Author Topic: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 3) : Discussion  (Read 37646 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Moderator Note: Another try at a discussion thread for the Boca Chica permitting process. Incessant back-and-forth bickering between individuals may be deleted.  Conspiracy theory posts will be deleted. -gongora



So it looks like just the historic thing, Section 106, is required? That seems less difficult than many other (more built-up) areas, and it’s due in just a week from now.

The rest is just finishing up the overall EA, which is on the FAA I believe (plus final negotiations with SpaceX). Sounds pretty promising for actually being done by the end of the month or even sooner.

But I’m gonna lose my bet to Jon. No Starship orbital launch by May 2022. ;)
« Last Edit: 05/01/2022 03:31 am by gongora »
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 randomly

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 182
We mourn your loss, but we all decided you needed the humility :)

Offline Ben Baley

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 305
So it looks like just the historic thing, Section 106, is required? That seems less difficult than many other (more built-up) areas, and it’s due in just a week from now.

The rest is just finishing up the overall EA, which is on the FAA I believe (plus final negotiations with SpaceX). Sounds pretty promising for actually being done by the end of the month or even sooner.

But I’m gonna lose my bet to Jon. No Starship orbital launch by May 2022. ;)

It also says that consultation is completed for Sec 106,  which seems to imply that all that's necessary is for SpaceX to complete the associated paperwork, which in turn implies that this could be the last delay.

Judging by how many raptor 2's are showing up we could soon see a static fire campaign culminating in a launch as early as June, that puts Starship on track to beat SLS to launch, a nail in the conspiracy coffin.

Offline Ben Baley

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 305
Moderator Note: Another try at a discussion thread for the Boca Chica permitting process. Incessant back-and-forth bickering between individuals may be deleted.  Conspiracy theory posts will be deleted. -gongora



Snip


All right guys let's try keep this thread alive a little longer this time. It was a little painful to have nowhere to post when we were finally seeing some progress on this issue.

With the section 106 date only being delayed a week it's looking like things are really moving forward, if this does end up being the last delay for the PEA how long do you think it will take the FAA to issue a launch license?(presuming the outcome is a FONSI/mitigated FONSI) Presumably SpaceX and the FAA have been working on it in the background, and doesn't this fall under the new more streamlined process for launch licenses?

Offline StormtrooperJoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 15
Excellent news, this along with the fact they are now testing the lanch pad deluge system tells me we may not be that far from larger-scale static fires, although I have doubts that even if they get the launch license that they will go for an orbital test until they have very high confidence in Starship and Raptor 2, due to the risk of damage to surrounding infrastructure if something goes wrong early in the flight, which could cause massive setbacks.

Offline sferrin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 724
  • Utah
  • Liked: 913
  • Likes Given: 773
Excellent news, this along with the fact they are now testing the lanch pad deluge system tells me we may not be that far from larger-scale static fires, although I have doubts that even if they get the launch license that they will go for an orbital test until they have very high confidence in Starship and Raptor 2, due to the risk of damage to surrounding infrastructure if something goes wrong early in the flight, which could cause massive setbacks.
A full-up, 33 engine booster test would be a sight to behold.  Do we think they'll actually need to perform that or will the can-crusher data be sufficient?  (Feel free to delete/ignore if this it too much of an OT.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline wes_wilson

  • Armchair Rocketeer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Florida
    • Foundations IT, Inc.
  • Liked: 542
  • Likes Given: 377
So it looks like just the historic thing, Section 106, is required? That seems less difficult than many other (more built-up) areas, and it’s due in just a week from now.

The rest is just finishing up the overall EA, which is on the FAA I believe (plus final negotiations with SpaceX). Sounds pretty promising for actually being done by the end of the month or even sooner.

But I’m gonna lose my bet to Jon. No Starship orbital launch by May 2022. ;)

It also says that consultation is completed for Sec 106,  which seems to imply that all that's necessary is for SpaceX to complete the associated paperwork, which in turn implies that this could be the last delay.

Judging by how many raptor 2's are showing up we could soon see a static fire campaign culminating in a launch as early as June, that puts Starship on track to beat SLS to launch, a nail in the conspiracy coffin.

I initially read it the same as you that the 106 was concluded, but on a second reading I don't think the Sec 106 consultation is completed.  I think "Section 106 Consultation Concluded" is a milestone that is now scheduled to be complete by May 6th. 

Either way, it's great news that it's all moving now!
https://cms.permits.performance.gov/permitting-project/spacex-starshipsuper-heavy-launch-vehicle-program-spacex-boca-chica-launch-site



@SpaceX "When can I buy my ticket to Mars?"

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 530
I'm probably missing something here, but doesn't saying that consultations are complete mean only that? Not that the results of the consultations were in SpaceX's favor. What if the results from the other agencies were all uniformly and deeply negative? Or is there something that I've missed that is giving us a hint that the conclusions were positive?

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10225
I'm probably missing something here, but doesn't saying that consultations are complete mean only that? Not that the results of the consultations were in SpaceX's favor. What if the results from the other agencies were all uniformly and deeply negative? Or is there something that I've missed that is giving us a hint that the conclusions were positive?

As I understand it, in a Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact, the conclusions must be positive in order to issue it.  If you do a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement, not all of the conclusions need to be positive.

Or something like that.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
I'm probably missing something here, but doesn't saying that consultations are complete mean only that? Not that the results of the consultations were in SpaceX's favor. What if the results from the other agencies were all uniformly and deeply negative? Or is there something that I've missed that is giving us a hint that the conclusions were positive?
I think our community is getting excited because we will finally actually get some news, not because we know what that news will be.

Offline robot_enthusiast

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 355
  • Likes Given: 38
I'm probably missing something here, but doesn't saying that consultations are complete mean only that? Not that the results of the consultations were in SpaceX's favor. What if the results from the other agencies were all uniformly and deeply negative? Or is there something that I've missed that is giving us a hint that the conclusions were positive?
I think our community is getting excited because we will finally actually get some news, not because we know what that news will be.
The wording on the FAA's website also sounds very promising. They now say they're "ensuring consistency with SpaceX’s licensing application" and "confirming mitigations for the proposed SpaceX operations". That combined with their statement that SpaceX has changed their application (almost certainly in response to concerns from various agencies) would indicate that a mitigated FONSI is likely to come in the near future.

Offline dabomb6608

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • IL
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 57
I'm probably missing something here, but doesn't saying that consultations are complete mean only that? Not that the results of the consultations were in SpaceX's favor. What if the results from the other agencies were all uniformly and deeply negative? Or is there something that I've missed that is giving us a hint that the conclusions were positive?
I think our community is getting excited because we will finally actually get some news, not because we know what that news will be.
The wording on the FAA's website also sounds very promising. They now say they're "ensuring consistency with SpaceX’s licensing application" and "confirming mitigations for the proposed SpaceX operations". That combined with their statement that SpaceX has changed their application (almost certainly in response to concerns from various agencies) would indicate that a mitigated FONSI is likely to come in the near future.



I wonder if the changes to the Boca Chica application have anything to do with the full speed ahead over in Florida. Maybe lessening flights here to only testing then pushing main launches to FL?

I realize this is counter to the end goals and needs. But perhaps it is better than nothing in the eyes of SpaceX, especially considering the likely hood of getting approval for any early test flights happening over in FL being much smaller.

Offline simon82

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 31
I'm probably missing something here, but doesn't saying that consultations are complete mean only that? Not that the results of the consultations were in SpaceX's favor. What if the results from the other agencies were all uniformly and deeply negative? Or is there something that I've missed that is giving us a hint that the conclusions were positive?
I think our community is getting excited because we will finally actually get some news, not because we know what that news will be.
The wording on the FAA's website also sounds very promising. They now say they're "ensuring consistency with SpaceX’s licensing application" and "confirming mitigations for the proposed SpaceX operations". That combined with their statement that SpaceX has changed their application (almost certainly in response to concerns from various agencies) would indicate that a mitigated FONSI is likely to come in the near future.



I wonder if the changes to the Boca Chica application have anything to do with the full speed ahead over in Florida. Maybe lessening flights here to only testing then pushing main launches to FL?

I realize this is counter to the end goals and needs. But perhaps it is better than nothing in the eyes of SpaceX, especially considering the likely hood of getting approval for any early test flights happening over in FL being much smaller.

It's possible. I see Boca Chica as a bonus at this point. Even if they're only allowed a handful of Super Heavy orbital test flights a year, it will go a long way to both informing and reducing risk in Florida. They can test the riskier stuff in Boca this way.


Offline rsdavis9



It's possible. I see Boca Chica as a bonus at this point. Even if they're only allowed a handful of Super Heavy orbital test flights a year, it will go a long way to both informing and reducing risk in Florida. They can test the riskier stuff in Boca this way.

So blow up stuff in boca and launch stuff in florida.
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline pyromatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 934
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 3422
  • Likes Given: 19
CNBC has FOIA'd the draft BO from FWS.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/03/spacex-starbase-expansion-plans-will-harm-endangered-species-fws.html

"February 28, 2022 – Draft BCO sent to FAA for review and comment."

Good news imo.
The threat of an EIS is over imo.


« Last Edit: 05/03/2022 05:17 pm by pyromatter »

Offline simon82

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 31
CNBC has FOIA'd the draft BO from FWS.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/03/spacex-starbase-expansion-plans-will-harm-endangered-species-fws.html

Good news imo.
The threat of an EIS is over imo.

I think they can work around it. In my line of work we have to plan jobs around breeding seasons for all kinds of birds and mammals. It's frustrating on an operational level when you have to delay work for 3-6 months because there's a single eagle nest or badger den, but understandable and fair from an environmental point of view.

Offline Eagandale4114

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
  • Liked: 541
  • Likes Given: 500
Quote
September 7, 2021 – Fire on Brazos Island, at Boca Chica, occurred on September 4th. It burned approximately 75 acres of State Park and Service land. Ignition was lithium battery in storage site owned by private company called NASA Spaceflight. They are not associated with NASA but if not for the presence of SpaceX they would not be there to photograph and remotely sense SpaceX operations.

