FAA, FWS & other permits/licenses for Boca Chica DISCUSSION (Thread 5)

[MonceMark]

How did we get from non existent contamination of the wetlands to startling sleeping birds?

[Supertramp]

This is the real sticking point right here:

The only proposed modification for Starship’s fifth flight is a marginal change in the splashdown location of the hot-stage which produces no increase in likelihood for impacting marine life. Despite this, the FAA leadership approved a 60-day consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

A two-month delay? For a simple change in flight trajectory?

This is not a matter of SpaceX flouting regulations, or something that could be avoided with adequate forward planning. it appears to be regulations that are antithetical to SpaceX's iterative design process. You cannot re-run all your inter-agency consultancies every time the rocket changes slightly. It just doesn't work.

I can feel the pain of the SpaceX engineers oozing out of that update. They are clearly sitting there, with evidence in hand showing they are causing no harm to the environment - the harm that these regulations are supposed to be preventing in the first place - yet they cannot fly.

[novo2044]

This is the real sticking point right here:

The only proposed modification for Starship’s fifth flight is a marginal change in the splashdown location of the hot-stage which produces no increase in likelihood for impacting marine life. Despite this, the FAA leadership approved a 60-day consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

You cannot re-run all your inter-agency consultancies every time the rocket changes slightly. It just doesn't work.

I mean yes you can.  They just did.  What are you or anyone else going to do about it?  There are certain parties who are celebrating this decision so who, exactly, is going to be the agent of change that will do anything?

[Twark_Main]

This is the real sticking point right here:

The only proposed modification for Starship’s fifth flight is a marginal change in the splashdown location of the hot-stage which produces no increase in likelihood for impacting marine life. Despite this, the FAA leadership approved a 60-day consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

You cannot re-run all your inter-agency consultancies every time the rocket changes slightly. It just doesn't work.

I mean yes you can.  They just did.  What are you or anyone else going to do about it?  There are certain parties who are celebrating this decision so who, exactly, is going to be the agent of change that will do anything?

No doubt certain nations (and Parties) will be quietly celebrating, at least a little. How nice of the USA to needlessly hinder one of our (slowly dwindling) technological advantages.

What will they do about it?    "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." --- Some Dude

[chopsticks]

Well SpaceX likes to "move fast and break things". Including the law apparently.

That's just inflammatory.  What law did they break?

Well they got penalized, so presumably they broke the law. But maybe it's more complicated than that.

I would say that the inflammatory part is SpaceX's public response to this. These sorts of delays happen all the time but fly under the radar.

Whatever, it is what it is. 2 months or whatever isn't really a big deal. They'll be flying at a higher cadence soon enough even if it takes a year or two.

[chopsticks]

Well SpaceX likes to "move fast and break things". Including the law apparently.

There's little evidence that they broke any laws or rules, at least rules that they knew about.

Ok fair enough. I figured that the fact they got penalized was enough evidence that they broke the law but maybe not.

[Supertramp]

Well SpaceX likes to "move fast and break things". Including the law apparently.

There's little evidence that they broke any laws or rules, at least rules that they knew about.

Ok fair enough. I figured that the fact they got penalized was enough evidence that they broke the law but maybe not.

Per SpaceX's update, it seems they filed the wrong paperwork. Initially, SpaceX operated the deluge system under the auspices of a Multi Sector General Permit, which is intended to regulate stormwater discharge. This was done with the full blessing of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the Texas state environmental agency.

It appears the EPA got wind of this and decided that SpaceX was using the wrong permit, and instead needed an individual industrial waste discharge permit. SpaceX have been fined for operating the deluge system under the old permit and have now applied for this new permit.

SpaceX do not agree they were in the wrong, but they appear to have elected to pay the fines anyway and get the new permit to keep things rolling:

We chose to settle so that we can focus our energy on completing the missions and commitments that we have made to the U.S. government, commercial customers, and ourselves. Paying fines is extremely disappointing when we fundamentally disagree with the allegations, and we are supported by the fact that EPA has agreed that nothing about the operation of our flame deflector will need to change. Only the name of the permit has changed.

Neither permit appears to be intended to explicitly apply to water discharge systems for rocket launches. I could be wrong, but what seems to have happened is SpaceX saw a grey area in the law and went for the more convenient interpretation with the blessing of state regulators. Now the federal regulators are asking them to redo their homework.

[sstli2]

I would say that the inflammatory part is SpaceX's public response to this.

The charged, brash tone rubs me the wrong way. It feels quite arrogant - as if they don't have to play by the rules that everyone else plays by. Regulatory inefficiency can be improved, but no one is above the rules. It quite aptly reminds me of Tesla's combative response to COVID rules. Obviously, there's a common theme there.

