 10879
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #227 on: 10/12/2024 01:44 pm »
California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches


Quote
State officials cited Musk’s antics in rejecting SpaceX’s plan to launch more rockets off the Central California coast.

“I really appreciate the work of the Space Force,” said Commission Chair Caryl Hart. “But here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”
Citing politics as part of the rationale for rejecting launch approval sounds mega-illegal.

My assumption is that they felt emboldened to make those statements precisely because there was nothing at stake now that the Space Force had given in on most of the demands for the 36-launch limit.

It also seems to indicate that they will not be suing to require a development permit from SpaceX.  In court, SpaceX could make the argument very effectively that this is a political hit-job.

Looking into the future, there likely will be many more fights between the California Coastal Commission, the Space Force, and SpaceX.  100-flight limit for Falcon, Starship at Vandenberg, Starship on an offshore platform, Starship return to launch site, etc.  Interestingly, the Commission's jurisdiction only extends to three miles offshore.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2024 02:25 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1733
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2837
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #228 on: 10/12/2024 07:01 pm »
California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches


Quote
State officials cited Musk’s antics in rejecting SpaceX’s plan to launch more rockets off the Central California coast.

“I really appreciate the work of the Space Force,” said Commission Chair Caryl Hart. “But here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”


Seems massively unconstitutional to me, and SX should sue California TBH.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1733
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2837
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #229 on: 10/12/2024 07:16 pm »
Maybe it’s time to build a Starship polar launch facility in Alaska
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2727
  • Liked: 2646
  • Likes Given: 10879
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #230 on: 10/12/2024 11:27 pm »
California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches


Quote
State officials cited Musk’s antics in rejecting SpaceX’s plan to launch more rockets off the Central California coast.

“I really appreciate the work of the Space Force,” said Commission Chair Caryl Hart. “But here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”
Seems massively unconstitutional to me, and SX should sue California TBH.

No need.  The Space Force can ignore this and do what it sees fit.

This is just a free shot, so everybody can posture to their hearts' content.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2024 11:29 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
  • Liked: 3053
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #231 on: 10/13/2024 12:19 am »
What is the impact of the 36 flight restriction? Were those extra 14 flights mostly Starlink launches? If so, will SpaceX now reduce DoD launches to still get their Starlink polar-orbit sats in orbit?

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13905
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 11790
  • Likes Given: 9361
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #232 on: 10/13/2024 01:18 am »
What is the impact of the 36 flight restriction? Were those extra 14 flights mostly Starlink launches? If so, will SpaceX now reduce DoD launches to still get their Starlink polar-orbit sats in orbit?

The Starlinks launched from VSFB are roughly in the same inclination as those launched from the Cape, with a 52-53 deg inclination (see attached). Spacex does this by overflying the south base (over SLC-6) since no one is using that pad (currently), thus saving fuel by not having to do a left dogleg within the first few minutes after launch to avoid that area.  The purpose of launch out of VSFB is to give Space move launch opportunities rather than the two pads at the Cape.  If SpaceX has to shut down ops after meeting the Coastal Commission quota, then SpaceX assets will be underutilized on the West Coast, and more stress will be placed on the overused assets now at the Cape.  BTW, SpaceX, when it needs to launch to a polar inclination, can do so from the Cape.

IMO, DOD will get their way.

The Coastal Commission Lauch quota includes other space vendors (although I may be incorrect about that).
« Last Edit: 10/13/2024 01:24 am by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2727
  • Liked: 2646
  • Likes Given: 10879
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #233 on: 10/13/2024 03:20 am »
What is the impact of the 36 flight restriction? Were those extra 14 flights mostly Starlink launches? If so, will SpaceX now reduce DoD launches to still get their Starlink polar-orbit sats in orbit?

No.  There will be no impact.  The Space Force will just finalize the 50-launch assessment without the Coastal Commission's concurrence.  Note that there was no impact to SpaceX's rapid launch tempo even when everybody figured out that SpaceX had already busted through the earlier limits and they had to redo the concurrence for the 36 launch limit.

In any event, both the 36 flight and 50 flight restrictions are just markers on the way to a 100 launch restriction.  So we can expect the Space Force to allow up to 50 flights this year and then request to the California Coastal Commission for a higher launch rate maybe mid-next year.   And then the Coastal Commission will have the opportunity to display its wonderfulness all over again.
« Last Edit: 10/13/2024 03:25 am by RedLineTrain »

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1733
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2837
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #234 on: 10/13/2024 06:20 pm »
California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches


Quote
State officials cited Musk’s antics in rejecting SpaceX’s plan to launch more rockets off the Central California coast.

“I really appreciate the work of the Space Force,” said Commission Chair Caryl Hart. “But here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”
Seems massively unconstitutional to me, and SX should sue California TBH.

No need.  The Space Force can ignore this and do what it sees fit.

This is just a free shot, so everybody can posture to their hearts' content.

But honestly, they should all lose their jobs for even *thinking* that was an appropriate line of attack.

