Special Pages

Monday, May 1, 2023

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? 



21 comments:

  1. Sadly, the Federal, State, or Local judges won't throw these lawsuits for Lack of Merit.

    Good ol' Lawfare.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What do you call an airplane full of lawyers who die in a fiery crash?

    A good start!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Funny, SpaceX has been building and working and launching from Boca Chica for how long and no negative issues have been noted yet?

    Didn't Musk offer to build a new elevated road around Starbase so they wouldn't have to keep closing the roads except possibly at launch?

    So what has the Consolidated Wak-kneed Bunch of Leftist Losers done for The Environment lately? Answer is absolutely nothing.

    SpaceX, on the other hand, is actively working to limit their impact on 'sensitive lands and species' and other blah-blahs.

    This all reminds me of some whackadoodle idiot who was complaining about Starlink polluting the skies, while said whackadoodle was enjoying the fullest of modern life, that being plastics, electricity, the interwebs and so forth.

    Pure stupidity. Rational people should treat them like polar sailors with oars surrounded by seal pups.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Elon is just fortunate that none of the Greenies appear to have taken any Chemistry courses. I have and therefore know the combustion products of methane and oxygen. Without mentioning the specifics - let's just say the byproducts aren't Carbon free. And since the Starship first stage burns several million pounds of methane and oxygen the Greenies are really going to be pissed once they figure out many pounds of the not-carbon free byproduct is formed. Here's a hint it's way more than the poundage of Methane used.
    CP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen mention of it in comments at various places, including some that are nominally pro-spaceflight. Comments like "how many plane flights is that exhaust equal to?" It deserves the answer "plant food and water are bad?"

      Delete
  5. To the question, What have they (the greenies) produced?, the answer is continued memberships at tennis clubs.

    I could elaborate with profiles of directors of various ecoweenie clubs. Trust me, these groups sprout like mushrooms, use friendly media to embark on fund drives, gain a following, solicit donations, and the top yahoos settle back in their chaise lounge, with attorneys looking to establish themselves. Lather, rinse repeat, ad nauseam.

    How do I know? In my mispent youth, I rose up among them. All I wanted was adventure. Such groups hold forth promise and the candle of change. It doesn't take long to see they are nothing but bunco artists.

    Their legal actions are without merit. As said, the process is the punishment, yet with the oft settlement which is a bonus and encouragement. The courts, if they had sand, would ay the least hold in contempt the charlatans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they chose the correct courts, they are likely to win!
      THAT is what "Law Enforcement" and the "Legal" system in this country have become.

      Delete
  6. Questions from a paranoid:
    Which country funds the greenies?
    Which country has the most to gain from the process/punishment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be the US, through some of Soros' NGOs!

      Delete
    2. funny! I was thinking much, much further to the East.

      Delete
    3. It used to be the USSR, then for a while it was various Middle East terrorist countries, then it was the ChiComs and now it's the NWO/WEF whackjobs.

      It sounds like I need to be committed to a padded room with a straight jacket, but sadly, no, this is all too true.

      Delete
    4. The advantage of the WEF is that they put all this crap on the things they publish or make public. Stuff like destroying Western Civilization to stop climate change. I used to joke that the most generous of the greens would let 5% of humanity survive, but it's not a joke anymore.

      Delete
    5. Of course not. They intend to reprise the Holodomr on a GLOBAL basis. You thought that "Hunger Games" was fiction? Hell no! THAT IS THEIR PLAN!!!

      Delete
  7. Washington DC is a “Wasteplace”

    ReplyDelete
  8. Replies
    1. I came so close to linking to that story you wouldn't believe it. My inner grownup takes control too often and said I shouldn't joke in an article like this.

      Delete
    2. I find that beer does a great job of shutting up my inner adult.

      Delete
    3. (also, I love, love that post of yours)

      Delete
  9. I'm surprised that the CBD waited this long to sue... They pretty much sue any large project and any federal permit developing anything.
    We expect them to sue anything approved where I work; we make sure the process is rigorous enough that they don't win.
    Agencies who don't often do NEPA work, like FAA or NASA, on the other hand, often mess up the process and rhat is a big deal.
    I wouldn't be so sure about these lawsuits... Depending on how the FAA analysis looked at protected species and how road and beach closures were handled versus Texas law, there could be issues.
    Ironically, the plaintiffs apparently don't know that most of KSC is a wildlife refuge and has far more protected species than BC.

    ReplyDelete