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/).
The SpaceX activities, as authorized by FAA and FWS, are continuing to cause grave damage to the environment, including to federally protected wildlife. 1 Plaintiffs respectfully request that their pending motion be granted so that this litigation can move forward. 1 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/07/us/politics/spacex-wildlife-texas.html
What’s worse, this story is super misleading! In one instance it claims, “three years of data collected by the Coastal Bend group near the SpaceX site indicated a 54 percent decline in the threatened piping plover population through 2021.” This is false. The frequently cited study conducted by Newstead and Hill (2021) is outdated and unreliable for describing potential piping plover population trends over time.The 2021 study did not consistently perform field visits during the same time of year. In some years, surveys included periods when piping plovers were actively migrating and in other years surveys only included months when winter residents were likely to be present. They also did not always check both kinds of habitat that are present during each survey. Point being, the piping plover population being sampled was inconsistent across years. This is important because the occurrence of piping plovers at any given location at any given time is highly variable. Presence or absence may be due to a wide variety of factors unrelated to changes to the population size; birds may simply be someplace else. And, the more times they looked for piping plovers in a year, the higher their population estimate was. It's also important to understand piping plovers do not nest in Texas. With very few exceptions, piping plovers observed in Texas are either migrating to or from wintering areas further south along the Mexico Gulf Coast or in the Caribbean, or reside in the vicinity over winter. Piping plovers tend to return to the same wintering areas year after year, even when conditions at those wintering areas change due to extreme weather or human-caused disturbance. Now here’s the kicker: In response to questions about the reliability of their study, Newstead and Hill reanalyzed their data and published a follow-up report (2022) which found no significant change in population abundance of piping plovers at Boca Chica over time. A decreasing trend in abundance over the first three years of the study was balanced by an increase in the final year of the study (once data from additional survey visits was added to the analysis).For our part, we have conducted nine years of monitoring using a protocol developed with US Fish and Wildlife Services, and for the past two years we have ensured consistent sampling throughout the year by surveying monthly. The findings show little to no strong evidence of trends, either increasing or decreasing, for any of the target species, including piping plovers.
Re NYT article:https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1811120996914757818QuoteWhat’s worse, this story is super misleading! In one instance it claims, “three years of data collected by the Coastal Bend group near the SpaceX site indicated a 54 percent decline in the threatened piping plover population through 2021.” This is false. The frequently cited study conducted by Newstead and Hill (2021) is outdated and unreliable for describing potential piping plover population trends over time.The 2021 study did not consistently perform field visits during the same time of year. In some years, surveys included periods when piping plovers were actively migrating and in other years surveys only included months when winter residents were likely to be present. They also did not always check both kinds of habitat that are present during each survey. Point being, the piping plover population being sampled was inconsistent across years. This is important because the occurrence of piping plovers at any given location at any given time is highly variable. Presence or absence may be due to a wide variety of factors unrelated to changes to the population size; birds may simply be someplace else. And, the more times they looked for piping plovers in a year, the higher their population estimate was. It's also important to understand piping plovers do not nest in Texas. With very few exceptions, piping plovers observed in Texas are either migrating to or from wintering areas further south along the Mexico Gulf Coast or in the Caribbean, or reside in the vicinity over winter. Piping plovers tend to return to the same wintering areas year after year, even when conditions at those wintering areas change due to extreme weather or human-caused disturbance. Now here’s the kicker: In response to questions about the reliability of their study, Newstead and Hill reanalyzed their data and published a follow-up report (2022) which found no significant change in population abundance of piping plovers at Boca Chica over time. A decreasing trend in abundance over the first three years of the study was balanced by an increase in the final year of the study (once data from additional survey visits was added to the analysis).For our part, we have conducted nine years of monitoring using a protocol developed with US Fish and Wildlife Services, and for the past two years we have ensured consistent sampling throughout the year by surveying monthly. The findings show little to no strong evidence of trends, either increasing or decreasing, for any of the target species, including piping plovers.