Musk is gonna sue them too


https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1845341767207457189?s=46
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2727
  • Liked: 2646
  • Likes Given: 10879
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #235 on: 10/14/2024 02:55 pm »
California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches


Quote
State officials cited Musk’s antics in rejecting SpaceX’s plan to launch more rockets off the Central California coast.

“I really appreciate the work of the Space Force,” said Commission Chair Caryl Hart. “But here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”
Seems massively unconstitutional to me, and SX should sue California TBH.

No need.  The Space Force can ignore this and do what it sees fit.

This is just a free shot, so everybody can posture to their hearts' content.

But honestly, they should all lose their jobs for even *thinking* that was an appropriate line of attack.

Musk is gonna sue them too

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1845341767207457189?s=46

It's clear that these aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.  They must not have thought through the dos and don'ts of the concurrence world.  On their other matters, their word is law.

This first amendment lawsuit is useful in part because the lack of CCC's concurrence doesn't have much immediate effect. For now, the lawsuit is just a food fight.  But long term, it could tie the CCC's hands a bit.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13905
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 11790
  • Likes Given: 9361
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #236 on: 10/14/2024 11:58 pm »
The issue is political:

https://twitter.com/RepKiley/status/1845908453543624716

Quote
In August we wrote a bipartisan letter supporting more
@SpaceX
 launches at Vandenberg, citing benefits to national security, broadband connectivity, and wildfire response.

Yet the Coastal Commission just rejected the plan, citing unrelated political posts by Elon Musk. This illegal action needs to be reversed immediately.
« Last Edit: 10/14/2024 11:59 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6785
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10392
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #237 on: 10/15/2024 10:02 am »
Does anyone have a copy of the actual meeting minutes? The coastal.ca.gov site seems to be down.
A video of the meeting is available at: https://cal-span.org/meeting/ccc_20241010/
The relevant portion is from 2h 54m , votes start at 5h 33m or 5h 38m.
Contrary to media reports, the main factor cited during the vote is that there are two 'tracks' for concurrency/permitting: for federal entities, and for private businesses. SpaceX via VSFB want to run everything through the federal track, and the concurrency vote was rejected by the commission who want to run only federal launches through the federal track (e.g. DoD missions) and private launches through the private company track (e.g. Starlink).

There are a lot of public comments and discussion (over 2 hours) to scrub through without a written transcript, but I haven't thus far found anyone on the costal commission themselves stating the previous quotes on Musk as part of the meeting or voting process. It's possible the quote comes from one of the members of the public speaking that I haven't found yet - a lot of comments are only a minute or two long so easy to scrub over entirely.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13905
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 11790
  • Likes Given: 9361
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #238 on: 10/15/2024 10:35 am »
Does anyone have a copy of the actual meeting minutes? The coastal.ca.gov site seems to be down.
A video of the meeting is available at: https://cal-span.org/meeting/ccc_20241010/
The relevant portion is from 2h 54m , votes start at 5h 33m or 5h 38m.
Contrary to media reports, the main factor cited during the vote is that there are two 'tracks' for concurrency/permitting: for federal entities, and for private businesses. SpaceX via VSFB want to run everything through the federal track, and the concurrency vote was rejected by the commission who want to run only federal launches through the federal track (e.g. DoD missions) and private launches through the private company track (e.g. Starlink).

There are a lot of public comments and discussion (over 2 hours) to scrub through without a written transcript, but I haven't thus far found anyone on the costal commission themselves stating the previous quotes on Musk as part of the meeting or voting process. It's possible the quote comes from one of the members of the public speaking that I haven't found yet - a lot of comments are only a minute or two long so easy to scrub over entirely.

edzieba ,

Update: 

Attachments:
All related reference documents are attached for the meeting
Video edited to just the discussion at hand
Transcript files (6 parts) from the video.


Tony

« Last Edit: 10/15/2024 01:00 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6785
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10392
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities
« Reply #239 on: 10/15/2024 10:42 am »
Does anyone have a copy of the actual meeting minutes? The coastal.ca.gov site seems to be down.
A video of the meeting is available at: https://cal-span.org/meeting/ccc_20241010/
The relevant portion is from 2h 54m , votes start at 5h 33m or 5h 38m.
Contrary to media reports, the main factor cited during the vote is that there are two 'tracks' for concurrency/permitting: for federal entities, and for private businesses. SpaceX via VSFB want to run everything through the federal track, and the concurrency vote was rejected by the commission who want to run only federal launches through the federal track (e.g. DoD missions) and private launches through the private company track (e.g. Starlink).

There are a lot of public comments and discussion (over 2 hours) to scrub through without a written transcript, but I haven't thus far found anyone on the costal commission themselves stating the previous quotes on Musk as part of the meeting or voting process. It's possible the quote comes from one of the members of the public speaking that I haven't found yet - a lot of comments are only a minute or two long so easy to scrub over entirely.

edzieba ,

Would just a raw transcript dump be suitable (i.e., used for closed captioning purposes)?

In the meantime, I attached all the presentation materials.

Tony
A raw transcript would be good. I'm trying to run it through an automated service, but even clipped to just 2+ hours it's not happy about it.

Thanks for adding the attachments, the site was timing out when I tried to download them myself.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0