Uhh what happened here?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Better go with lithium-iron-phosphate batteries next time. And maybe a welded steel box.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2022 06:44 pm by Robotbeat »
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

Online Slothman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • Liked: 549
  • Likes Given: 27
Quote
September 7, 2021 – Fire on Brazos Island, at Boca Chica, occurred on September 4th. It burned approximately 75 acres of State Park and Service land. Ignition was lithium battery in storage site owned by private company called NASA Spaceflight. They are not associated with NASA but if not for the presence of SpaceX they would not be there to photograph and remotely sense SpaceX operations.

Uhh what happened here?
Seems fairly clear that some battery used by NSF streaming/coverage blew up and caused a fire.

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
Quote
September 7, 2021 – Fire on Brazos Island, at Boca Chica, occurred on September 4th. It burned approximately 75 acres of State Park and Service land. Ignition was lithium battery in storage site owned by private company called NASA Spaceflight. They are not associated with NASA but if not for the presence of SpaceX they would not be there to photograph and remotely sense SpaceX operations.

Uhh what happened here?
Seems fairly clear that some battery used by NSF streaming/coverage blew up and caused a fire.

That was related to this:

https://twitter.com/KSpaceAcademy/status/1434302559854940168

Any sense as to whether this fire was initiated by the battery or by a vandal?
« Last Edit: 05/03/2022 11:29 pm by dglow »

Offline whitelancer64

CNBC has FOIA'd the draft BO from FWS.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/03/spacex-starbase-expansion-plans-will-harm-endangered-species-fws.html

"February 28, 2022 – Draft BCO sent to FAA for review and comment."

Good news imo.
The threat of an EIS is over imo.

I skimmed through / read most of the BO (which stands for Biological Opinion).

The first 22 pages is mostly a summary of SpaceX actions and activities and further plans for such at Boca Chica.

Pages 22-47 describe the various species of interest in the report

Pages 47-85 describes the environment near SpaceX activities and observations of affected species in the area, as well as expected results of future activities.

The stuff that everyone is really interested in is on pages 85-98. These pages contain the conclusion, expected animal harms, and mitigations worked out between SpaceX and the FWS for the variety of species affected.

The mitigations start on page 90 and go to page 98. Based on the descriptions of the actions they have to take, I think that a fair amount of it are things that SpaceX was already doing, and includes expanding or improving things that were not satisfactory.

Works Cited list is on pages 99-114

The Consultation History (pages 119-132) was also very interesting. That's well worth the read, I recommend everyone do so. It really lays out in detail what was happening during consultation and during the delays.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline jketch

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 141
  • California
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 12
Reading through the mitigations section, it really feels like we are heading for a mitigated FONSI as long as nothing unexpected comes of the Section 106 review. The only mitigation that seems like it would be especially challenging is the requirement to
Quote
SpaceX will minimize nighttime launch operations during sea turtle nesting season
(March 15th – October 1st).
Although it isn't clear to me in practice what it will mean to "minimize" such operations. The document doesn't categorically state they are forbidden to launch at night.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Liked: 2912
  • Likes Given: 508
What is the process for loosening the imposed restrictions over time, after the initial permit conditions have been agreed to?

e.g.

If say 5 orbital launches are allowed in Year 1, is there a process to apply for that to be expanded to say 20 launches in year 2, and then 100 launches in year 3, etc?

As you prove out the system and mitigations are demonstrated to be excessive / unwarranted? Or are they stuck with what they agree to under this initial permit?
« Last Edit: 05/04/2022 08:55 am by M.E.T. »

Offline dabomb6608

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • IL
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 57
What is the process for loosening the imposed restrictions over time, after the initial permit conditions have been agreed to?

e.g.

If say 5 orbital launches are allowed in Year 1, is there a process to apply for that to be expanded to say 20 launches in year 2, and then 100 launches in year 3, etc?

As you prove out the system and mitigations are demonstrated to be excessive / unwarranted? Or are they stuck with what they agree to under this initial permit?

I think that would depend on what mitigations and through which agency they were from.

For example, I work for a county highway department and we have a newer bridge structure over a pretty small creek that
 during a past inspection was incorrectly given too low of a scour (erosion of creek bed) rating by a consultant firm. This set off a chain of events through IDOT and IDOT Bridge Management that now has this structure permanently flagged regardless of any mitigations we take to improve the creek bed. Even though there is no actual issue with the rip-rap in the creek bed. There is now a "Plan of Action" in place requiring additional monitoring for a creek bed that hasn't changed in years.

This goes to show that in some cases once an agency flags an issue it might be permanent, regardless of the issues true reality or mitigations used to correct any issues.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
p.10
Quote
If a Super Heavy landing occurred downrange in the Gulf of Mexico or on a floating
platform, Super Heavy will be delivered by barge to the Port of Brownsville and transported
the remaining distance to the Boca Chica Launch Site over the roadways
.
[...]
SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23
Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and for
the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase
and five
Super Heavy landings each year (Table 2).
p.17
Quote
However, on a November 1, 2021,
conference call, the FAA and SpaceX reported to the Service that the proposed power plant
generation had been substantially reduced from 250 MW to 15 MW.
p.74
Quote
Orbital launches would create the largest and hottest plume from the ignition
of all Super Heavy’s 37 Raptor engines.
p.129:
Quote
SpaceX response: As the efficiency of the Raptor engine increases, the total number of
engines needed to achieve the maximum thrust (74 MN) decreases. So, we can use fewer Raptor
2.0 engines to achieve the same maximum thrust of 74 MN. Even with the use of the Raptor 2.0
engine, the maximum thrust will not exceed 74 MN
, which is the maximum thrust identified in
the BA and PEA. Accordingly, the information noted below does not prompt any changes in the
project description or effects.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5273
For others like myself who are meganewton-illiterate, the Saturn V first stage produced 34.5 MN of thrust.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
This is actually awesome. We’re learning a ton from this.

NASASpaceflight writers should use the FOIA tool, too.
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

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Thanks @edzieba, for this analysis.
p.10
Quote
If a Super Heavy landing occurred downrange in the Gulf of Mexico or on a floating
platform, Super Heavy will be delivered by barge to the Port of Brownsville and transported
the remaining distance to the Boca Chica Launch Site over the roadways
.
[...]
SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23
Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and for
the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase
and five
Super Heavy landings each year (Table 2).
This is not the same as "five flights per year". Is the number of lift-offs stated elsewhere in the document? for example, If all 23 Starship flrights are orbital, this seems to imply 23 Super Heavy/Starship launches per year. unless they intend to launch from Florida and land at BC, which seems backwards.

Also, it seem that for the purposes of this document, "Operational Phase" by definition starts with the first "Super Heavy Land Landing".
« Last Edit: 05/04/2022 04:19 pm by DanClemmensen »

Offline whitelancer64

This is actually awesome. We’re learning a ton from this.

NASASpaceflight writers should use the FOIA tool, too.

Yup. The FAA environmental assessments (which this Biological Opinion is a part of) have been the most detailed sources of public information about SpaceX operations. There are a lot of numbers and details of plans and operations that just aren't provided to the public otherwise.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 158
I wonder if the changes to the Boca Chica application have anything to do with the full speed ahead over in Florida. Maybe lessening flights here to only testing then pushing main launches to FL?

I realize this is counter to the end goals and needs. But perhaps it is better than nothing in the eyes of SpaceX, especially considering the likely hood of getting approval for any early test flights happening over in FL being much smaller.

The number of orbital launches proposed by SpaceX in the EA has always been five so Florida was always going to happen.

p.10
Quote
If a Super Heavy landing occurred downrange in the Gulf of Mexico or on a floating
platform, Super Heavy will be delivered by barge to the Port of Brownsville and transported
the remaining distance to the Boca Chica Launch Site over the roadways
.

Is it new information? I could've sworn we knew this already. Or maybe I'm getting it confused with the 39A EA because it's the same.

This is not the same as "five flights per year". Is the number of lift-offs stated elsewhere in the document? for example, If all 23 Starship flrights are orbital, this seems to imply 23 Super Heavy/Starship launches per year. unless they intend to launch from Florida and land at BC, which seems backwards.

Also, it seem that for the purposes of this document, "Operational Phase" by definition starts with the first "Super Heavy Land Landing".

As it has always been:

Pg. 8

"SpaceX is proposing to conduct three Starship/Super Heavy orbital launches annually in the Development Phase and five during the Operational Phase"
« Last Edit: 05/04/2022 05:05 pm by EL_DIABLO »

How hard would it be to increase the number of flights later on?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
How hard would it be to increase the number of flights later on?
will need a new round of negations, maybe a new EA. But they’ll have several pads in Florida at that point.
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 alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1527
  • Liked: 1590
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
But they’ll have several pads in Florida at that point.
The pace of building out at Roberts Road suggests that the Cape is going to be the focus of the action.  Musk already intimated that Boca Chica is for prototyping, and I would not be surprised if what they launch and land there is fewer than originally proposed. 


Offline mandrewa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Liked: 457
  • Likes Given: 8308
p.10
Quote
SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23 Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and five
Super Heavy landings each year (Table 2).

That part in bold is a huge restriction.  That will set SpaceX back by a least a year and possibly a billion dollars (I don't know how much it will cost to develop an ocean landing platform).

Offline steveleach

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2180
  • Liked: 2779
  • Likes Given: 961
p.10
Quote
SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23 Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and five
Super Heavy landings each year (Table 2).

That part in bold is a huge restriction.  That will set SpaceX back by a least a year and possibly a billion dollars (I don't know how much it will cost to develop an ocean landing platform).
My bet is that they just expect to soft land on the water, no platform necessary. They then go "operational" when they're ready to return the boosters to the tower and catch them.


Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
p.10
Quote
SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23 Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and five
Super Heavy landings each year (Table 2).

That part in bold is a huge restriction.  That will set SpaceX back by a least a year and possibly a billion dollars (I don't know how much it will cost to develop an ocean landing platform).
Or the cost of expending 5x boosters and building 0x platforms.

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Liked: 448
  • Likes Given: 253
p.10
Quote
SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23 Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and five
Super Heavy landings each year (Table 2).

That part in bold is a huge restriction.  That will set SpaceX back by a least a year and possibly a billion dollars (I don't know how much it will cost to develop an ocean landing platform).
Or the cost of expending 5x boosters and building 0x platforms.
I think we will soon see one of the oil rigs get a tower with some chop sticks.

