This allows them to
1. Further assess the amount of damage from the first test flight
2. Clean up the debris from the first test flight
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
1. Further assess the amount of damage from the first test flight
2. Clean up the debris from the first test flight
Obviously, but why before the second flight? The only reason for delaying that flight is if the FWS believes that they could find something so significant that SpaceX needs to take steps before launching again because that launch will irreparably harm the refuge.
To me, "same side" means that there are fundamental objectives that are shared, despite having different priorities. The FWS wants to protect the environment. They do that because it benefits humanity. SpaceX wants to launch rockets. They do that because it benefits humanity. On balance, I think the FWS should be a bit more accommodating when considering relative benefit to humanity.
Because FAA asked them for their their signoff on the Flight 1 mishap investigation and for their buy-in on further flights. How can they do that without examining the site?
It's not that the expect to find something or want to stop SpaceX, it's that they have a responsibility and must perform due diligence before sign off (versus rubber stamp). Especially with an environmental lawsuit already active.
I assert that the area has been so disturbed by concrete, rebar, sand and dust that there's nothing to learn from it. The only interesting effects are changes other than the ones caused by that stuff, and I don't believe that's practical unless a lot of time is devoted to it. I don't know the process of the FWS, but "same side" would suggest that they just get on with it.
Most exasperating is the fact that the tweet asserted that cleaning up the debris could take a really long time. That's definitely not something that needs to happen prior to the next launch.
Nikxice
Active Member
Epilogue. SpaceX can only fix what's within their control. 4 months later.....they have been stopped, albeit only temporarily. This time it's an unanticipated debris cleanup site in a seasonal bird nesting area. Demonstrates just how easily environmental issues can cause delays. A bit entangled for now, fortunately SpaceX has been quick to act and take corrective steps to facilitate the launch of Test Flight 2.
This FWS obsession with picking up debris now seems…pointless. It should have been done immediately after FTS-1, as I’m pretty sure that launch so rattled the local avian population that there was no nesting activity for some time.
The reality is that Starship is going to launching so frequently that local habitat disruption is unavoidable. And if Starship is not allowed to launch frequently than SpaceX should move to Florida because it won’t be able to accomplish its objectives at Boca Chica.
So is FWS going to stop launches at Boca during the local nesting season?
The reality is that Starship is going to launching so frequently that local habitat disruption is unavoidable. And if Starship is not allowed to launch frequently than SpaceX should move to Florida because it won’t be able to accomplish its objectives at Boca Chica.
So is FWS going to stop launches at Boca during the local nesting season?
Yeah, I was wrong.
I underestimated how fast SpaceX can fix the pad and get everything back into order, and I overestimated US government bureaucracy's competence. That SpaceX can fix hardware faster and had to wait for regulators to shuffle paperwork is unthinkable, especially for something like Starship which is critical for US national security and prestige, but it's what happened.
BTW I don't think the debris clean up is the hold up, it's the FWS review of the water deluge system.
SpaceX is still planning launches in Florida which is also a nature reserve.
Ideally, future lauches in general will only result in noise pollution which wildlife seems to adapt to versus chunks of pad which can wipe out a nest.
SpaceX already adjusts operations around turtle hatching season.
I doubt there is any useful data on whether or not Boca Chica wildlife adapts to Starship launches (since there have been so few of them) such that reproduction rates are unaffected. But the FWS has publicly expressed its concerns about the impact SpaceX is having on the wildlife refuge.
When the original EIS was done for what we now call Starbase, SpaceX stated that it planned to do a limited number of F9 and FH launches there. Years later SpaceX completely changed their plans and pivoted to Starship. The original EIS is no longer applicable.
“The Boca Chica Tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge is one of the last undeveloped, pristine coastal areas in Texas. About 4,452 hectares or 11,000 acres.” (reference). SpaceX is certainly having a significant impact on it.
I want to see SpaceX be allowed to continue to develop Starship and launch multiple times a month. But there are potential obstacles to reaching that goal.
So that post says "They" are cleaning up the site, and then the poster talked to FWS.
Is it FWS who are performing the cleanup, or are do they proscribe/oversee activity that SpaceX is responsible for conducting?
While I agree in principle, I think the problem with attempting policy and enforcement like that is the subjective definitions involved.
We may feel like SpaceX is working towards the greater good for all of humanity, whereas the next guy thinks that's pie-in-the-sky and/or SpaceX's actual goal is commercial exploitation of LEO to make $$$ with Starship.
So, a gov't agency has to evaluate/regulate actions, as opposed to intent. If you sprayed the nesting area with concrete, doing so because you want to save humanity from the asteroid in 2091, or are wanting to launch your Space Semi so you can charge for cargo, doesn't really enter into it.