[Vultur]

I would say that the inflammatory part is SpaceX's public response to this.

The charged, brash tone rubs me the wrong way. It feels quite arrogant - as if they don't have to play by the rules that everyone else plays by. Regulatory inefficiency can be improved, but no one is above the rules. It quite aptly reminds me of Tesla's combative response to COVID rules. Obviously, there's a common theme there.

I think it's meant as more "the rules are bad for everyone" rather than "we should be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else".

[Supertramp]

I would say that the inflammatory part is SpaceX's public response to this.

The charged, brash tone rubs me the wrong way. It feels quite arrogant - as if they don't have to play by the rules that everyone else plays by. Regulatory inefficiency can be improved, but no one is above the rules. It quite aptly reminds me of Tesla's combative response to COVID rules. Obviously, there's a common theme there.

I agree the tone of the update probably isn't the right one. However, it might still be effective, in a 'squeaky wheel gets all the grease' kind of way. SpaceX can also argue they're in a unique position in terms of requirements with their giant showerhead design, so they should potentially be entitled to rely on the TCEQ's opinions as to the appropriate permitting. It's hardly fair if you rely on one regulator with one opinion then get hit by fines from another with a different one.

In any case, it's not even a matter of harm to local wildlife. The regulators all appear to agree that there is none. The only 'harms' to anyone here is to SpaceX, which is suffering very real financial damage as its engineers stand idle waiting for approval.

[Vultur]

The only 'harms' to anyone here is to SpaceX, which is suffering very real financial damage as its engineers stand idle waiting for approval.

And possibly to NASA, if this affects Artemis. This delay on its own may not, but if future changes in Starship development require more multi month analyses, it'll be hard to get the cadence Artemis needs for HLS. The uncrewed HLS test isn't that far off, even if A3 is significantly delayed (as seems likely).

Once Starship is flying, it'll be a major national capability.

[envy887]

I would say that the inflammatory part is SpaceX's public response to this.

The charged, brash tone rubs me the wrong way. It feels quite arrogant - as if they don't have to play by the rules that everyone else plays by. Regulatory inefficiency can be improved, but no one is above the rules. It quite aptly reminds me of Tesla's combative response to COVID rules. Obviously, there's a common theme there.

It's not a coincidence that this update came out today. The intended audience is Congress, which had a hearing on commercial space licensing:

https://science.house.gov/2024/9/space-aeronautics-subcommittee-hearing-risks-and-rewards-encouraging-commercial-space-innovation-while-maintaining-public-safety

It's a complaint to the regulators' bosses, so it's not surprising that it sounds like a complaint.

[meekGee]

Well SpaceX likes to "move fast and break things". Including the law apparently.

That's just inflammatory.  What law did they break?

Well they got penalized, so presumably they broke the law. But maybe it's more complicated than that.

I would say that the inflammatory part is SpaceX's public response to this. These sorts of delays happen all the time but fly under the radar.

Whatever, it is what it is. 2 months or whatever isn't really a big deal. They'll be flying at a higher cadence soon enough even if it takes a year or two.

Actually if you read what transpired, there was disagreement between agencies on the exact type of permit required.  Once the second agency intervened, SpaceX respected that and got the second permit right away, before continuing to another launch.  The fine was symbolic for a reason.

SpaceX's response was to the news that even this is not enough, and there's another 60 days worth of navel gazing now scheduled.  The response, again, if you read it, is not hysterical but is certainly firm - as it should be.

At a minimum, the agencies could have granted them a license to continue operations while they navel gaze.

[r2tincan]

Well SpaceX likes to "move fast and break things". Including the law apparently.

That's just inflammatory.  What law did they break?

Well they got penalized, so presumably they broke the law. But maybe it's more complicated than that.

I would say that the inflammatory part is SpaceX's public response to this. These sorts of delays happen all the time but fly under the radar.

Whatever, it is what it is. 2 months or whatever isn't really a big deal. They'll be flying at a higher cadence soon enough even if it takes a year or two.

They broke the law? Have you ever sped in your car? Did you go to jail for two months?

[InterestedEngineer]

This is the real sticking point right here:

The only proposed modification for Starship’s fifth flight is a marginal change in the splashdown location of the hot-stage which produces no increase in likelihood for impacting marine life. Despite this, the FAA leadership approved a 60-day consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

A two-month delay? For a simple change in flight trajectory?

This is not a matter of SpaceX flouting regulations, or something that could be avoided with adequate forward planning. it appears to be regulations that are antithetical to SpaceX's iterative design process. You cannot re-run all your inter-agency consultancies every time the rocket changes slightly. It just doesn't work.