Good for SpaceX.I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but sometimes, I swear, the aversion and hostility towards "evil technology" is so disheartening. It's not just SpaceX, but certainly nowadays SpaceX is definitely in the cross-hairs. Yuck.
{snip}The article has changed my opinion of the professionalism of the NYT. I also consider myself to be a liberal and an environmentalist.
For our part, we have conducted nine years of monitoring using a protocol developed with US Fish and Wildlife Services, and for the past two years we have ensured consistent sampling throughout the year by surveying monthly. The findings show little to no strong evidence of trends, either increasing or decreasing, for any of the target species, including piping plovers.
Quote from: meekGee on 07/10/2024 07:46 pmGood for SpaceX.I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but sometimes, I swear, the aversion and hostility towards "evil technology" is so disheartening. It's not just SpaceX, but certainly nowadays SpaceX is definitely in the cross-hairs. Yuck.The story was grossly misleading and one-sided. It's clear that the reporter had never even visited the area. In the online version the first two large pictures (of pretty ducks) were from the "South Padre Island nature center, less than ten miles for the launch site." It neglected to mention that this nature center is north of the intervening major built-up tourist area on SPI. Lots of other errors and omissions. The article has changed my opinion of the professionalism of the NYT. I also consider myself to be a liberal and an environmentalist.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/10/2024 09:05 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/10/2024 07:46 pmGood for SpaceX.I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but sometimes, I swear, the aversion and hostility towards "evil technology" is so disheartening. It's not just SpaceX, but certainly nowadays SpaceX is definitely in the cross-hairs. Yuck.The story was grossly misleading and one-sided. It's clear that the reporter had never even visited the area. In the online version the first two large pictures (of pretty ducks) were from the "South Padre Island nature center, less than ten miles for the launch site." It neglected to mention that this nature center is north of the intervening major built-up tourist area on SPI. Lots of other errors and omissions. The article has changed my opinion of the professionalism of the NYT. I also consider myself to be a liberal and an environmentalist.Journalism as a whole, has declined in quality substantially in the last two decades. Actions that would get you fired immediately by your editor are commonplace now.There are still good ones out there, you just need to be more careful about it nowadays.
Quote The complaint also argues that the agency failed to fully consider the climate harms of fueling rockets with liquid methane — a potent greenhouse pollutant that may need to be vented into the atmosphere — and other community concerns.This is blatantly false, I remember exactly where those things were analyzed in the EA. It’s also far better for the environment than what the launch site was originally going to use (and spill), ie kerosene.In particular, page 17 of the pdf of the re-evaluation of the PEA summarized that they did analysis and showed now significant effects due to infrequency of launch, and yeah they even included venting of methane in cases where the vehicle breaks up:QuoteFor unassisted descents where the vehicle would break up during descent through the atmosphere, as described in the 2022 PEA for expendable missions, residual fuel would be dispersed and evaporate. Based on the anticipated infrequency of the descent and landing activities, and the short time frame over which they would occur, GHG emissions would be negligible. 17Written Re‐Evaluation of the 2022 PEA for Starship/Super Heavy The operation of the detonation suppression system for launch would not result in an increase in the amount of air pollutant emissions reported in the 2022 PEA.Accordingly, the data and analyses contained in the 2022 PEA remain substantially valid, and the Proposed Action would not result in significant climate impacts.https://www.faa.gov/media/27236I mean, we’re talking what, 1000 tons of methane in a launch stack? Even with a 100 year GWP equivalent of 25 times CO2, that’s still fairly small. Considering virtually all is burned up in a flight even when there’s a failure, let’s say 10-20% escapes burning, that’s still just 2500-5000t of CO2 equivalent. Basically, a couple large airliner flights. A visit by the President on board Air Force One (with escort and decoy, etc) would be about the same impact. (And I definitely agree we should tax CO2 and CO2 equivalent, but EA/EISes are not a substitute for that and would go beyond the authority of the FAA…. The NEPA used to have 25,000 tons of CO2 equivalent per year as a threshold for significant impact, and this is far below that if even some of the flights get near orbit… and this threshold was eliminated, although I think there is now some other guidance)The more I read the complaints and the actual EA/EIS, the less plausible they are and the less worried I am by a long delay from this lawsuit.
