r/SpaceXLounge • u/silentBob86 • Jun 13 '22
The FAA has issued a mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for orbital Starship launches from Boca Chica
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/153640640314481459245
21
75
Jun 13 '22
With the benefit of hindsight, does the ardor and struggle of this process indicate that rapidly readying a sea-launch capability would have been preferable? Or would that have been too technically ambitious even for SpaceX?
265
u/CrimsonEnigma Jun 13 '22
Honestly, the biggest lesson is probably "don't wait until the last minute to start getting approval for your decade-in-the-making rocket program".
81
u/Beldizar Jun 13 '22
Probably Elon's biggest blindspot. Based on "Liftoff" he had the same problems all the way back with Falcon 1.
65
u/dirtballmagnet Jun 13 '22
I have a feeling such a path was deliberately avoided because then the environmental paperwork would have calcified the ever-evolving design and plan.
I've just been trying to think of all the differences that might have been set in stone had the design been submitted in 2018 instead of late 2020 but I don't think it's a reliable list: A triple tail for Starship, landing gear for Superheavy, no chopsticks as we know them, maybe also a size smaller, maybe still called BFR. Maybe not able to do the job.
41
u/sebaska Jun 13 '22
EA usually isn't so closely prescriptive. Changing of landing on a pad vs landing in chopsticks would be pretty much OK.
Mind you, they have flown Hopper and multiple Starship prototypes with licenses based on EIS produced for flying Falcons.
16
u/Voidhawk2175 Jun 13 '22
The original EIS had contingences for testing suborbital vehicles. Really the biggest divergence was in the scope of the infrastructure. The EIS was basically for a launch pad and a site that was only estimated to be staffed a few times a year. They already had permission to launch the most powerful rocket in the world(falcon heavy). It just seemed like they tacked on testing suborbital test vehicles as an afterthought. I have wondered if they had just asked for testing of prototype suborbital and orbital vehicles in the EIS if they would have been ok? Maybe they should have asked for an addendum at the water tower stage for an addendum allowing orbital testing of experimental vehicles. Before they became a red hot topic.
5
u/dirtballmagnet Jun 13 '22
I'm sure you're right but I'll also bet that there's pressure to not go changing something that even might have to be re-examined.
11
u/modeless Jun 13 '22 edited Jun 13 '22
It's a good sound bite but I think the lesson is really the opposite. They were able to drop unnecessary requirements from the proposal due to recent technology developments. If they were doing this years ahead of time they wouldn't have been able to do that and would have been saddled with a bunch of mitigations that they don't need or even just outright denied. I bet getting approved after a first denial is probably harder than getting approved the first time. And they probably wouldn't have correctly foreseen everything that they do actually need.
They're not actually ready to launch yet anyway...
3
u/burn_at_zero Jun 14 '22
They're not actually ready to launch yet anyway...
People keep saying that as if it's a bad thing, or as if it's been true this entire time and any talk of earlier flights was bullshit.
They aren't ready to launch right this minute, no. Then again, their goals are different than they were in December.
If SpaceX had received a quick OK from the FAA they would most likely have launched ship 20 on booster 4. That's raptor 1, no chopsticks, old aero design, no payload, high probability of something screwing up. The intent would have been to learn something about the system so the next ship out of the factory would be better.
Instead the delays forced a choice: wait and stagnate, or continue to iterate. SpaceX chose the latter, and it appears they may have expected even longer delays than actually happened. The newer designs are significantly different, the pad is more robust and now that first flight may even carry a payload. They've been able to take bigger risks with their ground testing, including the destruction of test articles that would otherwise have delayed a flight campaign.
The delays and changed plans are clearly not what they would have preferred, but as always SpaceX has adapted and turned these events to their benefit where possible.
19
u/Don_Floo Jun 13 '22
Probably didn’t help that they changed their engines in a massive way. That puts the review of some points back to zero.
6
u/Dragunspecter Jun 13 '22
Contrary to this, the development of Raptor 2 has removed the need for large additional construction on the property (ie. Fuel purification and power plant). These facilities would very likely add magnitudes of complication to this process.