Individual folks in the agency may have personal views, but they can only bend things so much before running afoul of the policy and guidelines.... which may have legal mandate behind them...
TunaBug
Member
People keep misreading that tweet. It clearly says Texas Parks & Wildlife. The bulldozer in the picture that is being driven around by the cleanup crew has buckets with the Texas flag in them. This is TPWD that is cleaning up, not U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. USFWS is doing environmental review. Those two organizations probably talk from time to time, but they're not even part of the same government, so I wouldn't assume a whole lot of coordination, nor that their leadership is in sync on many goals.
Last edited:
I didn't even notice that, and the post I was replying to said "more FWS cleanup"... thanks for the clarification.
But I still wonder... why wouldn't SpaceX be on the hook for the cleanup? Or is TP&W doing it because they have the knowledge of the environment, and are going to send SpaceX a bill?
TunaBug
Member
I have no knowledge of that, but I would hope the latter: cleaned up by the experts, but still following the concept of "you break it, you buy it". Pretending for a moment this is a car forum
, if we got in an accident and it was my fault, I pay for the damages but you certainly wouldn't want me to decide who to hire to repair your car.Although I have to imagine that I SpaceX could have hired their own park rangers and cleaned it all up within a month, and for less money.
I wasn't thinking about that either. I just looked at the map and, sure enough, it's the Boca Chica State Park, which overlaps with the Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area - Boca Chica Unit, also a state property. It's kinda funky because the Management Area is entirely on the south side of the road, so the launch site is in both Management Area and State Park, while the construction site is only in the State Park.
State supervision would probably ensure that it wouldn't be all that efficient.
TunaBug
Member
Texas may have similar state laws as Washington State, but the federal laws will work the same way...
A Federal environmental signoff is required for anything with federal involvement. "Involvement" is broad: involvement is obvious if you're building a military base or a federal courthouse. But "involvement" includes anything as basic as a permit or license. (This is all covered under "NEPA", which is the National Environmental Policy Act).
So if you're wondering why the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is doing environmental review for a Texas state park, it's because SpaceX is getting a license from the FAA, so the FAA is federal involvement, and therefore there is a federal environmental review. I think it's probably a good thing that the FAA gets the USFWS to deal with that, instead of the FAA having their own staff of environmental experts, but obviously having multiple bureaucracies involved brings its own delays. And, for all I know, the USFWS might turn around and subcontract that review to Texas Parks & Wildlife, although if that were the case then Elon probably would have ranted about TPWD, too.
In Washington State we also have "SEPA", or the State Environmental Policy Act. That requires state environmental signoff if there is involvement from any state or local government. Again, "involvement" is triggered by anything as simple as a permit. The agencies can bypass things in the interest of efficiency. For example, installing an EVSE in my garage for a house already built is considered obviously not enough impact so somebody (or some computer program) checks off on environmental. But to be clear, some state environmental expert at some point decided that installing an EVSE is trivial enough to not need a full review.
ETA: IANAL.
A Federal environmental signoff is required for anything with federal involvement. "Involvement" is broad: involvement is obvious if you're building a military base or a federal courthouse. But "involvement" includes anything as basic as a permit or license. (This is all covered under "NEPA", which is the National Environmental Policy Act).
So if you're wondering why the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is doing environmental review for a Texas state park, it's because SpaceX is getting a license from the FAA, so the FAA is federal involvement, and therefore there is a federal environmental review. I think it's probably a good thing that the FAA gets the USFWS to deal with that, instead of the FAA having their own staff of environmental experts, but obviously having multiple bureaucracies involved brings its own delays. And, for all I know, the USFWS might turn around and subcontract that review to Texas Parks & Wildlife, although if that were the case then Elon probably would have ranted about TPWD, too.
In Washington State we also have "SEPA", or the State Environmental Policy Act. That requires state environmental signoff if there is involvement from any state or local government. Again, "involvement" is triggered by anything as simple as a permit. The agencies can bypass things in the interest of efficiency. For example, installing an EVSE in my garage for a house already built is considered obviously not enough impact so somebody (or some computer program) checks off on environmental. But to be clear, some state environmental expert at some point decided that installing an EVSE is trivial enough to not need a full review.
ETA: IANAL.
Last edited:
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
B11 has been moved from the Masseys test site back to the MegaBay. Booster and Ship stands have been moved to the launch site. S31 was moved out of the MegaBay into the Rocket Garden and S29 moved into the MegaBay. All that activity is shown in the NSF video below.
So, which vehicles will be used for ITF-3? Stay tuned…
So, which vehicles will be used for ITF-3? Stay tuned…
Similar threads
- Article
