-
#600
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 06 Apr, 2023 00:13
-
-
#601
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 06 Apr, 2023 01:25
-
https://twitter.com/jinsprucker/status/1643778019629350913Happy First Contact Day! As Troi said to Data and Picard - would you three like to be alone? Hey, it's a Titan! And here I am w/ a Titan IV years ago. Now it's Falcons and Starships.
Spending time now working on webcast rehearsals for first test flight of Starship.
-
#602
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 06 Apr, 2023 01:54
-
Who would ever approve a rocket launch site at a wildlife refuge? Oh, I almost forgot that Cape Canaveral has shared the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge for 70 years.
That's why just claiming some kind of "environmental" basis for any putative legal action is specious. My suggestion above is the kind of specific and focused approach someone would have to take if they want to challenge a lawfully-granted license; they would have to argue with some degree of particularity that there was a flaw in the licensing process or - more likely - that one of the preconditions for grant of a license was not met. Failing to meet one of the environmental mitigations promised in the finding of Mitigated FONSI could be such a basis.
That's what they would have to argue to win, not to file. To file, they need nothing but the filing fee and paperwork. To get an injunction, they need more but not as much as they'd need to win.
To get an injunction, they’d need SUBSTANTIALLY more than the filing fee. Have you ever tried to get an injunction from a judge about anything? Because I have, and trust me, most judges don’t grant them willy-nilly. Typically, the movant has to make a prima facile showing of some kind of irreparable or irreversible harm if the injunction is not granted, and that is not an easy burden.
-
#603
by
edzieba
on 06 Apr, 2023 07:02
-
In regards to lawsuits: because of the bass-ackwards way NEPA works, anyone wanting to file for an injunction would have to wait for the FAA to issue a Launch License. The proposed issuance of a Launch License is the federal action that triggered the NEPA process, and the sole purpose of the EA was to produce a public document of the environmental impacts of that federal action, in order to arm other agencies and the public with the information needed to contest actions (remember, a EA/EIS is not an 'approval' in any way shape or form, the sole enforcement mechanism is through lawsuits, not through environmental regulations or standards). Until the FAA actually issue the Launch License, that federal action has not occurred, so there is nothing to challenge.
-
#604
by
envy887
on 06 Apr, 2023 13:12
-
Who would ever approve a rocket launch site at a wildlife refuge? Oh, I almost forgot that Cape Canaveral has shared the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge for 70 years.
That's why just claiming some kind of "environmental" basis for any putative legal action is specious. My suggestion above is the kind of specific and focused approach someone would have to take if they want to challenge a lawfully-granted license; they would have to argue with some degree of particularity that there was a flaw in the licensing process or - more likely - that one of the preconditions for grant of a license was not met. Failing to meet one of the environmental mitigations promised in the finding of Mitigated FONSI could be such a basis.
Even arguing based on the mitigated FONSI that a precondition for grant of a license was not met would be difficult, since most of the required mitigations are not specifically preconditions to launch but rather relate to construction activities, or to continuing mitigations already in process, or to post-anomaly restoration.
There's very little in the way of "SpaceX shall do this activity before launch" in the FONSI - I only saw 2 items like this: contracting a qualified biologist to evaluate vegetation and habitat in the week before launch, and coordinating with local oil and gas companies prior to launch. Unless SpaceX is doing nothing at all regarding the mitigations, I doubt there's much to go after there.
-
#605
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 06 Apr, 2023 13:25
-
Who would ever approve a rocket launch site at a wildlife refuge? Oh, I almost forgot that Cape Canaveral has shared the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge for 70 years.
That's why just claiming some kind of "environmental" basis for any putative legal action is specious. My suggestion above is the kind of specific and focused approach someone would have to take if they want to challenge a lawfully-granted license; they would have to argue with some degree of particularity that there was a flaw in the licensing process or - more likely - that one of the preconditions for grant of a license was not met. Failing to meet one of the environmental mitigations promised in the finding of Mitigated FONSI could be such a basis.
