Environmental groups sue FAA over Starship approval

[alugobi]

Given these facts, in my humble opinion a NEPA would essentially kill Starship in Boca Chica.

Well, then, better pack it up and move it to Delaware. 

Oh, wait...

[wannamoonbase]

Given these facts, in my humble opinion a NEPA would essentially kill Starship in Boca Chica.

Well, then, better pack it up and move it to Delaware. 

Oh, wait...

The DELMARVA peninsula may make room for them

[thespacecow]

Given these facts, in my humble opinion a NEPA would essentially kill Starship in Boca Chica.

Not necessarily. The original Boca Chica EIS only took 24 months, if they had to do a new one they can reuse a lot of the material in the current PEA. In fact the current PEA is pretty close to an EIS already (PEA with appendix is 1031 pages, original EIS volume I & II is 1298 pages).

Also if they had to redo EIS, it would only prevent them from launching, it doesn't prevent them from doing anything else such as doing static fire tests. They can just use Boca Chica as a production/test site in the mean time.

[lykos]

But in this moment there isn't any other launch place ready for the Starship!
They will lose one whole year for sure!

[spacenut]

Could they not close the beach, announce a launch, and at the entrance make people sign a waver that SpaceX is not responsible for anyone getting hurt?  Or make a new road to the beach along the shipping canal, have the county quit claim the original road and give it to SpaceX, then close it at the end of the beach.  Still open, but with a radio, newspaper, and sign warning of launches? 

Otherwise build a launch tower right offshore a few miles, then barge out the rockets from the shipping canal.  Build it large enough to handle multiple rockets and launches. 

[Robotbeat]

The odds of that happening are miniscule. Even if they won, the judge would pick a different remedy.

[spacenut]

This is sad.  Are they going to get to launch the next one in February?

[dabomb6608]

This is sad.  Are they going to get to launch the next one in February?

My (admittedly limited) understanding is that they would be able to continue operations during these lawsuits. If it were a matter of public safety the FAA might see it differently but that is not the case in either lawsuit.

[Robotbeat]

This is sad.  Are they going to get to launch the next one in February?

My (admittedly limited) understanding is that they would be able to continue operations during these lawsuits. If it were a matter of public safety the FAA might see it differently but that is not the case in either lawsuit.

The irony is it’s the opposite. Beach closures are FOR public safety. Beach closures also protect the environment, to the extent they’re allowed to be closed (which admittedly isn’t very much), which makes the inclusion of that in this lawsuit by “environmentalists” pretty ironic.

[M.E.T.]

So to clarify, have there been any court decisions impacting SpaceX’s ability to continue operations as yet? The 1 Feb ruling seems to just give the plaintiffs permission to proceed with their case. Not that their case has merit.

[deltaV]

So to clarify, have there been any court decisions impacting SpaceX’s ability to continue operations as yet?

AFAICT no (not yet).

[dabomb6608]

This is sad.  Are they going to get to launch the next one in February?

My (admittedly limited) understanding is that they would be able to continue operations during these lawsuits. If it were a matter of public safety the FAA might see it differently but that is not the case in either lawsuit.

The irony is it’s the opposite. Beach closures are FOR public safety. Beach closures also protect the environment, to the extent they’re allowed to be closed (which admittedly isn’t very much), which makes the inclusion of that in this lawsuit by “environmentalists” pretty ironic.

I was meaning it as in "if their closing of the beach was causing a public safety problem". To which it is not, as you pointed out it is for the protection of the public.

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

But in this moment there isn't any other launch place ready for the Starship!
They will lose one whole year for sure!

Which would be catastrophic for HLS timelines. If the SpaceX legal department thought there was a significant chance of this happening I’d expect to see a lot more activity at 39A and a lot less on getting a second launch site built at Starbase.

[Riccardo11]

(...)
Also if they had to redo EIS, it would only prevent them from launching, it doesn't prevent them from doing anything else such as doing static fire tests. They can just use Boca Chica as a production/test site in the mean time.

Not quite. At this early stage of development, they need the launch tower and production facility to be close together, so they can move back and forth if they need to make some quick changes to a vehicle.

Also, killing Boca Chica would mean that it would be legally impossible to build a similar production facility anywhere else in the States, except at an already functioning spaceport (Cape).

[RedLineTrain]

To me it seems like the beach closure case will be on a faster track.  Ultimately, it may be heard at the Texas Supreme Court.  I don't have a good sense of how that will work out.

The EA suit will take a long time to dispose, so it seems unlikely that there will be near-term impact on launch schedule.  FAA/SpaceX drew a good card in that the judge hearing the case probably will not be very sympathetic to a procedural error argument.  But this case is going to be decided by the Federal Appeals court in any event.  I understand that the 5th Circuit is generally unfavorable to these kinds of arguments, but you never know if FAA/SpaceX will draw an unlucky card.

[deltaV]

The plaintiffs filed a reply (docket #32) today. Court Listener (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67303601/center-for-biological-diversity-v-federal-aviation-administration/)

There's nothing new in the docket since my last update. I believe the next event will probably be the court ruling on the Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint. IIUC the court isn't subject to any deadlines so it's hard to predict when this will happen.

Edit: nothing new by May 18th either.

[spacenut]

Does SpaceX own all the private land in Boca Chica yet?  A lot of times if someone owns all the land along a road, the county, state, etc. can give up the road to the property owner.  Less the state or county has to maintain if the road is privately owned.  Another road could still be built to have access to the beach.  That way whenever SpaceX is moving a rocket around it would not interfere with beach goers.  Only close it down during launches or static fires due to public safety.  Any road can be closed down at any time if it is due to public safety, such as a vehicle collisions, chemical spills, gasoline spills, flash floods, etc.  I just don't see that there is that many people going to that beach.  Too remote, no public relief facilities, food or water sources unless they carry in their own. 

[edzieba]

Does SpaceX own all the private land in Boca Chica yet?

No.

And to the rest of the post: Texas state law prohibits restricting access to the beach. A specific carveout was added to state law specifically for limited closures for space launch activities, with limiting conditions (such as public holidays).

[deltaV]

I just checked PACER and verified that it's showing no activity since January 17 like my usual source courtlistener.com is. My guess is that the parties are waiting for the judge to rule on the motion #27. I hope the judge and their clerks are OK and just over-worked.

Edit: nothing new on the Court Listener docket on June 21.

[deltaV]

The plaintiffs filed a "Notice of Supplemental Authority" today about a recent Ninth Circuit case that they feel helps their position. It's #33 in the docket (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67303601/center-for-biological-diversity-v-federal-aviation-administration/).