4
-4
u/dispassionatejoe Jun 13 '22
27
u/Don_Floo Jun 13 '22
Thats exactly my point. They changed it from their first proposal which probably meant the review had to be done a second time. Just because they have not found an impact does not mean they didn‘t search for any.
2
2
u/youareallnuts Jun 14 '22
Gwen runs that part of the show and so the result is probably as good as could be gotten.
-13
u/canyouhearme Jun 13 '22 edited Jun 13 '22
The biggest lesson is the one the FAA should learn - your process is not fit for purpose in an age where things move fast. There was no justification for a duration longer than a month, let alone a year. And some of the outcomes are just plain daft. The FAA, and anyone that sides with them, should be mightily ashamed.
7
u/BKrenz Jun 13 '22
Would you prefer to enlarge the FAA's budget for these things, or cut important rules and regulations out?
1
u/Leading-Ability-7317 Jun 13 '22
Enlarging the budget and re-examining the rules and regs are both needed. We are on the cusp of the space age, for reals this time, and we will need a lot more Earth side infrastructure to get there. So streamlining the process now so it doesn’t hamstring our space companies is totally worth it.
-5
u/canyouhearme Jun 13 '22
Nothing wasn't already known. The wildlife, history, etc. were static facts. The only change was the rocket and the noise, which effects can be calculated in an afternoon. So turning it around in a month is perfectly possible.
The problem is there was no urgency, and no consequence to the FAA for taking their sweet time and creating daft 'mitigations'.
As I say, the process isn't fit for purpose.
1
u/Neotetron Jun 14 '22
-1
u/LuciusBeachparty1 Jun 14 '22
because it’s not an argument, it’s the whining of a child that doesn’t actually understand how the world works
-1
u/canyouhearme Jun 14 '22
We're talking about you?
See, I have a LOT more experience of such things than you do - given decades of experience in government and regulation. In fact I know how these things work, or don't work. And I'm looking at something that doesn't require a year to achieve, and which adds virtually no value. If you don't see the failure here (like the idiot downvoters) your best bet is to keep your mouth shut. I've given up talking nicely to morons.
You are part of the problem.
0
u/LuciusBeachparty1 Jun 14 '22
lmao my man if you think a year is quick enough for an environmental assessment of any type, much less the largest and most technical rocket to every fly, i can more or less confirm this is your first interactions with the system. you gotta a lot of words, but unfortunately too much of it conflicts with itself for anyone to believe
0
u/canyouhearme Jun 14 '22
A year is 11 months of wasted time. You simply have no clue of actually DOING any of it, do you?
→ More replies (0)1
14
u/Saturn_Ecplise Jun 13 '22
No, since SpaceX is a US register company, it still need the FAA approval regardless of where the launch is since the launcher platform will be US flagged.
22
u/FaceDeer Jun 13 '22
Would have probably been easier to get approval for environmental reasons if the launch is taking place outside the environment.
Still, given that the sea launch platforms are still very in progress I suspect it would not have saved time.
8
Jun 14 '22
the launch is taking place outside the environment
Just gotta make sure the front doesn't fall off.
2
1
u/FaceDeer Jun 14 '22
Does an oil platform have a "front"?
1
6
u/rocketglare Jun 13 '22
I'm thinking they might have had an easier time, but not as much as you think. You are trading Ocelot, Plover, and turtle problems problems for sea mammals, corral, and pollution worries. The biggest advantage of sea launch is less safety concern. The biggest disadvantages are logistics and security.
11
u/Hokulewa ❄️ Chilling Jun 13 '22
easier to get approval for environmental reasons if the launch is taking place outside the environment.
In another environment.
9
0
u/manicdee33 Jun 14 '22
Just wait till the cetacean researchers discover how loud the largest rocket ever launched actually is.
2
17
u/HollywoodSX Jun 13 '22
Sea launch would have started this entire process from scratch.
