SpaceX says, sure, Starship blew up but you can forget about the rest of that lawsuit
- Reference: 1688669114
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/07/06/spacex_denies_environmental_lawsuit/
- Source link:
While the Musk-owned rocket company admits its attempted orbital launch of Starship in April ended with a fireball, falling debris, noise, dust, and launchpad pieces flung hither and thither, that's just about all it copped to in its [1]response [PDF] filed in a Washington DC district court.
"SpaceX," it wrote, "admits that on April 20, 2023, it conducted a test launch of Starship/SuperHeavy in accordance with the license issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and that the launch vehicle successfully lifted off and flew for several minutes before experiencing anomalies that resulted in the termination of the mission and safe destruction of the launch vehicle over the Gulf of Mexico.
[2]
"SpaceX admits that the concrete launch pad deck was [3]damaged during the liftoff, spreading some debris and dust."
[4]
[5]
But while admitting it did launch the giant rocket, and agreeing to the fact that SpaceX's Texas launch facility is among a bunch of wildlife refuges and protected natural areas, "SpaceX denies every allegation of plaintiffs' complaint."
The lawsuit was filed in May by a group of environmental non-profits and an indigenous nation with ties to the Boca Chica area. It [6]accused the FAA – not SpaceX – of violating America's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by allowing Musk and company to perform their own programmatic environmental assessment (PEA), not a full environmental impact study as required by the NEPA.
[7]
As a result, several protected species, including the critically endangered Kemp's Ridley sea turtle and the near-threatened piping plover, are having their habitats disturbed by Starship, the largest rocket ever launched, the lawsuit claims.
SpaceX, for its part, denies that the FAA deferred to its in-house environmental study despite the fact that the PEA [8]itself [PDF] says as much, using nearly the exact same language as the lawsuit.
And then the denials get really weird
SpaceX is right to deny many of the allegations – they hinge on facts that environmentalists will seemingly have to prove in court if the case makes it that far – and much of the response to the lawsuit from SpaceX is simply creative restatements of it "denies the allegations."
There are a few claims in the response that are, frankly, a bit mind-boggling in their incongruence to easily established facts, however.
Like, for example, that SpaceX denies claims that its activities at its Boca Chica launch site "restrict the ability of the public to access and enjoy the Texas coastline adjacent to the project site," at least "to the extent that the alleged effects differ from the effects" mentioned in the PEA.
[9]Ariane 5 to take final flight, leaving Europe without its own heavy-lift rocket
[10]Report reveals US Space Force unprepared to counter orbital threats
[11]Virgin Galactic finally gets its first paying customers to edge of space
[12]This ain't Boeing very well: Starliner's first crewed flight canceled yet again
However, the launch caused brush fires that [13]burned three acres of land, while property damages and "terrifying" sounds were reported in Port Isabel – six miles from the launch site and outside the restriction area – as was a rain of particulates from the launch.
Beaches not closed as part of the Cameron County government's [14]closure order for the Starship orbital attempt in April also later reported debris.
[15]
Whether required shutdowns of public spaces don't exceed what SpaceX said they would then, isn't so clear.
Even more strange is SpaceX's statement that it "denies that the only way to access Boca Chica Beach is Texas State Highway 4." A brief look at a [16]map of the area makes it pretty clear there's only one road in and out of Boca Chica Beach, and a call to the Cameron County judge's office confirmed that fact.
"Texas highway 4 is the only route to the beach, which is why the county has the authority to close both the highway and beach" when SpaceX is using the area, a spokesperson for the judge's office, which issues closure orders, told us.
SpaceX also denied that there was any risk from keeping its farm of fuel and propellant tanks so close to its launch site despite [17]visible damage to the tanks after Starship's April launch and concerns that climate change is putting the Texas coast at [18]greater risk from hurricane effects.
All said, SpaceX (and the FAA, which filed a [19]similar [PDF] blanket denial of the allegations) argues the plaintiffs don't have any standing. Therefore, the case should be dismissed with prejudice, and SpaceX should be granted "other relief as may be appropriate."
We asked SpaceX to explain the situation, but haven't heard back. Regardless, Starship probably won't be taking to the skies again anytime soon despite Musk's [20]claims last month that it would be ready to launch in six to eight weeks, meaning it'd be flying again as soon as July 24.