The long pole IMHO for outfitting the oil rigs for operational use would be the infrastructure for launch. If the oil rigs are temporarily just used for landing boosters, they can be ready much faster.

Just a copy&paste of the towers+chopsticks onto one of the oil rigs, with later outfitting to a full launch platform would follow SpaceXs usual mode of incremental testing and should be possible in a relatively short timeframe.

NET Late Fall 2022?

They might already have the tower segments for the second launch tower at Boca Chica on order, so those could be repurposed.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2022 08:04 am by Bananas_on_Mars »

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 158
p.10
Quote
SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23 Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and five
Super Heavy landings each year (Table 2).

That part in bold is a huge restriction.  That will set SpaceX back by a least a year and possibly a billion dollars (I don't know how much it will cost to develop an ocean landing platform).

?

We already knew that the first SH was going in the drink regardless so that leaves two (development phase orbital launches are three per year max), even if they were to nail it on the first try (unlikely) I can only imagine they'd want to test reliability once or twice before risking the tower.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2022 10:24 am by EL_DIABLO »

Offline wes_wilson

  • Armchair Rocketeer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Florida
    • Foundations IT, Inc.
  • Liked: 542
  • Likes Given: 377
p.10
Quote
SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23 Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and five
Super Heavy landings each year (Table 2).

That part in bold is a huge restriction.  That will set SpaceX back by a least a year and possibly a billion dollars (I don't know how much it will cost to develop an ocean landing platform).
Or the cost of expending 5x boosters and building 0x platforms.

Ignoring overflight/safety concerns for the moment.  Is it possible that ships and boosters built in Texas can launch and then land in Florida?

@SpaceX "When can I buy my ticket to Mars?"

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
As long as it has taken to get the permitting in place.  SpaceX might consider landing the booster back at the pad.  Possibly not using the full up complement of engines on the first test.  Same with Starship.  Just enough engines to reach orbit, and then soft land near Hawaii in the ocean.  The booster has more engines.  They know how to pinpoint land a booster, so why not try catching the booster? Also why not run a partly filled and only enough engines to get to say 10-12km altitude, then land the booster back at the pad?  If successful, then land the orbital booster back at the pad. 

Offline dabomb6608

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • IL
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 57
My bet is that they just expect to soft land on the water, no platform necessary. They then go "operational" when they're ready to return the boosters to the tower and catch them.

I agree. With emphasis on "when they're ready". They are under heavy pressure both financially and I bet more so regulatorily to do everything in their power to not drop/crash a booster on or anywhere near the tower.

Once they go orbital and start flying full Starships, everything "gets real" compared to the low elevation hops with Starship. I think their level of "risk taking" is going to drop versus what we saw last year.

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
My bet is that they just expect to soft land on the water, no platform necessary. They then go "operational" when they're ready to return the boosters to the tower and catch them.

I agree. With emphasis on "when they're ready". They are under heavy pressure both financially and I bet more so regulatorily to do everything in their power to not drop/crash a booster on or anywhere near the tower.

If there’s any pressure it is to demonstrate Starlink deployment. Even should the first SS+SH stack be entirely expended, its Ship making orbit and depositing some satellites will leave SpaceX investors very satisfied.

That said I think they will attempt to catch the first booster. Like F9 they can always ditch if anything looks awry. And one might suspect these first boosters include larger-than-optimal header tanks to provide extra hover margin for the catch.


edit:typo
« Last Edit: 05/10/2022 04:59 pm by dglow »

Offline DeimosDream

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Atlanta
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 47
p.10
Quote
SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23 Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and five
Super Heavy landings each year (Table 2).

That part in bold is a huge restriction.  That will set SpaceX back by a least a year and possibly a billion dollars (I don't know how much it will cost to develop an ocean landing platform).
Or the cost of expending 5x boosters and building 0x platforms.

Ignoring overflight/safety concerns for the moment.  Is it possible that ships and boosters built in Texas can launch and then land in Florida?
Sure it is possible, and we don't even have to ignore overflight. SpaceX has already demonstrated 180 degree boostback for RTLS; just lob starship/booster onto a suborbital over water trajectory out past Florida into the Atlantic and then pull a midflight boostback course change to your Florida pad.

However it seems a moot point for this chain of quotes. If SpaceX isn't willing/allowed to risk crashing a development-phase landing/tower-catch in Texas they probably won't risk it in Florida either. Also SpaceX has already purchased 2x oil rigs to use as launch/landing platforms.

Speculation: this isn't a setback at all but rather 'everything according to plan'. I've always thought it a little odd that SpaceX made a huge presentation on their rapid turn around times but then claimed operations would drop to just 5x flights per year. Maybe those 5x operational flights were never intended to be orbital missions but rather to fly new/refurbished Starships down range to operational ocean launch pads and/or Florida, and accept incoming used Starships for their 10th? 100th? flight factory maintenance tuneup?

Offline StevenOBrien

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Ireland
    • Steven O'Brien
  • Liked: 4412
  • Likes Given: 2691
p.10
Quote
SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23 Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and five
Super Heavy landings each year (Table 2).

That part in bold is a huge restriction.  That will set SpaceX back by a least a year and possibly a billion dollars (I don't know how much it will cost to develop an ocean landing platform).
I think that section is just paraphrasing a snapshot of whatever SpaceX's plans were at the point in time that this was written. A lot of the info seems to be out of date, as it also makes reference to things like "approximately 10 tank tests per month", and "23 suborbital Starship launches/landings per year", "Static fires will only occur during the day". I wouldn't take it too seriously.

It also says:

Quote from: Page 9
Each Starship/Super Heavy orbital launch will include an immediate boost-back and landing. Landing could occur down range in the Gulf of Mexico or on a floating platform, no closer than approximately 19 miles off the coast, or at the VLA.

...and references both Starship and Super Heavy landings at the launch site several times after that.

Also, it's interesting to me that SN1's "explosion during a test firing", the "ASA Spaceflight" battery fire, and SpaceX employees driving a golf cart over the salt flats are mentioned in the consultation history, but the SN8, 9, 10, and 11 explosions and debris scattering isn't mentioned at all. ::)
« Last Edit: 05/05/2022 01:38 pm by StevenOBrien »

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4010
  • Likes Given: 2738
Just a very provocative thought.

What exactly counts as a "landing"?

I would consider a landing a touchdown on solid ground of some sort.

If so, is if the act of catching a vehicle hovering in midair by a large hook and then saving it while suspended  a "landing" in the classic and legal sense ?

I ask because we currently have a similar issue with flights with lighter than air vehicles. They technically don't take off and land at all, they are carried to the launch site, released and caught again, but they never touch the ground, which makes it actually quite hard to specify the "number and duration of flights" for the logbook, because these are legally defined as starting with takeoff and ending with a landing, neither of which actually takes place.
This has emerged  since under the newer EU regulations a tethered or otherwise restricted flight still counts as a flight when it occurs outdoors (The previous national legislation had a length limit for tethers. Anything physically incapable of exceeding 30m such as hover craft or ground effect vehicles or tethered vehicles with a short tether were technically and legally not flying. But that's now superseded by EU law.). Applied to our vehicles that meant they are technically already flying while held on to (tethered) the moment we leave the hangar - and similarly also never land. It's too new though to have been subject to any court having to decide about it to my knowledge.

I don't know the applicable US law, but is that a loophole in the 5 landings limit? ;)

Offline mandrewa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Liked: 457
  • Likes Given: 8308
p.10
Quote
SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23 Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and five
Super Heavy landings each year (Table 2).

That part in bold is a huge restriction.  That will set SpaceX back by a least a year and possibly a billion dollars (I don't know how much it will cost to develop an ocean landing platform).

?

We already knew that the first SH was going in the drink regardless so that leaves two (development phase orbital launches are three per year max), even if they were to nail it on the first try (unlikely) I can only imagine they'd want to test reliability once or twice before risking the tower.

Yes, we already knew that.  But the expectation, or my expectation, was that after the landings in the oceans were going well, however many flights later that might be, that they would then move on to trying to land the booster on the launch tower.

Now personally I have a rather conservative definition of going well. I would want to see more than one booster hit its target in the air over the ocean before moving on to the real launch tower since the consequences of a missed catch are so significant.

But the quote from the text, ie. "for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase," negates a crucial part of the point of Boca Chica since now a substantial part of the development of the Starship concept will have to be done on an ocean platform, which as I stated before is going to be very expensive and take a long time to build.

Furthermore it may be naive to assume that the FAA and other regulatory agencies will allow SpaceX to build an ocean platform to complete the development of the Starship.  The same forces that have apparently rather successfully blocked SpaceX from using Boca Chica for the development of the Starship will now be arrayed against this ocean platform.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2022 03:04 pm by mandrewa »

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4010
  • Likes Given: 2738

Furthermore it may be naive to assume that the FAA and other regulatory agencies will allow SpaceX to build an ocean platform to complete the development of the Starship.  The same forces that have apparently rather successfully blocked SpaceX from using Boca Chica for the development of the Starship will now be arrayed against this ocean platform.

From the wording of various recent documents, as well as mitigation measures described and agreed on, it looks to me like SpaceX and FAA as well as other agencies seem to have a rather constructive and productive approach to working together. Although there are some private organizations that seem to try and affect the process by issuing maximally disruptive comments, claims and demands - whether justified or not. (A very similar issue Tesla is facing with the permitting process for Giga Berlin operation) where deliberate and malicious intent to abuse the regulative framework for disruption and delay can not be ruled out. But there does not seem to be an intend by any major involved players such as SpaceX, FAA, Park service, etc... to deliberately derail and hinder the progress. The various consultations, documents and comments more look like an attempt to maximize utility/benefit while cooperating within the existing legal framework. Aka find a compromise that all sides can work with while also not leaving any procedural or legal vulnerabilities to the process.

I also do not see any indication that this would hinder or preclude authorization for launches and landings on ocean platforms to a relevant degree. At worst, interference by third parties might cost SpaceX a few (single digit) months of extra delays. The decision seems to be hinging more on the effort to develop fully operational sea platforms versus developing land based capability at the cape. Aka - what can be built faster is the limiting factor, not what can be permitted faster.


