FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)

[Chris Bergin]

The mods are pulling their hair out over Thread 3 getting stuck down the transfer tube. Thankfully, I have no hair to pull out, so let's try thread 4 and maybe, just maybe, keep it on the process path?

[edzieba]

To sum up the story so far:
- To issue a Launch License, the FAA must to comply with NEPA
- To comply with NEPA, a document must be published detailing what environmental impacts, if any, issuing that Launch License would incur
- If any of those impacts are Significant impacts, and those impacts cannot be mitigated, then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be written and published
- If there are no Significant impacts, or any Significant impacts can be mitigated to no longer be Significant, then an Environmental Assessment (EA) must be written and published - along with a Finding of No Significant Impact (a 'FONSI')
- As the impacts are as a result of SpaceX operating Starship, SpaceX perform the Environmental Assessment and write it up to be published as the EA. The FAA do not write the EA, nor do they conduct the assessment, though they certainly will provide assistance if requested
- SpaceX liaise with any federal agencies that are also affected (e.g. the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, etc) to assist in determining what the impacts are, and what mitigations are needed
- Once everyone agrees on what the impacts are and what mitigations are needed to ensure none are Significant, all agencies involved, SpaceX, and the FAA, all sign off on the final EA
- The final EA is published for the public to read
- In the event there is no consensus on how to mitigate the impacts so that they are not Significant, an EIS must instead be prepared and published detailing those impacts
- In either case, once the EA or EIS is published the FAA have completed their obligations under NEPA and are then able to issue a Launch License
- The process of issuing a launch license is separate from the environmental assessment process, and focuses instead mainly on public safety
- The FAA is very likely working on the Launch License application in parallel with the environmental assessment conducted by SpaceX, so there may not be much time between publishing an EA and issuance of a Launch License, but that is not guaranteed

[eeergo]

Since there was an accusation of rehashing old arguments which got a preceding thread locked (when that thread got explicitly locked because of other issues I wasn't involved in, while my part on the matter was marked as fit for other people to discuss and find flaws in), one question to settle the issue:

Will it be acceptable to bring up the implications of the cancellation of a substantial part of the development proposed for Boca Chica on this thread (most notably pertaining impacts to orbital launches), as recently reported by Bloomberg and reflected by this site's Michael Baylor on his tweets?

Regarding it being on- or off-topic, I'd think a substantial modification to the most environmentally-contentious part of the proposal makes it a fair topic for the "Licensing of BC", currently held up by environmental permitting.

[RDMM2081]

The "implications" of parts of the plan we knew it no longer being part of the plan seem explicitly off topic, as they are, well, no longer part of the plan for permitting or licensing current/ongoing operations.  Just my cent and a half.

[edzieba]

Will it be acceptable to bring up the implications of the cancellation of a substantial part of the development proposed for Boca Chica on this thread (most notably pertaining impacts to orbital launches), as recently reported by Bloomberg and reflected by this site's Michael Baylor on his tweets?

No significant impact, as the changes are not substantial.
The items removed were the desalination plant, power plant, natural gas pre-treatment system and liquefier:
The desalination plant would make supply of large volumes of water for the sound suppression system a matter of trucking in water rather than using an on-site well, but also removes the need for an on-site plant (and its power demand).
The power plant was oversized for even optimistic future demands by an order of magnitude, and there are already enlarged 3-phase power lines being run to the site (which may already be connected by now).
The Methane treatment system and liquefier would still require trucking in untreated LNG in slightly greater volumes (due to impurity loss) than the current procedure of trucking in refined LCH4, so that road transport bottleneck would remain completely unchanged (as there are no actively producing wells on site, only exhausted). The addition of the treatment and liquefaction system would have allowed purchase of slightly cheaper LNG, but added the expense of system setup and operation of the system. Removing it also further reduces power demands. SpaceX could potentially site a refinery complex at the port to treat LNG there and truck the refined LCH4 to the launch site, but as there are already companies at then port capable of performing that refining and selling SpaceX LCH4 (as they currently are) that likely makes little sense.

