Author Topic: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)  (Read 52605 times)

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 1592
  • Likes Given: 1273
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #80 on: 06/13/2022 05:53 pm »
per NSF video, mitigated FONSI

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Recommend you all at least download and read the Executive Summary to the PEA - it’s a typically-bureaucratic 43 page mix of blandly generic and very hyper-specific, especially with regard to some of the detailed mitigations listed.

EDITED FOR CLARITY/CORRECTION
« Last Edit: 06/13/2022 10:58 pm by Herb Schaltegger »
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
  • Liked: 2473
  • Likes Given: 2

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12460
  • N. California
  • Liked: 11350
  • Likes Given: 1288
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #83 on: 06/13/2022 07:02 pm »
Glad that now the conspiracy theories will stop.
(That was sarcasm)
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8316
  • Highway Whatever
  • Liked: 56396
  • Likes Given: 1069
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #84 on: 06/13/2022 07:12 pm »
 An email from 10 minutes ago.

"All,
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for the SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Launch Vehicle Program at the SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas (PEA and Mitigated FONSI/ROD). The environmental review is only one part of the license evaluation for Starship/Super Heavy launches. The FAA must complete safety, risk and financial reviews before making a license determination.
The FAA prepared the final PEA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the FAA issuing an experimental permit and/or vehicle operator license to SpaceX for Starship/Super Heavy launch operations at the Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, TX. The FAA released the draft PEA for public review and comment on September 17, 2021. The FAA held virtual public meetings on October 18 and October 20, 2021. The public review period closed on November 1, 2021. The PEA was revised based on public comments, and the final PEA includes responses to comments (see final PEA Appendix I).
The FAA has determined that the Proposed Action would not result in significant environmental impacts. Required mitigation measures are listed throughout Chapter 3 of the final PEA. The PEA, FONSI/ROD and associated mitigation measures will be conditions of any future license or permit issued to SpaceX for Starship/Super Heavy launch operations at the Boca Chica Launch Site and must be implemented by SpaceX.
The FAA completed interagency consultations with state and Federal agencies as a part of the environmental review and per special-purpose laws and regulations. These consultations included, but were not limited to, the following:
    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act: The FAA received a Biological Opinion (BO) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a Letter of Concurrence (LOC) from the National Marine Fisheries Service.
    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act: In consultation with the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer, along with other consulting parties, the FAA resolved adverse effects to historic properties and executed a Programmatic Agreement (PA).
Electronic versions of the final PEA and Mitigated FONSI/ROD, as well as the Biological Opinion, Letter of Concurrence, and Programmatic Agreement, are available for download on the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation website: https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship/.
Thank you,
The FAA SpaceX Boca Chica Project Team"
« Last Edit: 06/14/2022 03:16 am by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline TheEmbeddedGuy

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Delaware
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 5

Offline Michael S

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #86 on: 06/13/2022 07:36 pm »
No, but he was extremely proud of designing Fjords.        ;D

Offline Alpha Lima

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #87 on: 06/13/2022 07:40 pm »
Recommend you all download and read the PEA - it’s a typically-bureaucratic 43 page ...
I think you're looking at the executive summary.  The PEA is 174 pages (excluding the eleven appendices).

I notice the 40-page Mitigated FONSI and Record of Decision (a document distinct from the PEA and the summary) is missing the notice required by FAA Order 1050.1F sec. 6-4(b).  That notice, which is included in all other FAA RODs I can find, looks like this:
Quote
RIGHT OF APPEAL

This FONSI/ROD constitutes a final order of the FAA Administrator and is subject to exclusive judicial review under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the person contesting the decision resides or has its principal place of business. Any party having substantial interest in this order may apply for review of the decision by filing a petition for review in the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals no later than 60 days after the order is issued in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 46110. Any party seeking to stay implementation of the ROD must file an application with the FAA prior to seeking judicial relief as provided in Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

I'm pretty sure the statute and the 60-day timeframe apply despite the missing notice (and if anything, the lack of notice will extend the period), so it may be prudent to wait 60 days before being too confident in this decision holding up.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Recommend you all download and read the PEA - it’s a typically-bureaucratic 43 page ...
I think you're looking at the executive summary. 

Yes, you are correct. I fat-fingered my attempt at a quick post, which should have read, “Recommend you all download and read at least the executive summary of the PEA …”

Too much going on and multi-tasking (badly) this morning.
« Last Edit: 06/13/2022 08:29 pm by Herb Schaltegger »
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Joffan

I find it a bit sad that "increased visitation" of national historic sites is regarded only as a negative effect. Aren't visitors a major point for having these sites? And sure, increased numbers of visitors will need adjustments to how the site is maintained, but isn't that at least part of the remit of these organizations?
Getting through max-Q for humanity becoming fully spacefaring

Offline Jeff Lerner

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Toronto, Canada
  • Liked: 219
  • Likes Given: 164
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #90 on: 06/13/2022 08:29 pm »
Aside from SpaceX’s “positive “ Tweet on the announcement, what’s the consensus on this site ??

Good news, bad news, no news??