Offline whitelancer64

*snip*

Also, it's interesting to me that SN1's "explosion during a test firing", the "ASA Spaceflight" battery fire, and SpaceX employees driving a golf cart over the salt flats are mentioned in the consultation history, but the SN8, 9, 10, and 11 explosions and debris scattering isn't mentioned at all. ::)

SN1 was mentioned specifically because they weren't properly notified, and SpaceX didn't start searching for nesting birds until days later.

Presumably they were notified and had people inspecting the wetlands on the later RUDs.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Yes, we already knew that.  But the expectation, or my expectation, was that after the landings in the oceans were going well, however many flights later that might be, that they would then move on to trying to land the booster on the launch tower.

Now personally I have a rather conservative definition of going well. I would want to see more than one booster hit its target in the air over the ocean before moving on to the real launch tower since the consequences of a missed catch are so significant.

But the quote from the text, ie. "for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase," negates a crucial part of the point of Boca Chica since now a substantial part of the development of the Starship concept will have to be done on an ocean platform, which as I stated before is going to be very expensive and take a long time to build.

Furthermore it may be naive to assume that the FAA and other regulatory agencies will allow SpaceX to build an ocean platform to complete the development of the Starship.  The same forces that have apparently rather successfully blocked SpaceX from using Boca Chica for the development of the Starship will now be arrayed against this ocean platform.

I'm confused by this line of reasoning, seems to me the transition of "Development Phase" to "Operational Phase" is entirely up to SpaceX, so what I expect to happen is:
1. SpaceX does however many water landing of SuperHeavy they think is necessary in order to be confident that RTLS and catch using the tower won't endanger the launch site. For all we know, this number could be zero.
2. Once they're confident about RTLS and catching, they'll move to "Operational Phase", which would allow them to fly SuperHeavy back to launch site and catch it. Nobody said a catch cannot fail during Operational Phase.

Offline mandrewa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Liked: 457
  • Likes Given: 8308
Yes, we already knew that.  But the expectation, or my expectation, was that after the landings in the oceans were going well, however many flights later that might be, that they would then move on to trying to land the booster on the launch tower.

Now personally I have a rather conservative definition of going well. I would want to see more than one booster hit its target in the air over the ocean before moving on to the real launch tower since the consequences of a missed catch are so significant.

But the quote from the text, ie. "for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase," negates a crucial part of the point of Boca Chica since now a substantial part of the development of the Starship concept will have to be done on an ocean platform, which as I stated before is going to be very expensive and take a long time to build.

Furthermore it may be naive to assume that the FAA and other regulatory agencies will allow SpaceX to build an ocean platform to complete the development of the Starship.  The same forces that have apparently rather successfully blocked SpaceX from using Boca Chica for the development of the Starship will now be arrayed against this ocean platform.

I'm confused by this line of reasoning, seems to me the transition of "Development Phase" to "Operational Phase" is entirely up to SpaceX, so what I expect to happen is:
1. SpaceX does however many water landing of SuperHeavy they think is necessary in order to be confident that RTLS and catch using the tower won't endanger the launch site. For all we know, this number could be zero.
2. Once they're confident about RTLS and catching, they'll move to "Operational Phase", which would allow them to fly SuperHeavy back to launch site and catch it. Nobody said a catch cannot fail during Operational Phase.

If they could get away with that I would be for it.  But realistically speaking, and this is just my personal opinion, there is absolutely no way that SpaceX could get away with labeling the first landing of a booster on a launch tower as part of the "Operational Phase."

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Yes, we already knew that.  But the expectation, or my expectation, was that after the landings in the oceans were going well, however many flights later that might be, that they would then move on to trying to land the booster on the launch tower.

Now personally I have a rather conservative definition of going well. I would want to see more than one booster hit its target in the air over the ocean before moving on to the real launch tower since the consequences of a missed catch are so significant.

But the quote from the text, ie. "for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase," negates a crucial part of the point of Boca Chica since now a substantial part of the development of the Starship concept will have to be done on an ocean platform, which as I stated before is going to be very expensive and take a long time to build.

Furthermore it may be naive to assume that the FAA and other regulatory agencies will allow SpaceX to build an ocean platform to complete the development of the Starship.  The same forces that have apparently rather successfully blocked SpaceX from using Boca Chica for the development of the Starship will now be arrayed against this ocean platform.

I'm confused by this line of reasoning, seems to me the transition of "Development Phase" to "Operational Phase" is entirely up to SpaceX, so what I expect to happen is:
1. SpaceX does however many water landing of SuperHeavy they think is necessary in order to be confident that RTLS and catch using the tower won't endanger the launch site. For all we know, this number could be zero.
2. Once they're confident about RTLS and catching, they'll move to "Operational Phase", which would allow them to fly SuperHeavy back to launch site and catch it. Nobody said a catch cannot fail during Operational Phase.

If they could get away with that I would be for it.  But realistically speaking, and this is just my personal opinion, there is absolutely no way that SpaceX could get away with labeling the first landing of a booster on a launch tower as part of the "Operational Phase."

Who's going to stop them?

Well FAA can if the expected casualty on the ground is too high, but other than that, who?

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 158
Yes, we already knew that.  But the expectation, or my expectation, was that after the landings in the oceans were going well, however many flights later that might be, that they would then move on to trying to land the booster on the launch tower.

Now personally I have a rather conservative definition of going well. I would want to see more than one booster hit its target in the air over the ocean before moving on to the real launch tower since the consequences of a missed catch are so significant.

But the quote from the text, ie. "for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase," negates a crucial part of the point of Boca Chica since now a substantial part of the development of the Starship concept will have to be done on an ocean platform, which as I stated before is going to be very expensive and take a long time to build.

Furthermore it may be naive to assume that the FAA and other regulatory agencies will allow SpaceX to build an ocean platform to complete the development of the Starship.  The same forces that have apparently rather successfully blocked SpaceX from using Boca Chica for the development of the Starship will now be arrayed against this ocean platform.

I'm confused by this line of reasoning, seems to me the transition of "Development Phase" to "Operational Phase" is entirely up to SpaceX, so what I expect to happen is:
1. SpaceX does however many water landing of SuperHeavy they think is necessary in order to be confident that RTLS and catch using the tower won't endanger the launch site. For all we know, this number could be zero.
2. Once they're confident about RTLS and catching, they'll move to "Operational Phase", which would allow them to fly SuperHeavy back to launch site and catch it. Nobody said a catch cannot fail during Operational Phase.

If they could get away with that I would be for it.  But realistically speaking, and this is just my personal opinion, there is absolutely no way that SpaceX could get away with labeling the first landing of a booster on a launch tower as part of the "Operational Phase."

Once they stick a real payload in there (Starlink) I don't see how anyone could claim it is not in the operational phase.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2022 08:22 pm by EL_DIABLO »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
Yes, we already knew that.  But the expectation, or my expectation, was that after the landings in the oceans were going well, however many flights later that might be, that they would then move on to trying to land the booster on the launch tower.

Now personally I have a rather conservative definition of going well. I would want to see more than one booster hit its target in the air over the ocean before moving on to the real launch tower since the consequences of a missed catch are so significant.

But the quote from the text, ie. "for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase," negates a crucial part of the point of Boca Chica since now a substantial part of the development of the Starship concept will have to be done on an ocean platform, which as I stated before is going to be very expensive and take a long time to build.

Furthermore it may be naive to assume that the FAA and other regulatory agencies will allow SpaceX to build an ocean platform to complete the development of the Starship.  The same forces that have apparently rather successfully blocked SpaceX from using Boca Chica for the development of the Starship will now be arrayed against this ocean platform.

I'm confused by this line of reasoning, seems to me the transition of "Development Phase" to "Operational Phase" is entirely up to SpaceX, so what I expect to happen is:
1. SpaceX does however many water landing of SuperHeavy they think is necessary in order to be confident that RTLS and catch using the tower won't endanger the launch site. For all we know, this number could be zero.
2. Once they're confident about RTLS and catching, they'll move to "Operational Phase", which would allow them to fly SuperHeavy back to launch site and catch it. Nobody said a catch cannot fail during Operational Phase.

If they could get away with that I would be for it.  But realistically speaking, and this is just my personal opinion, there is absolutely no way that SpaceX could get away with labeling the first landing of a booster on a launch tower as part of the "Operational Phase."
SpaceX are the ones defining the "Development" and "Operational" phases.

Online frederickm17

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Raleigh, NC
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 224
Yes, we already knew that.  But the expectation, or my expectation, was that after the landings in the oceans were going well, however many flights later that might be, that they would then move on to trying to land the booster on the launch tower.

Now personally I have a rather conservative definition of going well. I would want to see more than one booster hit its target in the air over the ocean before moving on to the real launch tower since the consequences of a missed catch are so significant.

But the quote from the text, ie. "for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase," negates a crucial part of the point of Boca Chica since now a substantial part of the development of the Starship concept will have to be done on an ocean platform, which as I stated before is going to be very expensive and take a long time to build.

Furthermore it may be naive to assume that the FAA and other regulatory agencies will allow SpaceX to build an ocean platform to complete the development of the Starship.  The same forces that have apparently rather successfully blocked SpaceX from using Boca Chica for the development of the Starship will now be arrayed against this ocean platform.

I'm confused by this line of reasoning, seems to me the transition of "Development Phase" to "Operational Phase" is entirely up to SpaceX, so what I expect to happen is:
1. SpaceX does however many water landing of SuperHeavy they think is necessary in order to be confident that RTLS and catch using the tower won't endanger the launch site. For all we know, this number could be zero.
2. Once they're confident about RTLS and catching, they'll move to "Operational Phase", which would allow them to fly SuperHeavy back to launch site and catch it. Nobody said a catch cannot fail during Operational Phase.

If they could get away with that I would be for it.  But realistically speaking, and this is just my personal opinion, there is absolutely no way that SpaceX could get away with labeling the first landing of a booster on a launch tower as part of the "Operational Phase."
SpaceX are the ones defining the "Development" and "Operational" phases.