Of the three, the desalination plant is likely the only one to really provide any annoyance, as water would need to continue to be trucked in rather than produced on site, but that trucking is currently occurring anyway.

[MGoDuPage]

Of the three, the desalination plant is likely the only one to really provide any annoyance, as water would need to continue to be trucked in rather than produced on site, but that trucking is currently occurring anyway.

Apologies for the newbie question here, but:


1) I'm assuming salt or brackish water can't be used because it'd be too corrosive for the various machinery & rocket hardware, correct?

2) Can deluge systems & other high volume water requirements use "gray water" from a self-contained recycling system?  If the answer is 'yes', I would imagine that something like that would greatly reduce the volume of water that'd need to get trucked in regularly. Even if the system doesn't have a super high recapture rate and/or even if the system is such that "gray water" can only be reused once or twice, it could still potentially cut down the volume of water delivery significantly. Depending on the economics, could be a win/win for SpaceX & for the environmental folks who want to limit the amount of traffic coming into & out of the facility.

[gongora]

Will it be acceptable to bring up the implications of the cancellation of a substantial part of the development proposed for Boca Chica on this thread (most notably pertaining impacts to orbital launches), as recently reported by Bloomberg and reflected by this site's Michael Baylor on his tweets?

I'm not sure what implications are so important for you to harp on.  The changes would affect a launch rate that was never going to happen anyway.  It doesn't affect using the site for orbital flight tests or lower launch rates.  The initial plan SpaceX submitted for that site in the proposal was never likely to happen.

[eeergo]

Will it be acceptable to bring up the implications of the cancellation of a substantial part of the development proposed for Boca Chica on this thread (most notably pertaining impacts to orbital launches), as recently reported by Bloomberg and reflected by this site's Michael Baylor on his tweets?

I'm not sure what implications are so important for you to harp on.  The changes would affect a launch rate that was never going to happen anyway.  It doesn't affect using the site for orbital flight tests or lower launch rates.  The initial plan SpaceX submitted for that site in the proposal was never likely to happen.

An upper limit of 5 orbital launches/year was never going to happen? How did the proposed propellant farm (existent+expansion) capacity fit within that launch cadence? It would be reasonable to expect the full capacity to support something like two launches' worth at short notice (i.e. a full load and reserve for another one with margins and without topping up in case of several scrubs), at maximum, maybe? Certainly one wouldn't expect the propellants for the 5, or whatever, proposed annual launches to be stored simultaneously at the site, at any given time. What does then a reduction by less than half of the proposed capacity entail regarding orbital launch capability then, even if the plan is now <5 launches/year?

The "implications" of parts of the plan we knew it no longer being part of the plan seem explicitly off topic, as they are, well, no longer part of the plan for permitting or licensing current/ongoing operations.  Just my cent and a half.

Since when did you know this? This cancellation was news to me until Michael tweeted it (hadn't seen the Bloomberg article before).

[gongora]

@eergo All that stuff isn't required for 5 flights a year, and all of it was never required to be at the launch site either.  The power generation and propellant production could be somewhere else.  The second propellant farm is for the second pad, which isn't really necessary either for a low flight rate.

[edzieba]

What does then a reduction by less than half of the proposed capacity entail regarding orbital launch capability then, even if the plan is now <5 launches/year?

What reduction by half capacity? The tank farm is literally already sitting on site, and there are no (as yet reported) proposals to downsize it, and the PEA did not contain any proposals to expand it. It already has the capacity for around 2 full stack launches (depending on propellant loss in the event of recycles due to boiloff).

[eeergo]

The draft proposal including the whole infrastructure plans called for a maximum of 5 orbital launches/year. Now, if the level of development proposed initially wasn't really needed to support that number of launches, and if the existing capacities are already able to support full-up launches, that's a datapoint I didn't have, which isn't moreover obvious from the proposal, where all estimates are based on this launch rate. And the whole point I was making in the previous thread.

