And the Starship-Spawned Lawsuits Begin

It was announced today that several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration, arguing that the FAA improperly carried out the environmental review of SpaceX Starship launches from Boca Chica, Texas.  SpaceX was not listed as a defendant, nor did the suit demand that any future launches be halted. 

The lead plaintiff in the suit is the Center for Biological Diversity, joined by the American Bird Conservancy, Surfrider Foundation, Save RGV and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, Inc., an organization which represents local Native American groups.  The FAA and its acting administrator, Billy Nolen, are listed as defendants.  

The suit argues that the FAA failed to fully assess the impacts on the environment from launches, as well as launch failures, by the Starship/Super Heavy vehicle, clearly motivated by the April 20 integrated flight test.  The suit adds that the FAA also did not take into account extended closures of the highway that leads to both the Starbase site and the neighboring public beach, which the groups argue is counter to Texas state laws that guarantees free access to such beaches.  Since SpaceX avoids road closures on weekends, when traffic is most likely, and seemingly does their best to only close the highway when needed, this seems spurious to me.   

It also argues that the agency did not adequately examine alternatives to launching from Boca Chica, such as launching from the Kennedy Space Center.  That sounds to me like the classic NIMBY argument, to which they added:

“Federal officials should defend vulnerable wildlife and frontline communities, not give a pass to corporate interests that want to use treasured coastal landscapes as a dumping ground for space waste,” said Jared Margolis, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, the lead plaintiff in the suit.

As I've come to expect in these things, the plaintiffs exaggerate in their claims.  For example, they said the April 20th launch ended in “a fiery explosion of the rocket just after liftoff.” In reality, the self-destruct was carried out over four minutes after liftoff, and four minutes matters with a vehicle going, well, as fast as a rocket.  The vehicle was at an altitude of more than 18 miles above the Gulf of Mexico and 25 miles east of the launch complex.  There were no reports of rocket debris falling back on land, and as mentioned last Thursday (4/27), initial surveys by the US Fish and Wildlife service reported there was no evidence that the launch or its debris harmed wildlife. “At this time, no dead birds or wildlife have been found on refuge-owned or managed lands,” the agency said.

Since there was no evidence of wildlife being harmed the complaint focused on the launch hardware. 

The April 20 launch did cause damage to the launch site itself, “spewing chunks of concrete and metal, as well as ash and sand, over a large area,” the complaint stated, including nearby habitats used by protected migratory bird species.
...
A photo included in an American Bird Conservancy statement about the lawsuit showed a nest of eggs that appeared to have been burned, but the organization did not state when the photo was taken or what species of bird the eggs belonged to.

I notice that while they point out the area is used by "protected migratory bird species" they don't say that those birds are there now and therefore susceptible to being injured. 

Since my knowledge of legal process is so small as to approach being negative, while it seems to be a good thing that SpaceX isn't being sued, we know that the courts have a way of tying things up and expanding their control.  It's part of the saying, "the process is the punishment."  As reported yesterday, Musk says the company could be ready to fly again within a couple of months.  The potential holdup is that the FAA will need to sign off on those plans. The license it awarded SpaceX was originally valid for a single launch and would have to be amended by the agency before SpaceX could launch again.

Conceivably, the whole process of going through the courts could start and unfold while SpaceX repairs and rebuilds their "stage zero" hardware, improving it greatly.  Remember, the plaintiffs haven't filed to prevent future launches - although the by withholding the license, the FAA is doing it by default.  

It wouldn't be a Greenie lawsuit without invoking gloom and doom, though.

“At what point do we say ‘Space exploration is great, but we need to save habitats here on Earth as a top priority?’” said Mike Parr, president of the American Bird Conservancy, in the statement announcing the suit. “For the sake of future generations, let’s protect the healthy habitats we have left instead of treating them as wasteplaces for pollution and fuselage.”

Gee, Mr. Parr, the Fish and Wildlife Service's and SpaceX's own reports from the area say the habitat is pretty much unaffected.  All we know that happened was some sand got moved from an original spot to a different spot.  Oh, yeah; it had some concrete dust mixed in.  Is that a big deal?  

A golden moment during liftoff of the Starship flight test, captured by Trevor Mahlmann.  Yes, he says those colors are real.

Special Note: In that last paragraph from Mike Parr of the American Bird Conservatory, he has a sentence that means nothing to me.  “For the sake of future generations, let’s protect the healthy habitats we have left instead of treating them as wasteplaces for pollution and fuselage.”  First, I've never seen the word wasteplaces but I can make that into two words and have it make sense: maybe a waste place is a garbage dump.  Second, I can find no definition for fuselage that makes any sense here.  They all are pretty much the body of an aircraft (rarely, a submarine), derived from the word for "spindle-shaped".  Does that sentence make sense to anybody?  Is he saying a garbage dump for pollution and rocket bodies?