This seems like semantics. "Development" and "Operational" phases are defined one way in the FAA documents, framed in a way to help define the risks and mitigations from the FAA's perspective. SpaceX likely classifies these phases differently. With the way SpaceX operates, I would imagine the "development" phase will continue for years to come as they refine the vehicles, but that doesn't mean they haven't entered into the "operational" phase.

With that said, SpaceX will need to work within the parameters they've agreed to in the FAA documents. If they are confident enough in their ability to catch the booster on the first attempt, I see no reason why they can't enter the operational phase as defined by the FAA, even if it the mission is still classified internally as a developmental.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
Yes, we already knew that.  But the expectation, or my expectation, was that after the landings in the oceans were going well, however many flights later that might be, that they would then move on to trying to land the booster on the launch tower.

Now personally I have a rather conservative definition of going well. I would want to see more than one booster hit its target in the air over the ocean before moving on to the real launch tower since the consequences of a missed catch are so significant.

But the quote from the text, ie. "for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase," negates a crucial part of the point of Boca Chica since now a substantial part of the development of the Starship concept will have to be done on an ocean platform, which as I stated before is going to be very expensive and take a long time to build.

Furthermore it may be naive to assume that the FAA and other regulatory agencies will allow SpaceX to build an ocean platform to complete the development of the Starship.  The same forces that have apparently rather successfully blocked SpaceX from using Boca Chica for the development of the Starship will now be arrayed against this ocean platform.

I'm confused by this line of reasoning, seems to me the transition of "Development Phase" to "Operational Phase" is entirely up to SpaceX, so what I expect to happen is:
1. SpaceX does however many water landing of SuperHeavy they think is necessary in order to be confident that RTLS and catch using the tower won't endanger the launch site. For all we know, this number could be zero.
2. Once they're confident about RTLS and catching, they'll move to "Operational Phase", which would allow them to fly SuperHeavy back to launch site and catch it. Nobody said a catch cannot fail during Operational Phase.

If they could get away with that I would be for it.  But realistically speaking, and this is just my personal opinion, there is absolutely no way that SpaceX could get away with labeling the first landing of a booster on a launch tower as part of the "Operational Phase."
SpaceX are the ones defining the "Development" and "Operational" phases.

This seems like semantics. "Development" and "Operational" phases are defined one way in the FAA documents, framed in a way to help define the risks and mitigations from the FAA's perspective. SpaceX likely classifies these phases differently. With the way SpaceX operates, I would imagine the "development" phase will continue for years to come as they refine the vehicles, but that doesn't mean they haven't entered into the "operational" phase.

With that said, SpaceX will need to work within the parameters they've agreed to in the FAA documents. If they are confident enough in their ability to catch the booster on the first attempt, I see no reason why they can't enter the operational phase as defined by the FAA, even if it the mission is still classified internally as a developmental.
The PEA (and final EA) are not written by the FAA, but by SpaceX. The FAA (and other agencies) sign off on them, but do not write them. There are no defined transition criteria between phases other than self-reporting (i.e. it's the Operational Phase when SpaceX says it's no longer the Development Phase.
In addition, the FAA {Part 450 (streamlined launch licensing) rulings also do not define development or operation phases.

Indeed, they only mention "development phase" once - as a colloquial term - in an actually relevant (but not to this immediate discussion) paragraph (on p.79594):
Quote
The FAA notes that it may adopt, in whole or in part, another Federal agency’s draft or final EA, the EA portion of another agency’s EA/ FONSI, or EIS in accordance with applicable regulations and authorities implementing NEPA. Whenever possible, the FAA will adopt the other Federal agency’s NEPA documents to support the issuance of launch and reentry licenses. Further, the FAA encourages early coordination with the FAA to benefit applicants that are seeking approvals from other Federal agencies related to the FAA-issued license (e.g., an applicant seeking approval from a Federal agency to make modifications on a Federal launch or reentry site in anticipation of receiving a launch license from the FAA). This coordination will increase the likelihood of a more efficient environmental review process as the applicant seeks different but related approvals from multiple Federal agencies. The applicant should consult with the FAA early in the project’s development phase, prior to the development of the NEPA document, to determine environmental review responsibilities, and the appropriate level of review, and to foster efficient procedures to develop documentation to meet the agencies’ legal requirements.
Or in other words: watch out for initiation of the NEPA process for LC-49, because the EIS for land clearance and construction (federal land operated by a federal agency, so NEPA in effect due to federal action) would also serve as the EIS to satisfy NEPA prior to issuance of a launch license for that new pad.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Yeah, I think they do need an EIS or EA for LC-39c/d (I’m calling it that LOL), but this will be the third/fourth (or maybe fifth) launch site for Starship, so they don’t need it immediately right now but will once flight rate ramps up to 50-100 per year, which will take a few years anyway.
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 mandrewa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Liked: 457
  • Likes Given: 8308
Yes, we already knew that.  But the expectation, or my expectation, was that after the landings in the oceans were going well, however many flights later that might be, that they would then move on to trying to land the booster on the launch tower.

Now personally I have a rather conservative definition of going well. I would want to see more than one booster hit its target in the air over the ocean before moving on to the real launch tower since the consequences of a missed catch are so significant.

But the quote from the text, ie. "for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase," negates a crucial part of the point of Boca Chica since now a substantial part of the development of the Starship concept will have to be done on an ocean platform, which as I stated before is going to be very expensive and take a long time to build.

Furthermore it may be naive to assume that the FAA and other regulatory agencies will allow SpaceX to build an ocean platform to complete the development of the Starship.  The same forces that have apparently rather successfully blocked SpaceX from using Boca Chica for the development of the Starship will now be arrayed against this ocean platform.

I'm confused by this line of reasoning, seems to me the transition of "Development Phase" to "Operational Phase" is entirely up to SpaceX, so what I expect to happen is:
1. SpaceX does however many water landing of SuperHeavy they think is necessary in order to be confident that RTLS and catch using the tower won't endanger the launch site. For all we know, this number could be zero.
2. Once they're confident about RTLS and catching, they'll move to "Operational Phase", which would allow them to fly SuperHeavy back to launch site and catch it. Nobody said a catch cannot fail during Operational Phase.

If they could get away with that I would be for it.  But realistically speaking, and this is just my personal opinion, there is absolutely no way that SpaceX could get away with labeling the first landing of a booster on a launch tower as part of the "Operational Phase."
SpaceX are the ones defining the "Development" and "Operational" phases.

This seems like semantics. "Development" and "Operational" phases are defined one way in the FAA documents, framed in a way to help define the risks and mitigations from the FAA's perspective. SpaceX likely classifies these phases differently. With the way SpaceX operates, I would imagine the "development" phase will continue for years to come as they refine the vehicles, but that doesn't mean they haven't entered into the "operational" phase.

With that said, SpaceX will need to work within the parameters they've agreed to in the FAA documents. If they are confident enough in their ability to catch the booster on the first attempt, I see no reason why they can't enter the operational phase as defined by the FAA, even if it the mission is still classified internally as a developmental.

To my mind it seems plausible that SpaceX will say the Development Phase of the Super Heavy Booster is complete when and only when they can successfully land it on a launch tower.  They will then be in the Operational Phase of the Super Heavy Booster.  But that won't mean that the development of the Super Heavy Booster has stopped because as they gain experience in the Operational Phase it is inevitable that there will be further changes and improvements.

The same will go for the Starship where again the formal end to the Development Phase will be marked by successful landings. But as with the Super Heavy Booster, the Operational Phase of the Starship will see many improvements and changes as experience is gathered.

It has occurred to me this morning that it may be that it is SpaceX that has decided to move the first landings of a booster to an ocean platform.  And that SpaceX was not compelled to do so by others.

That would mean they plan multiple launches of the Starship stack where the booster will end up in the ocean.  And they want to have this experience before attempting the first launch tower catch.  And that they would rather do that first catch out in the ocean.  And that they anticipate having an ocean platform ready roughly about the time they will need it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Don’t take a preliminary document obtained via FOIA as scripture set in stone. It’s not legally binding at all. The final document is. So don’t build a logical house of cards on a foundation of a changeable and non-official document.
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 whitelancer64

Yes, we already knew that.  But the expectation, or my expectation, was that after the landings in the oceans were going well, however many flights later that might be, that they would then move on to trying to land the booster on the launch tower.

Now personally I have a rather conservative definition of going well. I would want to see more than one booster hit its target in the air over the ocean before moving on to the real launch tower since the consequences of a missed catch are so significant.

But the quote from the text, ie. "for the Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase," negates a crucial part of the point of Boca Chica since now a substantial part of the development of the Starship concept will have to be done on an ocean platform, which as I stated before is going to be very expensive and take a long time to build.

Furthermore it may be naive to assume that the FAA and other regulatory agencies will allow SpaceX to build an ocean platform to complete the development of the Starship.  The same forces that have apparently rather successfully blocked SpaceX from using Boca Chica for the development of the Starship will now be arrayed against this ocean platform.

I'm confused by this line of reasoning, seems to me the transition of "Development Phase" to "Operational Phase" is entirely up to SpaceX, so what I expect to happen is:
1. SpaceX does however many water landing of SuperHeavy they think is necessary in order to be confident that RTLS and catch using the tower won't endanger the launch site. For all we know, this number could be zero.
2. Once they're confident about RTLS and catching, they'll move to "Operational Phase", which would allow them to fly SuperHeavy back to launch site and catch it. Nobody said a catch cannot fail during Operational Phase.

If they could get away with that I would be for it.  But realistically speaking, and this is just my personal opinion, there is absolutely no way that SpaceX could get away with labeling the first landing of a booster on a launch tower as part of the "Operational Phase."
SpaceX are the ones defining the "Development" and "Operational" phases.

This seems like semantics. "Development" and "Operational" phases are defined one way in the FAA documents, framed in a way to help define the risks and mitigations from the FAA's perspective. SpaceX likely classifies these phases differently. With the way SpaceX operates, I would imagine the "development" phase will continue for years to come as they refine the vehicles, but that doesn't mean they haven't entered into the "operational" phase.

With that said, SpaceX will need to work within the parameters they've agreed to in the FAA documents. If they are confident enough in their ability to catch the booster on the first attempt, I see no reason why they can't enter the operational phase as defined by the FAA, even if it the mission is still classified internally as a developmental.