Even arguing based on the mitigated FONSI that a precondition for grant of a license was not met would be difficult …
.
Exactly. This entire topic sounds like typical tech-nerd guys’ ingrained fear of a legal system they don’t understand, taking an off-hand remark (“Well, someone might file for an injunction …”) and overstating the real risks involved.
As a tech-nerd guy who is also a lawyer, nothing is more personally frustrating to me than when nerds freak out about legal issues, and when lawyers fail (or refuse to try) to understand technology.
-
#606
by
envy887
on 06 Apr, 2023 13:31
-
In regards to lawsuits: because of the bass-ackwards way NEPA works, anyone wanting to file for an injunction would have to wait for the FAA to issue a Launch License. The proposed issuance of a Launch License is the federal action that triggered the NEPA process, and the sole purpose of the EA was to produce a public document of the environmental impacts of that federal action, in order to arm other agencies and the public with the information needed to contest actions (remember, a EA/EIS is not an 'approval' in any way shape or form, the sole enforcement mechanism is through lawsuits, not through environmental regulations or standards). Until the FAA actually issue the Launch License, that federal action has not occurred, so there is nothing to challenge.
The NEPA process also arms the FAA (as the agency completing the Federal action), because it is designed to discover all potentially relevant impacts, via the processes of interagency communication and public comment, so that FAA isn't blindsided with new considerations when it issues a license. Unless something truly new comes up, the FAA and SpaceX are already prepared to show how they evaluated a specific impact and why it isn't significant. These processes are pretty well-established and quite thorough, so something actually new isn't all that likely to come up.
-
#607
by
Vahe231991
on 06 Apr, 2023 14:39
-
Who would ever approve a rocket launch site at a wildlife refuge? Oh, I almost forgot that Cape Canaveral has shared the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge for 70 years.
When weighing whether to approve a license for Starship to construct Starbase, why didn't the FAA take note of the fact that the space launch facilities in Cape Canaveral are partly shared with the Merritt Island National Refuge?
-
#608
by
whitelancer64
on 06 Apr, 2023 15:11
-
Who would ever approve a rocket launch site at a wildlife refuge? Oh, I almost forgot that Cape Canaveral has shared the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge for 70 years.
When weighing whether to approve a license for Starship to construct Starbase, why didn't the FAA take note of the fact that the space launch facilities in Cape Canaveral are partly shared with the Merritt Island National Refuge?
NASA was established in 1958, and NASA began buying land for the Launch Operations Center (later the Kennedy Space Center) in 1962.
The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1963, largely as a buffer zone around NASA's launch operations complex. It wasn't a wildlife refuge before NASA started plans to build there, and also the environmental regulations didn't exist then. NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) was enacted in 1970.
-
#609
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Apr, 2023 16:13
-
Trajectory time!
-
#610
by
DanClemmensen
on 06 Apr, 2023 17:01
-
Who would ever approve a rocket launch site at a wildlife refuge? Oh, I almost forgot that Cape Canaveral has shared the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge for 70 years.
When weighing whether to approve a license for Starship to construct Starbase, why didn't the FAA take note of the fact that the space launch facilities in Cape Canaveral are partly shared with the Merritt Island National Refuge?
NASA was established in 1958, and NASA began buying land for the Launch Operations Center (later the Kennedy Space Center) in 1962.
The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1963, largely as a buffer zone around NASA's launch operations complex. It wasn't a wildlife refuge before NASA started plans to build there, and also the environmental regulations didn't exist then. NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) was enacted in 1970.
More generally, a lot of things that dramatically reduce the human population density end up being beneficial to wildlife. This includes weapons testing ranges, the Chernobyl disaster, offshore wind farms that keep fishing boats out, etc. Starbase/SpaceX will likely have this effect on much of the environmentally-sensitive acreage of the BC area. The area paved or occupied by structures was already mostly paved or occupied by structures.
