Trouble at the Stairway to the Heavens
As the end of each month since December 2021 approaches, space fans around the world experience a roller coaster of emotions. Checking Twitter obsessively, refreshing various websites, and looking for subtext in Elon Musk’s tweets, they hold their breath for one US agency – the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA - to give the go-ahead for the SpaceX’s Starship, the world’s largest rocket, to continue test-launching at its site Starbase, in Boca Chica, Texas. As monthly delays drag on, many fans wonder what the issue could be. Is it a simple matter of overworked bureaucracy, or is there more at play?
The FAA is conducting an environmental review to ensure that launching the massive rocket with 230 tons of thrust at sea level is environmentally responsible in a wildlife reserve. There has been a long and acronym-filled journey up to this point already, with several players: the FAA, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), the Department of the Interior (DOI), and of course SpaceX.
After a lengthy review, SpaceX received approval in 2014 from the FAA to launch 12 Falcon9/Falcon Heavy rockets from the site per year, according to Parabolic Arc. This approval, in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), covered experimental vehicles too, hence the thrilling yet mostly explosive set of preliminary Starship launches at the site. But with Starship’s 33 engines – compared to Falcon Heavy’s 27 – the FAA felt a new review was in order.
The full EIS can take years, which is why the FAA allows for smaller matters to be considered in the form of a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA). These changes must still be allowed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and any issues must be either small enough to be dealt with after approval, or insignificant. However, after an initial release of the PEA in September 2021, the FWS and NPS, by means of the DOI, sent a letter to the FAA explaining why they do not agree with approving the project, citing uncollected debris, prevention of public access to the area, and prevention of FWS and NPS staff from reaching the wildlife. Interestingly, in the case that the FAA decides a full-blown, years-long EIS is in order, SpaceX’s backup plan is to move operations to Kennedy Space Center, Florida – also located near a wildlife reserve.
In October 2021, the FAA conducted two virtual public hearings, during which over 18,000 comments were received. The administration cites this – along with apparent last-minute changes made to the plans by SpaceX – as reasons for the delays. Additionally, there is speculation (according to TechCrunch and ESG Hound) that SpaceX is planning an onsite power plant as well as a natural gas pipeline to supply the megarockets and the fast-growing site, but this was not listed in the report. The now-regular monthly delays cast doubt on the FAA’s reasoning – surely a government agency can set its own deadlines? And why would they purposefully harm their credibility?
No doubt the process is a bureaucratic nightmare, and those working with it are not to be envied. Also, even if SpaceX gets approval, they must still apply for a launch license, which is by no means guaranteed. Still, this rocket may carry the first humans to Mars, representing our species on another world. Whether the vehicle will symbolize the ingenious or the bureaucratic facets of human nature is yet to be seen.