SpaceX and FWS, along with the FAA, all worked together to create this document. If their definitions were different that would be a huge problem.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
The development vs operational phase difference in the FOIA'ed draft FWS Biological Opinion is just quoting the draft PEA, it's not something invented by FWS, SpaceX proposed the two phases in PEA, and I very much doubt FWS cares about this.

From what I can see, the reason SpaceX proposed two phases is because there's a maximum amount of noise they can emit and development phase is trading more suborbital launches of Starship for less orbital launch and land landing of SuperHeavy, so that overall noise level stays below the limit. This is probably a leftover from the era when they thought they needed a lot more suborbital Starship test flights, I think that era has passed with the successful flight of SN8 to SN15. But they choose to leave this outdated plan in the PEA since changing it would just cause more delays.

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Excited to see the Section 106 Review for FAA license completed!
But what is this Section 4(f) Determination Issued by FAA now with a proposed completion date of 2022-05-20? Another interim step to final approval due on 2022-05-31.
« Last Edit: 05/06/2022 07:48 pm by Roy_H »
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline Borgias

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • France
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 68
Maybe the operational phase start when SpaceX use SS to deploy Starlink satellites ?

Online xvel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • I'm metric and I'm proud of it
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 265
I think so, first time when they put something useful in orbit.
And God said: "Let there be a metric system". And there was the metric system.
And God saw that it was a good system.

Offline warp99

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 422
  • Likes Given: 44
Excited to see the Section 106 Review for FAA license completed!
But what is this Section 4(f) Determination Issued by FAA now with a proposed completion date of 2022-05-20? Another interim step to final approval due on 2022-05-31.
A quote from an FAA approval of facilities at O'Hare airport in Chicago

"Section 4(f) Lands Section 4(f) legislation,1 as established under the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, states: 1As part of an overall recodification of the DOT Act, Section 4(f) was amended and codified in 49 U.S.C. Section 303(c). Environmental Consequences 5.8-1 July 2005 Chicago O’Hare International Airport  Final EIS

The Secretary may approve a transportation program or project (other than any project for a park road or parkway under section 204 of title 23) requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site)] only if— 
(1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and   
(2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. As noted above, this legislation provides for the protection of certain publicly-owned lands, including public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance, and the protection of any land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance. 

Programs or projects requiring the use of Section 4(f) lands will not be approved by the FAA unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use of such land, and such programs include all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use.  FAA must also address properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966." 

So 4(f) approval is required both because the launch site is in a wildlife reserve and because of the historical sites in the area.  If this approval is gained then the overall proposal can then be considered.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2022 01:51 am by warp99 »

Offline DistantTemple

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
  • England
  • Liked: 1701
  • Likes Given: 2839
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-safety-panel-dont-rush-to-crewed-test-flight-as-boeing-prepares-oft-2/

Quote
As for Starship, SpaceX plans to launch it from Boca Chica, TX, if it can win environmental approval, but KSC is an alternative. Musk said earlier this year he already has the environmental approvals he needs for a Starship launch pad there, but ASAP is concerned it is too close to Launch Complex 39-A, the launch pad for Crew Dragon.

“There are obvious safety concerns about launching a large and as yet unproven Starship in such close proximity, reportedly 300 yards or so, from another pad, let alone the pad so vitally necessary for the commercial crew program.” — David West

There you go, ASAP just gave the perfect reason why the Cape is not a suitable alternative (as far as NEPA/environmental review is concerned) to Boca Chica.
Sorry not checking these details first...
SpaceX is NOT taking or developing the historical site OR the wildlife refuges. It is developing on its own land. It will affect the refuges, and possibly the historic sites, and public access to them.
The phrase in the quote above is "requiring the use of". SpaceX will not "require the use of" these sites, except in upgrading the road to have passing places, to enter the sites to clean-up after accidents, and to deny access during tests and launches.
It depends what "use of" means. And although SX will have a significant impact, the sites will be largely physically untouched. The various mediations carefully offset and reduce the impacts.
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline warp99

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 422
  • Likes Given: 44
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-safety-panel-dont-rush-to-crewed-test-flight-as-boeing-prepares-oft-2/

Quote
As for Starship, SpaceX plans to launch it from Boca Chica, TX, if it can win environmental approval, but KSC is an alternative. Musk said earlier this year he already has the environmental approvals he needs for a Starship launch pad there, but ASAP is concerned it is too close to Launch Complex 39-A, the launch pad for Crew Dragon.

“There are obvious safety concerns about launching a large and as yet unproven Starship in such close proximity, reportedly 300 yards or so, from another pad, let alone the pad so vitally necessary for the commercial crew program.” — David West

There you go, ASAP just gave the perfect reason why the Cape is not a suitable alternative (as far as NEPA/environmental review is concerned) to Boca Chica.
Sorry not checking these details first...
SpaceX is NOT taking or developing the historical site OR the wildlife refuges. It is developing on its own land. It will affect the refuges, and possibly the historic sites, and public access to them.
The phrase in the quote above is "requiring the use of". SpaceX will not "require the use of" these sites, except in upgrading the road to have passing places, to enter the sites to clean-up after accidents, and to deny access during tests and launches.
It depends what "use of" means. And although SX will have a significant impact, the sites will be largely physically untouched. The various mediations carefully offset and reduce the impacts.
You give all the reasons that Section 4(f) permits are required in your exceptions list. 

"Occupy" includes deny the use of a road or land to others so beach and road closures.

"Taking" in the context of wildlife includes frightening or disturbing them or beaming infra-red from the exhaust so that the local air temperature goes up to 100C or sound at 180dB to liquify their internal organs and not just capturing or shooting them. 

"Using land" includes occasionally scattering large amounts of metal onto it and then using heavy equipment to haul it back out again while leaving smaller fragments to sink into the mud.

Offline DistantTemple

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
  • England
  • Liked: 1701
  • Likes Given: 2839
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-safety-panel-dont-rush-to-crewed-test-flight-as-boeing-prepares-oft-2/

Quote
As for Starship, SpaceX plans to launch it from Boca Chica, TX, if it can win environmental approval, but KSC is an alternative. Musk said earlier this year he already has the environmental approvals he needs for a Starship launch pad there, but ASAP is concerned it is too close to Launch Complex 39-A, the launch pad for Crew Dragon.

“There are obvious safety concerns about launching a large and as yet unproven Starship in such close proximity, reportedly 300 yards or so, from another pad, let alone the pad so vitally necessary for the commercial crew program.” — David West

There you go, ASAP just gave the perfect reason why the Cape is not a suitable alternative (as far as NEPA/environmental review is concerned) to Boca Chica.
Sorry not checking these details first...
SpaceX is NOT taking or developing the historical site OR the wildlife refuges. It is developing on its own land. It will affect the refuges, and possibly the historic sites, and public access to them.
The phrase in the quote above is "requiring the use of". SpaceX will not "require the use of" these sites, except in upgrading the road to have passing places, to enter the sites to clean-up after accidents, and to deny access during tests and launches.
It depends what "use of" means. And although SX will have a significant impact, the sites will be largely physically untouched. The various mediations carefully offset and reduce the impacts.
You give all the reasons that Section 4(f) permits are required in your exceptions list. 

"Occupy" includes deny the use of a road or land to others so beach and road closures.

"Taking" in the context of wildlife includes frightening or disturbing them or beaming infra-red from the exhaust so that the local air temperature goes up to 100C or sound at 180dB to liquify their internal organs and not just capturing or shooting them. 

"Using land" includes occasionally scattering large amounts of metal onto it and then using heavy equipment to haul it back out again while leaving smaller fragments to sink into the mud.
Ok Thankyou. Clarified! Still not the same as building a runway across the reserve or an oil refinery, coal mine or even a motorway, actually on the reserve territory.. But having myself not tried to look up these definitions is great to have them from an authoritative source. Thankyou.
« Last Edit: 05/16/2022 07:01 pm by DistantTemple »
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-safety-panel-dont-rush-to-crewed-test-flight-as-boeing-prepares-oft-2/

Quote
As for Starship, SpaceX plans to launch it from Boca Chica, TX, if it can win environmental approval, but KSC is an alternative. Musk said earlier this year he already has the environmental approvals he needs for a Starship launch pad there, but ASAP is concerned it is too close to Launch Complex 39-A, the launch pad for Crew Dragon.

“There are obvious safety concerns about launching a large and as yet unproven Starship in such close proximity, reportedly 300 yards or so, from another pad, let alone the pad so vitally necessary for the commercial crew program.” — David West

There you go, ASAP just gave the perfect reason why the Cape is not a suitable alternative (as far as NEPA/environmental review is concerned) to Boca Chica.
Sorry not checking these details first...
SpaceX is NOT taking or developing the historical site OR the wildlife refuges. It is developing on its own land. It will affect the refuges, and possibly the historic sites, and public access to them.
The phrase in the quote above is "requiring the use of". SpaceX will not "require the use of" these sites, except in upgrading the road to have passing places, to enter the sites to clean-up after accidents, and to deny access during tests and launches.
It depends what "use of" means. And although SX will have a significant impact, the sites will be largely physically untouched. The various mediations carefully offset and reduce the impacts.

Sorry for the confusion, my comment above is not meant to be a reply to the section 4(f) stuff, I'm commenting on alternative in the sense of PEA or SpaceX's expansion application that is stalled at Army Corps of Engineers, it's not meant to be a discussion of section 4(f) alternatives.

For section 4(f), the "use" could be physical use, temporary occupation and constructive use (which refers to non-physical impact like noise), as you said there's obviously no physical use of any historical site or the wildlife refuges, so it's down to temporary occupation and constructive use. In the PEA, FAA concluded there is no constructive use for various reasons, given the determination of constructive use is solely FAA's responsibility, I don't expect this would become an obstacle.

FAA did determine that there is temporary occupation of Boca Chica State Park and Brazos Island State Park during anomaly debris cleanup, and this constitute a "use" under section 4(f). However they also determined the "use" is de minimis, this determination will need to be concurred by the agency managing the two state parks, which is Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). As long as TPWD agrees with a de minimis use determination, FAA doesn't need to consider alternatives under section 4(f).