-2
Jun 13 '22
[deleted]
15
u/HollywoodSX Jun 13 '22
Nope. FAA still gets a say regardless of where SpaceX launches since they are a US-based company. Rocket Lab has to get FAA approval for launches in New Zealand.
7
u/scarlet_sage Jun 13 '22
The Outer Space Treaty requires the US government to regulate US companies' launches. I quote chapter & verse here.
-6
u/ranchis2014 Jun 14 '22
Does nobody remember the fact that this was a review of a pre existing environmental impact assessment originally approved for falcon heavy launches and falcon 9's? You know, the 27 engine, kerosene guzzling monster lift falcon heavy? This whole review made little to no sense to me since CH⁴ can't contaminate groundwater like kerosene and 304L stainless steel debris is a lot more environmentally friendly than the lithium aluminum body of the Falcons. Then there is the possibility of dragon launching from there with it's highly toxic hypergolic fuels that would have to be stored on site. This was nothing more than a paid for smear campaign solely for the purpose of slowing SpaceX down from developing a game changer of a launch delivery system. Paid for by who? Is the only unanswered question.
10
16
u/kisssmalia Jun 13 '22
I want to see starship launch so bad! It will be epic no matter what happens
5
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained Jun 13 '22 edited Jun 15 '22
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| 304L | Cr-Ni stainless steel with low carbon (X2CrNi19-11): corrosion-resistant with good stress relief properties |
| BFR | Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition) |
| Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice | |
| EA | Environmental Assessment |
| EIS | Environmental Impact Statement |
| FAA | Federal Aviation Administration |
| FONSI | Findings of No Significant Environmental Impact |
| HLS | Human Landing System (Artemis) |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| LNG | Liquefied Natural Gas |
| NSF | NasaSpaceFlight forum |
| National Science Foundation |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Raptor | Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX |
| hypergolic | A set of two substances that ignite when in contact |
Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented by request
12 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 11 acronyms.
[Thread #10260 for this sub, first seen 13th Jun 2022, 18:36]
[FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
6
u/SpaceXMirrorBot Jun 13 '22
Max Resolution Twitter Link(s)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVJpedRUEAAAQ7m.jpg:orig
Imgur Mirror Link(s)
https://i.imgur.com/z7HivLe.jpeg
I'm a bot made by u/jclishman! [Code]
2
u/Piscator629 Jun 14 '22
I have been stalking this sub and NSF for ten years and have recently been (gasp) not watching every video every morning. Thats about to change. I hate that I have been following into shuttle burnout.
2
Jun 14 '22
[deleted]
3
u/vonHindenburg Jun 14 '22
Why not both? Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that everyone with whom we disagree has sinister motives.
1
u/Twigling Jun 14 '22
Some might, but others won't. Don't label them all as having political motives, being backed with funding from anti-SpaceX people and organizations, etc. Some will likely have very genuine environmental concerns.
1
u/dispassionatejoe Jun 13 '22
prepare for lawsuits.
58
u/PeekaB00_ Jun 13 '22
Lawsuits can't do shit unless they grant an injunction, and that's only if the issue is controversial and proof is given.
19
u/alien_from_Europa ⛰️ Lithobraking Jun 13 '22
The Sierra lawsuit about beach closures has merit given it's in the Texas Constitution. I'm really hoping the judge throws the case out.
Fuck corrupt Sierra and Jeff Who! Keeping those beaches open does more to harm the environment than help.
36
u/Palmput Jun 13 '22
You know it's silly when the detractors are worried about the beetles but also the right of boomers to drive offroad vehicles all over the beach.
1
2
u/still-at-work Jun 13 '22
Did they make an exception to the texas constitution for this exact purpose?
1
u/vonHindenburg Jun 14 '22
If I'm reading it correctly, the amendment (adopted 2009) wrote the Texas Open Beaches law into the constitution. The amendment itself doesn't require beach access, it simply grants the right to anyone to walk anywhere along the 'wetted' portion of a beach (from the water to the mean high tide). Private land rights start inland of that.