-
#611
by
pb2000
on 06 Apr, 2023 19:06
-
Starship fully stacked at Starbase. Team is working towards a launch rehearsal next week followed by Starship’s first integrated flight test ~week later pending regulatory approval
So with the closure canceled on Monday are we calling this NET 18th now? Could argue that "~" means ± a couple days, but lets be realistic here, launch schedules almost always move to the right.
-
#612
by
GewoonLukas_
on 06 Apr, 2023 19:19
-
Starship fully stacked at Starbase. Team is working towards a launch rehearsal next week followed by Starship’s first integrated flight test ~week later pending regulatory approval
So with the closure canceled on Monday are we calling this NET 18th now? Could argue that "~" means ± a couple days, but lets be realistic here, launch schedules almost always move to the right.
I'd say "No Earlier Then the week of April 17th" would be more appropriate
-
#613
by
JAFO
on 06 Apr, 2023 19:37
-
More generally, a lot of things that dramatically reduce the human population density end up being beneficial to wildlife. This includes weapons testing ranges, the Chernobyl disaster, offshore wind farms that keep fishing boats out, etc. Starbase/SpaceX will likely have this effect on much of the environmentally-sensitive acreage of the BC area. The area paved or occupied by structures was already mostly paved or occupied by structures.
GA airports are lusted after by real estate developers and loved/hated by environmentalists. They hate the leaded fuel GA piston airplanes burn and the "elites" who can afford to fly them, but love all the open space reserved for wildlife.
If I'm working late on my plane I love to go out and listen to the noise from the wildlife. Once I heard some coyotes howl from across the runway to the north, another one answered from the east, then another one howled from behind me in the direction of my hangar. I beat feet back very quickly and kept the door closed the rest of that night.
-
#614
by
pedz
on 07 Apr, 2023 13:34
-
https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1643406331741708289
This advisory is normally updated every few hours (it says at the end when the next update will happen). It has been updated just a few minutes ago and it shows a new window for Starship's first orbital test flight from 7AM CDT to 11AM CDT
Is it possible to get these FAA updates directly? Are they on a web site somewhere? I plan to drive down (again) to watch the launch and record it (video and photos). I was there for two weeks early March hoping it would go at that time but (obviously) it didn’t.
I don’t want to drive down on Sunday for nothing so I’d like to have a pretty good feel of the expected launch. I’ve come across April 10th as well as April 17th in various places.
I will, of course, watch this thread.
-
#615
by
dwheeler
on 07 Apr, 2023 14:38
-
-
#616
by
pedz
on 07 Apr, 2023 15:44
-
Is it possible to get these FAA updates directly? Are they on a web site somewhere?
There's a link in that tweet: https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_spt.jsp
Ahh!! My bad. I kept trying that link but it wasn't really the link but the image of the tweet...
Thank you
-
#617
by
JDTractorGuy
on 07 Apr, 2023 16:49
-
Folks,
I apologize if I'm asking a question that's already been answered, but reading the article posted on NSF I'm a bit confused. Are they not going to attempt recovery of the booster or starship? I was under the impression that they would at least attempt to recover the upper stage. Any clarification appreciated!
-
#618
by
sferrin
on 07 Apr, 2023 16:53
-
Folks,
I apologize if I'm asking a question that's already been answered, but reading the article posted on NSF I'm a bit confused. Are they not going to attempt recovery of the booster or starship? I was under the impression that they would at least attempt to recover the upper stage. Any clarification appreciated!
I thought the idea was both stages soft land at sea. Whether they get towed back in I've never seen mentioned one way or another. I can't imagine them just leaving them floating around at sea though.
-
#619
by
EspenU
on 07 Apr, 2023 16:53
-
Folks,
I apologize if I'm asking a question that's already been answered, but reading the article posted on NSF I'm a bit confused. Are they not going to attempt recovery of the booster or starship? I was under the impression that they would at least attempt to recover the upper stage. Any clarification appreciated!
Nope. Both will be ditched. They will attempt to bring Starship through reentry and "land" in the water.