Offline warp99

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 422
  • Likes Given: 44

Sorry for the confusion, my comment above is not meant to be a reply to the section 4(f) stuff, I'm commenting on alternative in the sense of PEA or SpaceX's expansion application that is stalled at Army Corps of Engineers, it's not meant to be a discussion of section 4(f) alternatives.

For section 4(f), the "use" could be physical use, temporary occupation and constructive use (which refers to non-physical impact like noise), as you said there's obviously no physical use of any historical site or the wildlife refuges, so it's down to temporary occupation and constructive use. In the PEA, FAA concluded there is no constructive use for various reasons, given the determination of constructive use is solely FAA's responsibility, I don't expect this would become an obstacle.

FAA did determine that there is temporary occupation of Boca Chica State Park and Brazos Island State Park during anomaly debris cleanup, and this constitute a "use" under section 4(f). However they also determined the "use" is de minimis, this determination will need to be concurred by the agency managing the two state parks, which is Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). As long as TPWD agrees with a de minimis use determination, FAA doesn't need to consider alternatives under section 4(f).
SpaceX seem to have dropped the second launch pad requiring physical occupation of the wildlife reserve and reclamation of a significant amount of land.  The application with the Army Corps of Engineers has been suspended due to the lack of response from SpaceX although it can be revived at any stage. 

It is impossible to know for sure but this may have been one of the minimisations required by FWS before they would sign off on an EA.  If SpaceX later want to go ahead with the second launch pad proposal I suspect that will need to go through a full EIS. 

I must admit I am at a total loss to understand why they do not site the second launch pad on the gun range site which they have purchased.  The launch trajectory would be over the protected wildlife area and a little closer to houses across the Rio Grande in Mexico but would be further from South Padre which is the major risk of economic damage.  Mainly it would limit the impact on wildlife in the reserve from both sound and infrared from the exhaust plume as the booster would be several km up before starting its gravity turn over the reserve.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2022 05:49 am by warp99 »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
SpaceX seem to have dropped the second launch pad requiring physical occupation of the wildlife reserve and reclamation of a significant amount of land.  The application with the Army Corps of Engineers has been suspended due to the lack of response from SpaceX although it can be revived at any stage. 

If I'm not mistaken the land where the 2nd launch pad is supposed to be is still SpaceX's property, it doesn't belong to the wildlife reserve, thus there wouldn't be a physical use under section 4(f). It is however considered to be "wetland", which Army Corps of Engineers is supposed to protect. I didn't check the regulation here but I think the rule is to build on wetland you'll have to compensate the Corps by preserving other wetland, SpaceX didn't do this for the expansion plan, I think that's the main reason why its application is stalled.

So yes I think they may have to give up the 2nd launch pad for now, but it's not because of section 4(f), and I don't think they need an EIS to revive it, they just need to come up with a wetland compensation plan for the Army Corps of Engineers.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
The USACE application stalled because SpaceX did not reply (for 5 months) to a USACE query on clarifying multiple parts of the application, none of which were to do with 'wetland compensation'.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
The USACE application stalled because SpaceX did not reply (for 5 months) to a USACE query on clarifying multiple parts of the application, none of which were to do with 'wetland compensation'.

That would be the "Compensatory Mitigation Plan in accordance with Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (33 CFR 332)" in USACE's letter.

Offline eeergo


Quote
Missed this earlier but not at all surprised.

"SpaceX no longer proposes to build a desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier at the site’s vertical launch area"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-19/spacex-scrubs-plan-to-build-mini-lng-plant-at-texas-launch-site

Quote
SpaceX appears to be going for the bare minimum necessary to support an orbital test flight in order to increase odds of a FONSI (Finding of no significant impact) with the ongoing environmental assessment.


These items were reported a few months ago by "sources which shall not be named" as a straight-away "no-go" from the point of view of environmental feasibility, or even feasibility in general, meeting much pushback among proponents of a fully-fledged Starbase. It is now "not surprising", apparently. Alright.

Obviously it has a profound impact on what the Boca Chica site can and cannot do in the future: not from the regulatory point of view, but generally as a capability. Has it been calculated if a full-up orbital Superheavy+Starship launch is possible with the available tanking capacities in the not-trouble-free prop farm?

Also, for historical accuracy, please do check out the exchange between myself and several other relevant members of this site, starting on this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2332624#msg2332624 and culminating in this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2333127#msg2333127 of the now locked "Updates+Discussion" permits thread.
-DaviD-

Offline Yggdrasill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 605
  • Norway
  • Liked: 642
  • Likes Given: 50
I would think they could just build the facilities at the build site, or closer to Brownsville, without involving the FAA. So it probably wouldn't impact what SpaceX could do at the site with regards to launches. It would really just impact the transportation cost and traffic load of trucks going back and fourth.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39

Quote
Missed this earlier but not at all surprised.

"SpaceX no longer proposes to build a desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier at the site’s vertical launch area"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-19/spacex-scrubs-plan-to-build-mini-lng-plant-at-texas-launch-site

Quote
SpaceX appears to be going for the bare minimum necessary to support an orbital test flight in order to increase odds of a FONSI (Finding of no significant impact) with the ongoing environmental assessment.


These items were reported a few months ago by "sources which shall not be named" as a straight-away "no-go" from the point of view of environmental feasibility, or even feasibility in general, meeting much pushback among proponents of a fully-fledged Starbase. It is now "not surprising", apparently. Alright.

Obviously it has a profound impact on what the Boca Chica site can and cannot do in the future: not from the regulatory point of view, but generally as a capability. Has it been calculated if a full-up orbital Superheavy+Starship launch is possible with the available tanking capacities in the not-trouble-free prop farm?

Also, for historical accuracy, please do check out the exchange between myself and several other relevant members of this site, starting on this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2332624#msg2332624 and culminating in this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2333127#msg2333127 of the now locked "Updates+Discussion" permits thread.
"a desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier" does not include "storage tanks", so does not directly affect tank capacity. Tank refill rate depends on how many trucks you can rent to shuttle between the LNG suppliers at the port and the launch site.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158

Quote
Missed this earlier but not at all surprised.

"SpaceX no longer proposes to build a desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier at the site’s vertical launch area"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-19/spacex-scrubs-plan-to-build-mini-lng-plant-at-texas-launch-site

Quote
SpaceX appears to be going for the bare minimum necessary to support an orbital test flight in order to increase odds of a FONSI (Finding of no significant impact) with the ongoing environmental assessment.


These items were reported a few months ago by "sources which shall not be named" as a straight-away "no-go" from the point of view of environmental feasibility, or even feasibility in general, meeting much pushback among proponents of a fully-fledged Starbase. It is now "not surprising", apparently. Alright.

Obviously it has a profound impact on what the Boca Chica site can and cannot do in the future: not from the regulatory point of view, but generally as a capability. Has it been calculated if a full-up orbital Superheavy+Starship launch is possible with the available tanking capacities in the not-trouble-free prop farm?

Also, for historical accuracy, please do check out the exchange between myself and several other relevant members of this site, starting on this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2332624#msg2332624 and culminating in this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2333127#msg2333127 of the now locked "Updates+Discussion" permits thread.
"a desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier" does not include "storage tanks", so does not directly affect tank capacity. Tank refill rate depends on how many trucks you can rent to shuttle between the LNG suppliers at the port and the launch site.

That is the one thing most folks here are overlooking. All the things SpaceX had proposed to build at Starbase were really just intended to produce power & water (and thus oxygen) and methane locally, instead of continueing to truck all that basic stuff in.
Now that THAT is off the radar, they will just continue what they have done for the past 5 years: truck everything in. Which in the long run will be far more damaging to the local environment at BC/Starbase, than having them produced locally.

Offline eeergo


Quote
Missed this earlier but not at all surprised.

"SpaceX no longer proposes to build a desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier at the site’s vertical launch area"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-19/spacex-scrubs-plan-to-build-mini-lng-plant-at-texas-launch-site

Quote
SpaceX appears to be going for the bare minimum necessary to support an orbital test flight in order to increase odds of a FONSI (Finding of no significant impact) with the ongoing environmental assessment.


These items were reported a few months ago by "sources which shall not be named" as a straight-away "no-go" from the point of view of environmental feasibility, or even feasibility in general, meeting much pushback among proponents of a fully-fledged Starbase. It is now "not surprising", apparently. Alright.

Obviously it has a profound impact on what the Boca Chica site can and cannot do in the future: not from the regulatory point of view, but generally as a capability. Has it been calculated if a full-up orbital Superheavy+Starship launch is possible with the available tanking capacities in the not-trouble-free prop farm?

Also, for historical accuracy, please do check out the exchange between myself and several other relevant members of this site, starting on this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2332624#msg2332624 and culminating in this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2333127#msg2333127 of the now locked "Updates+Discussion" permits thread.
"a desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier" does not include "storage tanks", so does not directly affect tank capacity. Tank refill rate depends on how many trucks you can rent to shuttle between the LNG suppliers at the port and the launch site.

Evidently. Just as evident as the fact all the aforementioned infrastructure was directly and uniquely intended to supporting methane production and storage.

Tank refill rate only depends on "how many trucks you can rent" only if you have the supply to keep them coming. The entire current Cameron County *natural gas* (not pure methane) *yearly* production was determined to be less than half of what the prior proposal needed for *a month*, meaning it was short by a factor of >20x - explaining the need for pipelines and/or drilling, which were also the target of much contention.

Of course, around 80% of this would have gone to the power plant, desalination etc, not the rockets themselves directly, but also evidently one expects the idea to have the infrastructure there in the first place was to make ends meet regarding the site's primary purpose of actually acting like a spaceport - so outside supply must have been deemed to be too slow and/or too little and/or inadequate quality.

In fact, estimates exist for how many truckloads the proposed operational levels needs (sans infrastructure needs, since they're off the table now, and neglecting losses which are clearly going to be significant when you're shuffling and minutely fractioning the cryos around for long drives): they are still big numbers, even if divided by 5 and discounting the waste and by-products that would come from the infrastructure of the gas processing plant. This excludes LOX, whose production would no longer be supported by the liquefier which has now been cancelled: take that estimate that we divided by 5, and multiply by at least 2. Oh, and water, which was to be desalinated and now has to *also* be shipped on-site.

