You will recall that soon after Starship's Flight Test 1, 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.
Word came out on Friday that the original complainants had filed a supplemental legal claim against the agencies in Federal court.
In the supplemental complaint, the groups — Center for Biological Diversity, American Bird Conservancy, Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, Inc., Save RGV and Surfrider Foundation — allege the FAA failed to properly analyze the environmental impacts of the first Starship launch before issuing a revised license for the second launch that took place Nov. 18.
...
The environmental groups argue that both FAA and FWS fell short of what was required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to review the environmental impacts of Starship launches. The FAA, it stated in the complaint, “once again failed to take the requisite ‘hard look’ at the impacts of the Starship/Superheavy launch program through a supplemental NEPA analysis.”
The Fish and Wildlife Service emphasized the new water deluge system installed under the Orbital Launch Mount and intended to prevent the damage to the OLM that the first test caused. FWS concluded that the deluge system wouldn't produce significant environmental changes and it appears they got that correct, based on what we've seen of the repairs since the second flight test.
The supplemental complaint alleged that the FAA, “once again failed to take the requisite ‘hard look’ at the impacts of the Starship/Superheavy launch program through a supplemental NEPA analysis.”
“Failing to do an in-depth environmental review and letting SpaceX keep launching the world’s largest rockets that repeatedly explode shows a shocking disregard for wildlife and communities,” Jared Margolis, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement about the new complaint. “SpaceX should not be given free rein to use this amazing area as a sacrifice zone.”
Such inflammatory language hides the fact that they're not presenting any
solid data showing that "this amazing area" was damaged at all. It seems
hard to say that the booster explosion miles offshore of the launch site and
miles up over open water or the Starship explosion hundreds of miles farther
down range and miles higher could have damaged anything there in Texas.
It's frankly hard to imagine it could cause damage anywhere along the
vehicle's track unless a large chunk of debris landed on a boat.
As with Flight Test 1, the FAA is overseeing a SpaceX-led investigation into the second Starship launch Nov. 18.
Both the Super Heavy booster and Starship upper stage were destroyed during the flight, with Super Heavy exploding shortly after stage separation and the flight termination system on Starship triggered near the end of the powered phase of flight. Neither SpaceX nor the FAA have provided technical updates on the status of that investigation, including what caused the destruction of both vehicles.
An FAA spokesman didn't provide details but said “we’re moving ahead pretty well” on the investigation. Completion of this investigation is a necessary step toward the license required for the next flight test.
Starship and SuperHeavy lifting of for IFT 2 on November 18th. Credit: Trevor Mahlmann for SpaceNews
NEPA is cancer and should be repealed.
ReplyDeleteI had written a comment that upon reading it, I realized it too bitter to publish. Goodnight and may you be blessed this holiday.
ReplyDeleteJust like we need "loser pays" in our legal system, you should have "loser shuts up and goes away" for all these lawfare suits.
ReplyDeleteHow to improve the Environment by Beans:
ReplyDeleteDig a big hole, or find a big hole that's gotten dug. Get a Morbark 3000. Use it to fill the hole with environmentalists. Wait a year or two. Plant trees and grass. There you go. Environment fixed. World much nicer. And quieter. And you can drive down streets without any envirowhackadoodles getting in the way.
May require periodic MorBarking. Eventually there will be so few only a standard pull-behind shredder will take care of local outbreaks.
Unless and until you deal with those FUNDING the "environmentalists", nothing will change. They will simply fund the NEXT batch of watermelons!
DeleteWho do you think owns St, Greta? SOROS!
That won't compost well, too much protein. Mix in a good truckload of cow shit and it'll work better.
DeleteEnvironmentalists have no power unless people vote legislators into power to support them, and you obey the legislators. Hitler would have remained just some kook ranting in a bar, if it weren't for the 90% of voters who approved making him dictator. Same thing for Soros.
DeleteA pretty standard trope in the 50's and 60's was there were two groups of people: the people that wanted to advance and see the stars and the people that were not only completely fine not doing that, but actively sought ways to keep the first group from doing anything at all. Perhaps things have not changed all that much.
ReplyDeleteplease Please PLEASE tell me the activists are going to stand in front of the rocket on the next launch in order to stop it!!!
ReplyDeleteCall it my Christmas wish to Santa...
To adhere to their principals, the activists must stand directly beneath it, not in front of it. We must not pollute the pristine wildlife area with singed body parts.
ReplyDeleteI'm just gonna say, the tail number, N2800M reserved for Boomsupersonic will be purged next month. Give yerself a post-Christmas gift and reserve to yerself.
ReplyDelete