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 924
  • USA
  • Liked: 851
  • Likes Given: 1116
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #91 on: 06/13/2022 08:43 pm »
I find it a bit sad that "increased visitation" of national historic sites is regarded only as a negative effect. Aren't visitors a major point for having these sites? And sure, increased numbers of visitors will need adjustments to how the site is maintained, but isn't that at least part of the remit of these organizations?

More people equals more wear and tear on the sites. We want to preserve them as well as show them. Its a balance.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • California
  • Liked: 1343
  • Likes Given: 492
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #92 on: 06/13/2022 08:53 pm »
Aside from SpaceX’s “positive “ Tweet on the announcement, what’s the consensus on this site ??

Good news, bad news, no news??
Based solely on the wording of the executive summary, The PEA was written by SpaceX and then independently evaluated and approved by the FAA, apparently without any major modifications. All of the dozens of mitigations that SpaceX is required to undertake were in effect proposed by SpaceX in the first place after they consulted with the various other government entities involved. Based on this, I would call this a big win for SpaceX, and incidentally for everybody else. They must now do stuff that they have known for months that they were going be required to do, and surely they already have plans in place and/or are already taking action.

Offline AU1.52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
  • Life is like riding a bicycle - Einstein
  • Ohio, USA, AU1
  • Liked: 614
  • Likes Given: 674
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #93 on: 06/13/2022 09:01 pm »
Aside from SpaceX’s “positive “ Tweet on the announcement, what’s the consensus on this site ??

Good news, bad news, no news??


I did a quick scan of all the Mitigations and did not see anything particularly troubling. So good news. 

Offline MDMoery

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #94 on: 06/13/2022 09:08 pm »
Aside from SpaceX’s “positive “ Tweet on the announcement, what’s the consensus on this site ??

Good news, bad news, no news??
Based solely on the wording of the executive summary, The PEA was written by SpaceX and then independently evaluated and approved by the FAA, apparently without any major modifications. All of the dozens of mitigations that SpaceX is required to undertake were in effect proposed by SpaceX in the first place after they consulted with the various other government entities involved. Based on this, I would call this a big win for SpaceX, and incidentally for everybody else. They must now do stuff that they have known for months that they were going be required to do, and surely they already have plans in place and/or are already taking action.

Which brings the next question. How much of it has already been completed?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • California
  • Liked: 1343
  • Likes Given: 492
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #95 on: 06/13/2022 09:24 pm »
Aside from SpaceX’s “positive “ Tweet on the announcement, what’s the consensus on this site ??

Good news, bad news, no news??
Based solely on the wording of the executive summary, The PEA was written by SpaceX and then independently evaluated and approved by the FAA, apparently without any major modifications. All of the dozens of mitigations that SpaceX is required to undertake were in effect proposed by SpaceX in the first place after they consulted with the various other government entities involved. Based on this, I would call this a big win for SpaceX, and incidentally for everybody else. They must now do stuff that they have known for months that they were going be required to do, and surely they already have plans in place and/or are already taking action.

Which brings the next question. How much of it has already been completed?
I don't know. Some of the mitigations are very people-oriented and will require hiring naturalists, docents, and possibly college kids to run STEM summer camps. If this is handled creatively, it could be done at very low cost. Since I've never been there I am only guessing, based solely on the executive summary.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Aside from SpaceX’s “positive “ Tweet on the announcement, what’s the consensus on this site ??

Good news, bad news, no news??
Based solely on the wording of the executive summary, The PEA was written by SpaceX and then independently evaluated and approved by the FAA, apparently without any major modifications. All of the dozens of mitigations that SpaceX is required to undertake were in effect proposed by SpaceX in the first place after they consulted with the various other government entities involved. Based on this, I would call this a big win for SpaceX, and incidentally for everybody else. They must now do stuff that they have known for months that they were going be required to do, and surely they already have plans in place and/or are already taking action.

Which brings the next question. How much of it has already been completed?
I don't know. Some of the mitigations are very people-oriented and will require hiring naturalists, docents, and possibly college kids to run STEM summer camps. If this is handled creatively, it could be done at very low cost. Since I've never been there I am only guessing, based solely on the executive summary.

A lot of that stuff will likely be contracted out, if they're smart. The Exec Summary I referenced earlier calls out some of these things specifically, such as the post-SN11 tidal flats algae remediation effort in conjunction with specific university programs, or the specific annual dollar amount funding pledges to specific organizations to support individuals' access to fishing resources in the area, and birding activities, etc.
« Last Edit: 06/13/2022 09:41 pm by Herb Schaltegger »
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline aboveallofit

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #97 on: 06/13/2022 11:13 pm »
Does SpaceX need a Launch License to Static Fire SuperHeavy?

Offline smvojj

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Europe
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #98 on: 06/13/2022 11:27 pm »
I think SpaceX know it...:-)
Its little LCH4. And its short time.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: FAA (and other relevant) Permits/Licenses for BC (Thread 4)
« Reply #99 on: 06/13/2022 11:46 pm »
So, FONZSI then?

So no jumping the shark this time around...

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0