The complaint also argues that the agency failed to fully consider the climate harms of fueling rockets with liquid methane — a potent greenhouse pollutant that may need to be vented into the atmosphere — and other community concerns.
For unassisted descents where the vehicle would break up during descent through the atmosphere, as described in the 2022 PEA for expendable missions, residual fuel would be dispersed and evaporate. Based on the anticipated infrequency of the descent and landing activities, and the short time frame over which they would occur, GHG emissions would be negligible. 17Written Re‐Evaluation of the 2022 PEA for Starship/Super Heavy The operation of the detonation suppression system for launch would not result in an increase in the amount of air pollutant emissions reported in the 2022 PEA.Accordingly, the data and analyses contained in the 2022 PEA remain substantially valid, and the Proposed Action would not result in significant climate impacts.
Imo the bigger problem is one that was recently publicized: stratospheric aluminum oxide particulates formed when satellites e. g. Starlink are deorbited. Catalytic long-duration ozone killers. Perhaps adiscussion with its own thread.
Quote from: aporigine on 07/13/2024 11:10 pmImo the bigger problem is one that was recently publicized: stratospheric aluminum oxide particulates formed when satellites e. g. Starlink are deorbited. Catalytic long-duration ozone killers. Perhaps adiscussion with its own thread.That affects all launchers from all launch sites, not just Starship from Boca Chica, so its relevance here is tenuous. If you are worried about aluminum oxide, you should check out solid rocket boosters like those on SLS, Atlas V, Vulcan Centaur, and Ariane 6. SRBs generate many tons of alumimum oxide per launch. Starship does not use them.
Someone just filed a "Response to (non-motion) Document" (docket #34). I assume it's either SpaceX or the FAA responding to the plaintiff's "Notice of Supplemental Authority" (docket #33). Court Listener doesn't have the PDF yet and it doesn't seem worth buying on PACER so that's all I know about it.
Quote from: meekGee on 07/10/2024 07:46 pmGood for SpaceX.I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but sometimes, I swear, the aversion and hostility towards "evil technology" is so disheartening. It's not just SpaceX, but certainly nowadays SpaceX is definitely in the cross-hairs. Yuck.What's disheartening is that SpaceX appears to be trying hard to be a good environmental neighbor. A rocket company is going to have an environmental impact no matter where you put it, but they seem to be completely willing to do what they can to protect local wildlife.
Quote from: billh on 07/10/2024 08:32 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/10/2024 07:46 pmGood for SpaceX.I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but sometimes, I swear, the aversion and hostility towards "evil technology" is so disheartening. It's not just SpaceX, but certainly nowadays SpaceX is definitely in the cross-hairs. Yuck.What's disheartening is that SpaceX appears to be trying hard to be a good environmental neighbor. A rocket company is going to have an environmental impact no matter where you put it, but they seem to be completely willing to do what they can to protect local wildlife.Unfortunately, a large chunk of the modern environmental movement is of the degrowth mindset.
Quote from: ZachF on 07/17/2024 12:18 pmQuote from: billh on 07/10/2024 08:32 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/10/2024 07:46 pmGood for SpaceX.I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but sometimes, I swear, the aversion and hostility towards "evil technology" is so disheartening. It's not just SpaceX, but certainly nowadays SpaceX is definitely in the cross-hairs. Yuck.What's disheartening is that SpaceX appears to be trying hard to be a good environmental neighbor. A rocket company is going to have an environmental impact no matter where you put it, but they seem to be completely willing to do what they can to protect local wildlife.Unfortunately, a large chunk of the modern environmental movement is of the degrowth mindset.That judgment is correct IMO. I'm a biologist by training and have been very active in the environmental movement, until shortly after the turn of the century. That's when I began to notice some deeply disturbing developments within the environmental movement in general, which, in my opinion, could not be easily reversed. So, I jumped ship, not wanting to be part of a movement that no longer actually is about saving the environment, but about pointing to humanity as the sole cause of everything that goes wrong on this planet.But I digress.