Would be good to know a breakdown for that estimate of 2 full stack launches with the existing propellant storage capacity, especially after the issues that recently surfaced (not sure whether mitigations were possible, or executed).

[zodiacchris]

Wow, off to a great start already on page one, splendid! Wake me up when you’re done and actually want to discuss the permitting process, rather than slugging it out over bits of infrastructure that are nice to have but totally not necessary to launch Starship…😑

[shark0302]

What is actually left?

Sent from my SM-T860 using Tapatalk

[Roy_H]

So Section 4(f) Concluded by FAA has been delayed from 20th to 31st. But final determination is still listed as May 31. I was going on the assumption that the original 11 days between 4(f) and final approval was required. I suspect we will next get an ~11 day delay and final determination will be pushed out to June 10. I guess we will see.

[Inoeth]

So Section 4(f) Concluded by FAA has been delayed from 20th to 31st. But final determination is still listed as May 31. I was going on the assumption that the original 11 days between 4(f) and final approval was required. I suspect we will next get an ~11 day delay and final determination will be pushed out to June 10. I guess we will see.

Where is the Section 4(f) online? I didn't see anything about it when I looked at the normal FAA site listing all the milestones.

I will say it's certainly good news to see reporters like Eric Berger say on twitter the other day that he's under the impression it'll all be finished this month or at least very soon.

[pyromatter]

So Section 4(f) Concluded by FAA has been delayed from 20th to 31st. But final determination is still listed as May 31. I was going on the assumption that the original 11 days between 4(f) and final approval was required. I suspect we will next get an ~11 day delay and final determination will be pushed out to June 10. I guess we will see.

Where is the Section 4(f) online? I didn't see anything about it when I looked at the normal FAA site listing all the milestones.

I will say it's certainly good news to see reporters like Eric Berger say on twitter the other day that he's under the impression it'll all be finished this month or at least very soon.

The consultation was published at the same time of the draft PEA

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship/Appendix_E_Department_of_Transportation_Act_Section_4(f)_Consultation.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship

A summary of the Section 4(f) issues (which was previously announced when the draft PEA was published):

Construction: Proposed utility installation within the State Highway 4(SH 4) right-of-way (ROW)
Nominal Launch Operations: SpaceX requested an increase to 500 closure hours and whether the noise generated by the Proposed Action would constitute a constructive use.
Anomalies: The FAA is considering whether the temporary occupancy of the NWR resulting from anomaly-related activities constitutes a use under Section 4(f).
Occupancy of the NWR would be short term (not more than 300 additional hours per year). The FAA is considering whether the need for closures that may be required in the event of an anomaly would substantially impair the activities, features, or attributes of the NWR and therefore constitutes a constructive use under Section 4(f).

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1529118560529879041

We’re one week from the FAA’s latest deadline to complete the environmental review process for SpaceX’s launch site in South Texas. This time my expectation is that there will not be another extension. Likely decision: a mitigated FONSI. This means …

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1529119001376432129

SpaceX is likely to get approval to move ahead with experimental launches of Starship, however they will have to make some accommodations for environmental impacts. This is what I am hearing, but you should not consider it official information.

[Asteroza]

twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1529118560529879041

We’re one week from the FAA’s latest deadline to complete the environmental review process for SpaceX’s launch site in South Texas. This time my expectation is that there will not be another extension. Likely decision: a mitigated FONSI. This means …

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1529119001376432129

SpaceX is likely to get approval to move ahead with experimental launches of Starship, however they will have to make some accommodations for environmental impacts. This is what I am hearing, but you should not consider it official information.

So, FONZSI then?

[M.E.T.]

So what’s the deal? Wasn’t today the deadline? Or is it tomorrow? Awfully quiet news day across space twitter.

[abaddon]

Tomorrow is the (latest) deadline.