The FAA still hasn't cleared Starship for operations again after its April snafu. We've contacted the agency to learn when it may return Starship to operation. ®
Get our [21]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/07/06/spacex-starship-enviro-response.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZKc5f9jH2hWds0bXTWeSoQAAAZU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/26/us_faa_starship/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZKc5f9jH2hWds0bXTWeSoQAAAZU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZKc5f9jH2hWds0bXTWeSoQAAAZU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/02/faa_starship_lawsuit/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZKc5f9jH2hWds0bXTWeSoQAAAZU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-06/PEA_for_SpaceX_Starship_Super_Heavy_at_Boca_Chica_FINAL.pdf
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/04/ariane_5_final_launch/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/30/us_space_force_report/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/29/virgin_galactic_launch/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/02/boeing_starliner_crewed_flight_delay/
[13] https://fox59.com/news/national-world/faa-sued-over-spacex-launch-damage-to-south-texas-wildlife-ecosystems/
[14] https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/order-to-temporarily-closing-boca-chica-beach-and-state-hwy-4-april-20-2023-with-alternative-date-of-april-21-2023/
[15] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZKc5f9jH2hWds0bXTWeSoQAAAZU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[16] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boca+Chica+Beach/@25.9947039,-97.2817244,17700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x866fb3baee5a1a13:0xe6c3a89c928dfab5!8m2!3d25.9965454!4d-97.1500755!16s%2Fg%2F1tdx4kfx!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu
[17] https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starship-rocket-crater-concrete-launchpad-upon-liftoff-2023-4
[18] https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/18/climate-change-texas/
[19] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/07/06/faa-starship-enviro-suit-response.pdf
[20] https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-next-test-flight-summer-2023
[21] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Space X
I think a real problem for SpaceX could be that, really, there's hardly anywhere on the entire eastern coastline that's suitable. Cape Canaveral in Florida is the most likely - because they've been launching from there for decades.
Quite a lot depends on whether or not they can actually pull off a FOD-free launch with a simple stand and water-quenched tin plate underneath it. If they can, there's room at Canaveral for a launch facility like that. If not, and they need an enormous flame trench, there might not be room at Canaveral for a new one of those, and building one at Boca Chica might be impossible.
So, if a flame trench is needed, it might just be that they've built a rocket too big to be launched from anywhere in the USA. And, when you look at a map of the world for eastern coastlines not too far away from the equator with a properous high tech economy suited to supporting such a program, there's not exactly many places in the world where it could be launched from.
Re: SpaceX
First of all, it's a steel plate, not tin. Pedantics concerning flame diverter materials aside, I have a hunch that they certainly can fit a full scale launch pad at the Cape. In fact, they've recently announced plans to expand SLC 40 to include crewed Dragon capabilities. On top of that, they have a lease agreement for SLC 41, which they could easily fit at least one launch pad with a proper flame diverter, or easily two with just the watercooled steel plate. So I really don't think it will be a big issue for them. The main problem with them getting kicked out of Boca Chica would be that they would have to rebuild Stage 0 at KSC and then either move vehicle construction there or ship vehicles from Starbase to KSC.
Read the fine print!!
"Even more strange is SpaceX's statement it "denies that the only way to access Boca Chica Beach is Texas State Highway 4." A brief look at a map of the area makes it pretty clear there's only one road in and out of Boca Chica Beach, and a call to the Cameron County Judge's office confirmed that fact."
But SpaceX's statement didn't say that there was only one road to the beach, did it? According to your fine report, they denied it was the only way to access it. And, indeed, a brief look at a map of the area makes it blindingly obvious that there's a bloody great bit of sea that gives plenty of access to the beach, provided only you are replete with an appropriate dinghy or equivalent maritime conveyance.
Icon: because, well... Lawyers, etc.
Re: Read the fine print!!
Exactly! A "way" doesn't have to be safe or legal does it? Just find the closest un-fenced-off spot and drive your massive SUV thingy in the right direction until you either get there or it stops moving.
On second thought - fence, what fence?
Re: Read the fine print!!
You can also access the beach from above by getting onto a SpaceX rocket, although you may arrive at quite a high velocity and in several pieces.
Late stage capitalism
Won't anyone think of the shareholders?
Re: Late stage capitalism
And by shareholders, you must mean Elon Musk. SpaceX is a privately held company.
Space X
The site was a bit of a question mark when announced, as much of the content of the lawsuit was raised as issues at the time. TBH, I am rather surprised that there was eventual agreement amongst (collection of US Federal agencies with relevant oversite) and SpaceX that the site was usable for launching rockets without causing environmental chaos.
That said, there is a DAMNED good reason why that site was chosen from a "Lets fling things into orbit" side of things. I'm fairly certain that its somewhat better than any of the NASA launch sites for accessing multiple orbital paths, (W->E, E->W, N->S) helping to reduce CtO (cost to orbit) for the launches.
I'll note that I do have somewhat biased input as a relative is a member of one of the animal rescue entities that supports those turtles, and I suspect that the launches just might cause more issues there than Gwen or any of the executive would like to (currently) admit. All that said, I'm still an advocate for getting Starship into service. I'm just thinking that there might be sufficient political fallout from the Boca Chica site as a primary launch site for Starship that MIGHT cause SpaceX some relatively high cost political flak.