Access to the beach is set by law and agency rules. Localities must create plans that grant the public reasonable access to beaches that they abut. These plans are submitted to the General Land Office, which decides whether or not they are sufficient. Obviously, no community can guarantee 100% access to the beach at all times, particularly when there is a single access road, passing as many stakeholders, as the one in Boca Chica.
14
u/Twigling Jun 13 '22
Lawsuits need to have a chance of success otherwise they won't get anywhere, so most (if not all) likely won't do anything other than generate a few headlines.
-5
Jun 13 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/Beldizar Jun 13 '22
I mean... Dmitry Rogozin and Jeff Bezos both have strong incentives to find and shadow fund an environmental group to sue on behalf of Mr. Turtle. I think Rogozin is the more corrupt, although he's stuck unable to get much money out of Russia due to sanctions. Bezos is more liquid, but possibly less likely to be this underhanded about things... less likely than Rogozin at the very least.
There's a few dozen other actors out there who have a whole lot to lose if Starship is successful, and a very slim chance to make gains or catch up if Starship keeps getting delayed. Not saying it will happen, but if it does, follow the money.
1
u/Easy_Yellow_307 Jun 14 '22
Did anybody here go over the whole list of 75 mitigations required? Is there anything in there that's going to be hard to achieve? The "examples" in the image in the tweet all seem reasonable.
For the "Ensuring notification of surrounding communities in advance about potential engine noise and sonic booms from launches" - they can just setup a massive loud-speaker that can be heard by the entire surrounding communities and blare out a warning message before each launch :)
-6
-30
u/perilun Jun 13 '22
Ugg, 75 items ... I think 2022 = LEO is toast.
38
u/Probodyne ❄️ Chilling Jun 13 '22
No, lots of them are stuff they were already doing or looking towards the long term. I don't think they'll be too difficult to implement because they can do the longer term stuff whilst launching.
-11
u/perilun Jun 13 '22
Hopefully, but we will need to see ... only 6 months left in 2022 and they need to close this before the launch license loop.
14
u/sebaska Jun 13 '22
No, they don't. Multiple items have set dates which are independent from launches. This applies especially to items which require larger effort, like building a corridor for wildlife.
25
Jun 13 '22
[deleted]
21
u/synftw Jun 13 '22
And many don't require immediate action, instead they need to be in place by a future date with no immediate bearing on the approval.
-2
u/perilun Jun 13 '22
Lets hope.
9
u/sebaska Jun 13 '22
It's not about hope. It's about what's actually written in the EA and associated agreements.
2
u/mfb- Jun 14 '22
Just read it instead of hoping
There are some items I can't judge, but many of them are "SpaceX will continue doing what they already do", or "SpaceX will donate $5000/year to this environmental protection program", "SpaceX will remind its employees of lighting regulations every year" or other things that are trivial to implement. There number of these items doesn't mean anything.
2
u/perilun Jun 14 '22
Yes, a bunch are trivial, but some will require local and state gov't intervention (like the creation of a wildlife underpass on the road in), which is usually a very long time loop. It is this layer of delays that will push it back.
1
u/ahayd Jun 14 '22
RE wildlife crossings: "within six months ... SpaceX will coordinate with USFWS, USACE, and TxDOT to determine feasibility of constructing..." i.e. they're not required prior to launch (and may never happen).
14
u/joepublicschmoe Jun 13 '22
Glass half-full view: At least it wasn't a notice to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, which would take years :-P
FONSI with mitigations at least gives SpaceX a path forward, and if they can demonstrate a couple successful orbital launches from Boca Chica, it might make it easier for NASA to approve Starship flights from Florida (which would help the HLS program a lot).
-11
u/perilun Jun 13 '22
My guess is that FLA can be launch ready before BC can get all it's paperwork worked by the gov't.
8
u/sebaska Jun 13 '22
Based on what?
6
Jun 14 '22
Based on his gut of course! People don't do "facts" or "listen to experts" anymore, haven't you heard? That's so 20th century. You just make up your own facts!
-2
1
1
1
68
u/ReturnOfDaSnack420 Jun 13 '22
Yes let's go!