After all, there was a far larger tank farm (by land footprint) in the proposal to be used in conjunction with the one already built, which we know has capacity issues at the moment.

That's why I ask.

Dunno, taking half (by surface area) the project's scope off the table and doing away with 250MW of power in the process seems significant to expectable operations on the site. Basically the whole of the "related infrastructure construction" item list on the PEA is scratched off, or dependent on truck traffic which would have been considered easier than a gas treatment operation had it been deemed feasible, and it's being shrugged off as irrelevant?
-DaviD-

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39

Quote
Missed this earlier but not at all surprised.

"SpaceX no longer proposes to build a desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier at the site’s vertical launch area"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-19/spacex-scrubs-plan-to-build-mini-lng-plant-at-texas-launch-site

Quote
SpaceX appears to be going for the bare minimum necessary to support an orbital test flight in order to increase odds of a FONSI (Finding of no significant impact) with the ongoing environmental assessment.


These items were reported a few months ago by "sources which shall not be named" as a straight-away "no-go" from the point of view of environmental feasibility, or even feasibility in general, meeting much pushback among proponents of a fully-fledged Starbase. It is now "not surprising", apparently. Alright.

Obviously it has a profound impact on what the Boca Chica site can and cannot do in the future: not from the regulatory point of view, but generally as a capability. Has it been calculated if a full-up orbital Superheavy+Starship launch is possible with the available tanking capacities in the not-trouble-free prop farm?

Also, for historical accuracy, please do check out the exchange between myself and several other relevant members of this site, starting on this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2332624#msg2332624 and culminating in this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2333127#msg2333127 of the now locked "Updates+Discussion" permits thread.
"a desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier" does not include "storage tanks", so does not directly affect tank capacity. Tank refill rate depends on how many trucks you can rent to shuttle between the LNG suppliers at the port and the launch site.

That is the one thing most folks here are overlooking. All the things SpaceX had proposed to build at Starbase were really just intended to produce power & water (and thus oxygen) and methane locally, instead of continueing to truck all that basic stuff in.
Now that THAT is off the radar, they will just continue what they have done for the past 5 years: truck everything in. Which in the long run will be far more damaging to the local environment at BC/Starbase, than having them produced locally.
Even if they had Methane cleaning/liquefaction on-site, they would still have had to truck the 'dirty' LNG in anyway in even larger quantities compared to trucking in refined Methane, due to the lack of an actively producing gas well on site.
The air liquefaction and distiller facility already on site also appears to be functional already and has had a few truckloads of LOX shuttled to the tank farm, though its unclear if they're working at full capacity yet or not.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885

Quote
Missed this earlier but not at all surprised.

"SpaceX no longer proposes to build a desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier at the site’s vertical launch area"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-19/spacex-scrubs-plan-to-build-mini-lng-plant-at-texas-launch-site

Quote
SpaceX appears to be going for the bare minimum necessary to support an orbital test flight in order to increase odds of a FONSI (Finding of no significant impact) with the ongoing environmental assessment.


These items were reported a few months ago by "sources which shall not be named" as a straight-away "no-go" from the point of view of environmental feasibility, or even feasibility in general, meeting much pushback among proponents of a fully-fledged Starbase. It is now "not surprising", apparently. Alright.

Obviously it has a profound impact on what the Boca Chica site can and cannot do in the future: not from the regulatory point of view, but generally as a capability. Has it been calculated if a full-up orbital Superheavy+Starship launch is possible with the available tanking capacities in the not-trouble-free prop farm?

Also, for historical accuracy, please do check out the exchange between myself and several other relevant members of this site, starting on this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2332624#msg2332624 and culminating in this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2333127#msg2333127 of the now locked "Updates+Discussion" permits thread.

Seriously? You're doubling down on ESGHound when he's just about to be completely discredited? There's a reason parabolicarc no longer breathlessly reporting everything this guy said, and that's not because the owner of that site suddenly developed a liking to SpaceX.

Just as an example, a month ago he was claiming "Just now got information regarding Starbase site development and the news is extremely bleak for SpaceX. There is absolutely no way there will be a launch before 2024, you can quote me on that", you want to bet there's no launch from Boca Chica before 2024?

As for historical accuracy, yeah let's, it's not as if someone did the math to show there's no way SpaceX actually needs 250MW powerplant... oh yeah, there is someone did exactly that.

Offline rubicondsrv

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 0


Obviously it has a profound impact on what the Boca Chica site can and cannot do in the future: not from the regulatory point of view, but generally as a capability. Has it been calculated if a full-up orbital Superheavy+Starship launch is possible with the available tanking capacities in the not-trouble-free prop farm?


it looks like the plan is to get the immediate needs covered now.  future expansion can be done with a full EIS if needed provided lead time is sufficient. 

the real problem is how slow any large industrial project is from a permitting angle.

spacex gets alot of attention, but this is nothing new.



Offline sebk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Europe
  • Liked: 969
  • Likes Given: 27121

Quote
Missed this earlier but not at all surprised.

"SpaceX no longer proposes to build a desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier at the site’s vertical launch area"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-19/spacex-scrubs-plan-to-build-mini-lng-plant-at-texas-launch-site

Quote
SpaceX appears to be going for the bare minimum necessary to support an orbital test flight in order to increase odds of a FONSI (Finding of no significant impact) with the ongoing environmental assessment.


These items were reported a few months ago by "sources which shall not be named" as a straight-away "no-go" from the point of view of environmental feasibility, or even feasibility in general, meeting much pushback among proponents of a fully-fledged Starbase. It is now "not surprising", apparently. Alright.

Obviously it has a profound impact on what the Boca Chica site can and cannot do in the future: not from the regulatory point of view, but generally as a capability. Has it been calculated if a full-up orbital Superheavy+Starship launch is possible with the available tanking capacities in the not-trouble-free prop farm?

Also, for historical accuracy, please do check out the exchange between myself and several other relevant members of this site, starting on this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2332624#msg2332624 and culminating in this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2333127#msg2333127 of the now locked "Updates+Discussion" permits thread.

Please. That thread got locked because of posts like yours.

Again, you're trying to relitigate the old issue, and to make matters worse you're putting claims to people's mouth they never did. Stop it, please.

To quote from the responses of your last "culmination" (which was the post you said you're taking your toys elsewhere after admins scolded you for lowering discussion quality):

Quote
Critical discussion is not (repetitively) posting discredited sources like Vice or ESGHound. Critical discussion is not freedom to claim plain falsehoods as facts. Insisting on posting falsehood, especially in light of the falseness of that falsehood being plainly pointed is not contributing to discussion, it's just worsening signal to noise ration by adding noise.  To move discussion forward plain indisputable facts must be acknowledged not denied.

Offline eeergo



Obviously it has a profound impact on what the Boca Chica site can and cannot do in the future: not from the regulatory point of view, but generally as a capability. Has it been calculated if a full-up orbital Superheavy+Starship launch is possible with the available tanking capacities in the not-trouble-free prop farm?


it looks like the plan is to get the immediate needs covered now.  future expansion can be done with a full EIS if needed provided lead time is sufficient. 

the real problem is how slow any large industrial project is from a permitting angle.

spacex gets alot of attention, but this is nothing new.

It literally just got reported through a request for records obtained by the source a week ago (May 12th). Not sure how this is "nothing new". It affects the whole initial project's scope at its roots.

If that initial project needs an EIS, that's also news, and goes against many people's opinions here, plus has implications regarding Musk stating if they project needed that kind of review he'd move to the Cape. Note also the initial project assumed a substantially less powerful engine.
-DaviD-

Offline eeergo


These items were reported a few months ago by "sources which shall not be named" as a straight-away "no-go" from the point of view of environmental feasibility, or even feasibility in general, meeting much pushback among proponents of a fully-fledged Starbase. It is now "not surprising", apparently. Alright.

Obviously it has a profound impact on what the Boca Chica site can and cannot do in the future: not from the regulatory point of view, but generally as a capability. Has it been calculated if a full-up orbital Superheavy+Starship launch is possible with the available tanking capacities in the not-trouble-free prop farm?

Also, for historical accuracy, please do check out the exchange between myself and several other relevant members of this site, starting on this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2332624#msg2332624 and culminating in this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52656.msg2333127#msg2333127 of the now locked "Updates+Discussion" permits thread.

Please. That thread got locked because of posts like yours.

Again, you're trying to relitigate the old issue, and to make matters worse you're putting claims to people's mouth they never did. Stop it, please.

To quote from the responses of your last "culmination" (which was the post you said you're taking your toys elsewhere after admins scolded you for lowering discussion quality):

Quote from: sebk
Critical discussion is not (repetitively) posting discredited sources like Vice or ESGHound. Critical discussion is not freedom to claim plain falsehoods as facts. Insisting on posting falsehood, especially in light of the falseness of that falsehood being plainly pointed is not contributing to discussion, it's just worsening signal to noise ration by adding noise.  To move discussion forward plain indisputable facts must be acknowledged not denied.

Thanks for quoting yourself and having it passed as authoritative. Is Bloomberg also a "discredited source" to your reckoning? Is critical discussion of the descoping of half the project's proposals "falsehoods claimed as facts", or perhaps "noise"? Is the information reportedly obtained by Bloomberg not indisputable to your view? If so, what term would you use to describe the speculation about how small an impact this will have on operations in Boca Chica people are bringing forward as argument to stifle the discussion while bringing out the "nothing to see here, no news" banner?

I'm not responsible for what other people write and cause threads to get locked: it didn't get locked because of my posts, precisely because I know where limits are drawn on this site, even if I don't agree with them. It got locked 50 posts after my last one.

I'm posting the above links because precisely what was argued there is relevant here - while we don't know what went down behind the curtains, we just now do know the end result (at least for the time being, and after a lengthy process), which doesn't favor those against the idea of any restriction to the original plan for the site. I'm also not putting any words in anybody's mouth, as far as I'm aware, beyond paraphrasing Michael Baylor's "not at all surprised" as "not surprising" - but you are.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2022 02:01 pm by eeergo »
-DaviD-

Offline Andy USA

  • Lead Moderator
  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1029
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 255
Eeergo, you are rehashing the very thing that got the previous thread shut down. You've made your point, move on.

Tags:
 

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