US Federal Aviation Administration issues draft assessment of SpaceX Super Heavy impact
- Reference: 1632138223
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/09/20/faa_spacex/
- Source link:
We want to hear from you! The FAA released the Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the proposed [1]@spacex Starship/Super Heavy project in Boca Chica, Texas. It is now open for public comment until October 18. Learn more at [2]https://t.co/IoRQcfBk9C . [3]#FAASpace [4]pic.twitter.com/1moLsjJ1th — The FAA ✈️ (@FAANews) [5]September 17, 2021
The document, which is up for public comment until October, is not a permit for Elon Musk to launch whatever he likes, but rather an assessment prior to issuing licences. The report also looks at the potential environmental impacts of SpaceX's plans for its Boca Chica site in Texas.
SpaceX has an existing licence for the development and firing of Starship prototypes. However, its Super Heavy rocket plans require a fresh environmental review (as well a safety review) before a licence can be issued.
Buried in the draft assessment for the company's Boca Chica site are figures to set SpaceX fans hearts' aquiver. There could be up to 20 Starship suborbital launches per year during development and as many as five Starship/Super Heavy orbital launches. A maximum of five Super Heavy landings are also on the cards. A higher cadence would likely require a reassessment.
[6]Space tourists splash down in Atlantic Ocean after three days in orbit
[7]SpaceX successfully sends four amateurs into orbit for three-day tour
[8]SpaceX prepares to launch four civilians and a glass dome into space
[9]Amazon says Elon Musk's wicked, wicked ways mean SpaceX's Starlink 2.0 should not be allowed to fly
The Starship/Super Heavy stack is quite a beast – the FAA puts it at "approximately 400 feet tall and 30 feet in diameter" (approx. 121.9m in height/9.144m in diameter). Cut-off for the Super Heavy stage is expected to occur at the 40-mile mark (64.37km), at which point Starship's engines would fire the spacecraft to the desired orbit. The Super Heavy stage is planned to conduct a burn to return it to the landing site – be it a floating platform or land (or be dumped in the sea for expendable missions).
The lengthy [10]draft assessment [PDF] did not include too much that would alarm SpaceX. Noise and the potential for pollution were documented and SpaceX provided an estimate of 300 hours for the time it would take to deal with the impact of "anomalies."
The FAA also noted it was dependant on consultation with other agencies, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, with regard to endangered species or "species of concern."
[11]
The next step will be to get input from the public before the FAA can finalise its assessment, with licences for Starship and Super Heavy orbital launches hopefully following. SpaceX boss Musk [12]issued a plea to his followers to "add your voice to the public comments" on the Boca Chica plans.
[13]
After all, it would be unfortunate if the impressive Starship and Super Heavy stack remained mere Texas ornamentation. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://twitter.com/SpaceX?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[2] https://t.co/IoRQcfBk9C
[3] https://twitter.com/hashtag/FAASpace?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[4] https://t.co/1moLsjJ1th
[5] https://twitter.com/FAANews/status/1438920858433638408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/19/inspiration4_spacex_landing/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/16/inspiration4_launch_success/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/15/inspiration4/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/09/amazon_musk_spacex_fcc_feud/
[10] https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship/media/Draft_PEA_for_SpaceX_Starship_Super_Heavy_at_Boca_Chica.pdf
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YUiwOlJ1wojsbJAHD8mQVwAAARM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[12] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1438928760846290948
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YUiwOlJ1wojsbJAHD8mQVwAAARM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Which is why Texas
There are also good reasons for launch from south Texas: Near the equator which is a benefit for most launches (not polar or sun synchronous), very few people have built homes / businesses in the sea to the east and that is the direction you mostly want to launch (except for polar and sun synchronous) and lots of wildlife refuges (prevents people from building homes and hotels next to your launch site and protects the wildlife - see [1]Merritt Island for Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and [2]Wallops Island ).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt_Island_National_Wildlife_Refug
[2] https://www.stateparks.com/wallops_island_national_wildlife_refuge_in_virginia.html
Re: Which is why Texas
>There are also good reasons for launch from south Texas:
It's nowhere near the equator, and that only really helps for GSO / going to the Moon.
The advantage of Texas is no income tax = useful for billionaire CEOs but more useful for attracting tech professionals, low house prices and most importantly a state government that doesn't care what you do (as long as you aren't a women/gay/brown)
Re: Which is why Texas
Your tinfoil is showing.
Since you haven't bothered to educate yourself, have a look at some of the law enforcement run-ins SpaceX has had with county and state officials. They are in a bit of hot water over several issues from pollution to road closures.
Take your libtard attitude elsewhere.
Re: Which is why Texas
But they were all resolved very quickly - it's only the federal agency ones that are ongoing.
If SpaceX was launching from California it would still be in public consultations about whether launching rockets infringed on the beliefs of flat earthers and
Re: Which is why Texas
Plus, it would take very little digging to divert the Rio Grande north and make the whole site Mexican rather than US.
If the US government get too awkward, just emigrate but without having to do any of that awkward physical moving stuff.
Correct me if i am wrong, but the fuel used for the raptor is a lot more benign than for the merlin
Probably ...
Dropping a few tons of RP1 in the sea is a bad idea but it's less likely to cause RUD on the pad due to a leak than tons of liquid methane, and any leakage at the launch site can be more easily contained and cleaned up than methane freely venting to atmosphere ... So it's a question of which is better - methane in the atmosphere or a (relatively) small slick of fairly volatile material at sea?
I wonder if NASA had to go through similar impact assessments before they were able to launch Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/STS or if it was just hand-waved through by virtue of being the gubernmint 'n all.
During the '60s spray can propellant was doing more damage than anything NASA tried.
Apollo
During the '60s the USA was in an ICBM arms race with the Soviet Union. NASA was doing important research for the DoD into rocketry, guidance and re-entry (it seems that orbital projectiles are the easy bit, the tricky bit is not burning up on re-entry). So there would have been no chance to Mercury, Gemini or Apollo being cancelled or curtailed due to environmental concerns. After all JFK even got the USA voting public to accept a tax increase to pay for Apollo as part of a national pride exercise. (but see 'Whitey on the Moon' for an alternative reaction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4 .)
The EPA didn't exist at all in the '60s.
Until that damn hippie Nixon got in
Which is why Texas
The local state regulators are going to approve anything - in Texas it's your civic duty to pollute as much as you like.
And the same supreme court that approved that the state is in charge of women's bodies is definitely going to back that the state is in charge of the local environment.
And the FAA is going to play along with this in case it does go to the supreme court and they effectively gut all federal agencies.