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.
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. -gongoraSnip
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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/30/2022 05:12 pm 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'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?
Quote from: laszlo on 05/02/2022 04:17 pmI'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.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 05/02/2022 04:34 pmQuote from: laszlo on 05/02/2022 04:17 pmI'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.
Quote from: robot_enthusiast on 05/03/2022 09:55 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 05/02/2022 04:34 pmQuote from: laszlo on 05/02/2022 04:17 pmI'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.
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.htmlGood news imo.The threat of an EIS is over imo.
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.
QuoteSeptember 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?
Quote from: Slothman on 05/03/2022 07:25 pmQuote from: Eagandale4114 on 05/03/2022 05:50 pmQuoteSeptember 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
Quote from: Eagandale4114 on 05/03/2022 05:50 pmQuoteSeptember 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.
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.
SpaceX will minimize nighttime launch operations during sea turtle nesting season(March 15th – October 1st).
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?
If a Super Heavy landing occurred downrange in the Gulf of Mexico or on a floatingplatform, Super Heavy will be delivered by barge to the Port of Brownsville and transportedthe remaining distance to the Boca Chica Launch Site over the roadways. [...]SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and forthe Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and fiveSuper Heavy landings each year (Table 2).
However, on a November 1, 2021,conference call, the FAA and SpaceX reported to the Service that the proposed power plantgeneration had been substantially reduced from 250 MW to 15 MW.
Orbital launches would create the largest and hottest plume from the ignitionof all Super Heavy’s 37 Raptor engines.
SpaceX response: As the efficiency of the Raptor engine increases, the total number ofengines needed to achieve the maximum thrust (74 MN) decreases. So, we can use fewer Raptor2.0 engines to achieve the same maximum thrust of 74 MN. Even with the use of the Raptor 2.0engine, the maximum thrust will not exceed 74 MN, which is the maximum thrust identified inthe BA and PEA. Accordingly, the information noted below does not prompt any changes in theproject description or effects.
p.10QuoteIf a Super Heavy landing occurred downrange in the Gulf of Mexico or on a floatingplatform, Super Heavy will be delivered by barge to the Port of Brownsville and transportedthe remaining distance to the Boca Chica Launch Site over the roadways. [...]SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and forthe Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and fiveSuper Heavy landings each year (Table 2).
This is actually awesome. We’re learning a ton from this.NASASpaceflight writers should use the FOIA tool, too.
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.
p.10QuoteIf a Super Heavy landing occurred downrange in the Gulf of Mexico or on a floatingplatform, Super Heavy will be delivered by barge to the Port of Brownsville and transportedthe remaining distance to the Boca Chica Launch Site over the roadways.
If a Super Heavy landing occurred downrange in the Gulf of Mexico or on a floatingplatform, Super Heavy will be delivered by barge to the Port of Brownsville and transportedthe remaining distance to the Boca Chica Launch Site over the roadways.
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".
How hard would it be to increase the number of flights later on?
But they’ll have several pads in Florida at that point.
p.10QuoteSpaceX 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 fiveSuper Heavy landings each year (Table 2).
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 fiveSuper Heavy landings each year (Table 2).
Quote from: edzieba on 05/04/2022 01:35 pmp.10QuoteSpaceX 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 fiveSuper 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).
Quote from: mandrewa on 05/04/2022 10:38 pmQuote from: edzieba on 05/04/2022 01:35 pmp.10QuoteSpaceX 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 fiveSuper 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.
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.
Quote from: steveleach on 05/05/2022 07:29 amMy 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.
Quote from: edzieba on 05/05/2022 07:30 amQuote from: mandrewa on 05/04/2022 10:38 pmQuote from: edzieba on 05/04/2022 01:35 pmp.10QuoteSpaceX 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 fiveSuper 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?
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.
Quote from: mandrewa on 05/04/2022 10:38 pmQuote from: edzieba on 05/04/2022 01:35 pmp.10QuoteSpaceX 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 fiveSuper 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.
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.
*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.
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.
Quote from: mandrewa on 05/05/2022 03:00 pmYes, 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.
Quote from: su27k on 05/05/2022 03:40 pmQuote from: mandrewa on 05/05/2022 03:00 pmYes, 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."
Quote from: mandrewa on 05/05/2022 03:53 pmQuote from: su27k on 05/05/2022 03:40 pmQuote from: mandrewa on 05/05/2022 03:00 pmYes, 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.
Quote from: edzieba on 05/06/2022 09:14 amQuote from: mandrewa on 05/05/2022 03:53 pmQuote from: su27k on 05/05/2022 03:40 pmQuote from: mandrewa on 05/05/2022 03:00 pmYes, 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 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.
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.
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-safety-panel-dont-rush-to-crewed-test-flight-as-boeing-prepares-oft-2/QuoteAs 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 WestThere 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.
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
Quote from: su27k on 05/15/2022 09:12 amhttps://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-safety-panel-dont-rush-to-crewed-test-flight-as-boeing-prepares-oft-2/QuoteAs 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 WestThere 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.
Quote from: DistantTemple on 05/15/2022 10:39 pmQuote from: su27k on 05/15/2022 09:12 amhttps://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-safety-panel-dont-rush-to-crewed-test-flight-as-boeing-prepares-oft-2/QuoteAs 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 WestThere 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.
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.
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'.
QuoteMissed 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-siteQuoteSpaceX 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.
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"
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.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/20/2022 06:48 amQuoteMissed 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-siteQuoteSpaceX 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.
Quote from: eeergo on 05/20/2022 09:56 amQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/20/2022 06:48 amQuoteMissed 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-siteQuoteSpaceX 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.
Quote from: edzieba on 05/20/2022 10:37 amQuote from: eeergo on 05/20/2022 09:56 amQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/20/2022 06:48 amQuoteMissed 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-siteQuoteSpaceX 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.
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?
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.
Quote from: eeergo on 05/20/2022 09:56 amObviously 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.
Quote from: eeergo on 05/20/2022 09:56 amThese 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: sebkCritical 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.
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.