I can feel the pain of the SpaceX engineers oozing out of that update. They are clearly sitting there, with evidence in hand showing they are causing no harm to the environment - the harm that these regulations are supposed to be preventing in the first place - yet they cannot fly.

This is exactly how you throw sand into a company's gears, legally, when you don't like something about their leadership, their competitive stance, or pick any reason you want.

It has nothing to do with protecting wildlife.  Do your own process of elimination.

[Vultur]

It's not a coincidence that this update came out today. The intended audience is Congress, which had a hearing on commercial space licensing:

Ahh, that makes a lot of sense.

[Stan-1967]

Whatever, it is what it is. 2 months or whatever isn't really a big deal. They'll be flying at a higher cadence soon enough even if it takes a year or two.

What nonsensical garbage.  To state "not flying for 2 months or whatever" will lead to a higher cadence later, even as long as two years?  How exactly does that work?  This statement reads more like a stunted mentality making up an insincere & malicious cope.

SpaceX burn rate at Boca Chica is likely to be on the order of $100M USD per month or more of direct expenses, so upwards of $200M is potentially at stake of being wasted.  There is no cost plus safety net to rescue the day. Delays like this bleed the life out of projects, even a billionaire founder will not immunize SpaceX against this. 

A key consideration this event may create internally for SpaceX is questioning how much of their pace & monetary burn rate is driven by Artemis & Mars ambitions?  Eventually you need to pivot away from those drivers if reality says you can't do them with the resources you have.

At some point, likely drawing closer, the SpaceX legal team should ideally be examining the force majeure laws in Texas, as well as federal courts, and have some idea of the where the threshold of action may be.  I don't think it is this event, but I don't think this event can be repeated more than one or two more times without very serious consideration of exiting Artemis and pacing development for just their own Starkink Starlink needs.   Mars plans may even have to be on the table if the regulatory regime SpaceX has to operate under simply cannot figure out how to regulate, or worse, be adversarial to their success.

E.Musk has proven he is capable of pivoting quickly and not fall victim to sunk cost fallacies.  Even though he is a dreamer, he is also a realist at the end of the day.

[aporigine]

 Starkink

I smell money

[thespacecow]

Notably, SpaceX operating their pads in Florida are well aware of the need to do so under waterwater discharge permits (there arranged with FDEP). The initial "general Stormwater permitting is fine" should have been ringing alarm bells that something was wrong. e.g, from the old 2019 LC-39A Starship EA:

Launch deluge and pad washdown water generated from the new Starship/Super Heavy launch pad at LC-
39A would be isolated from the existing Falcon 9/Heavy deluge system and flow into a new containment
(impervious basin) and disposal (percolation pond) system shown in Figure 2-2. This system would be
designed to satisfy FDEP industrial wastewater permitting requirements for attenuation and onsite
disposal of launch-related wastewater.

This is irrelevant to the discussion.

LC-39A having an existing industrial wastewater permit is due to historical reason: the Space Shuttle. Specifically the SRB exhaust would turn water into hydrochloric acid, so there's a real and legitimate reason for NASA to get an industrial wastewater permit. And when SpaceX took over the pad, they inherited the permit. But this is an exception, not the rule, you wouldn't find this permit for SLC-40 or SLC-4E.

Now it's possible that the stunt EPA pulled at Boca Chica would setup a precedent which would require all launch pads to get industrial wastewater permits. If so that doesn't prove anything except the current policy of the executive branch is bad for spaceflight in general and SpaceX in particular.

[thespacecow]

As I said before, this is not just about SpaceX, many other stakeholders are also complaining about FAA. So any excuses for FAA that is focused solely on SpaceX is totally invalid: Congress, industry criticize FAA launch licensing regulations

Witnesses at the House hearing made clear those concerns have not abated. “The way it is being implemented today has caused severe licensing delays, confusion and is jeopardizing our long-held leadership position,” said Dave Cavossa, president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, an industry group whose members include several launch companies.

Mike French, vice chair of the FAA’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Group (COMSTAC), agreed with those concerns, noting that the committee had offered several recommendations to FAA on ways to address problems with the Part 450 regulations.

“We have a licensing regime with a lack of certainty, a lack of transparency and significant delays,” said Pamela Meredith, chair of the space law practice group at KMA Zuckert LLC.

Members on both sides if the aisle shared frustrations about Part 450. “License processing under the new Part 450 process is moving at a snail’s pace,” said Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), chairman of the subcommittee.

...

“We are in a bureaucratic soup,” said Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) later in the hearing. “We know we’re not getting to the moon unless we get some commercial spacecraft. So something’s not working here.”