Why Starship’s Second Launch Could Be Delayed To Next Year
For the past few weeks we have been keeping up with the FAA as approval is the only thing standing between Starship and a second launch attempt. While it sounded like a launch in October was likely, new information suggests the launch could still be months away. Specifically, a new statement reveals the FAA has given the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) 135 days to review changes that SpaceX made to determine if they are acceptable.
This is not very good news especially considering the Fish & Wildlife Service was not happy with the results of the first Starship launch. Assuming they use all the time allotted to them, the earliest Starship could launch would be in the middle of December. With SpaceX and the Starship test article, in particular, ready to launch in a few weeks or even days, this will push back the company’s plans.
SpaceX requires a license from the FAA and won’t launch until that agency and other parties such as the FWS are satisfied with all the changes made. Here I will go more in-depth into the new statement, the likelihood of the FWS using all 135 days, what exactly they need to review, and more.
135 Days To Review
Back in August, the FAA sent a letter and draft assessment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting re-initiation of the Endangered Species Act consultation. They clarified that under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, re-initiation of formal consultation is required when a project and its impacts change significantly, we have new information on listed species not previously considered, or a new species is listed. Reinititaion involving major changes in effects analysis or changes in the Service’s biological opinion are addressed fully in a new consultation.
In relation to SpaceX, they were quoted saying, “For SpaceX reinitiation with FAA we are considering the operation of a water deluge system. The Service is currently discussing the project details with FAA staff to understand the extent of the new effects. Once the Service reviews the FAA’s final biological assessment and deems it complete, a consultation will be reinitiated. We have 135 days to issue a final biological opinion. At any time the FAA and the Service can agree to extend that time if for some reason we need to gather further information or new information is presented” they said.
In other words, the first launch of Starship ended up destroying the pad and sending various debris in every direction. The main change addressing this specific problem is the addition of the water-cooled steel plate. The FAA has now passed it off to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if that change will prevent what happened on the last attempt and ensure the wildlife and environment are safe. In regard to the timeframe, the 135-day timeline began at the very beginning of August which would place its end date around December 15th.
With all this information in mind, the question becomes how much time will the FWS take to review and determine if SpaceX is good to go. Over a week ago we saw the list released by SpaceX which showed 57 out of 63 corrective actions that the company had completed. On this list, items C59 through C61 were all the changes to the pad. The three changes included redesigning the launch pad deck, improving assumptions for the new pad deck design, and adding a water cooled pad deck.
All of these changes are not only meant to help the launch itself and protect Starship, but they should also mitigate any impact to the environment. Already it has been exposed to multiple partial thrust 33 engine static fires and held up very well. How well the steel plate holds up will directly affect the damage to surrounding structures and the environment.
The hope is that the Fish and Wildlife Service is thorough but efficient in their review. It’s also possible that NASA or the Department of Defense helps speed up this process by lobbying in SpaceX’s favor. With future projects like Artemis with the Starship lunar lander and other missions, these agencies need SpaceX to continue developing and making progress. This however is by no means guaranteed and at the end of the day these are different agencies. It also doesn’t help that the FWS was not happy with the first launch of Starship.
First Launch Concerns
After Starship’s first launch, environmental groups including the FWS had a lot to say and it wasn’t positive. Multiple environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), saying that the agency didn’t fully analyze the significant environmental and community impacts of the SpaceX launch program. One quote from the document states, “The launching of these rockets results in intense heat, noise, and light that adversely affects surrounding habitat areas and communities, which include designated critical habitat for federally protected species as well as National Wildlife Refuge and State Park lands.”
“It’s vital that we protect life on Earth even as we look to the stars in this modern era of space flight,” Jared Margolis, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a written statement. “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” they said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service which now has control over the launch date said after the first launch, “a 3.5-acre fire started south of the pad site on Boca Chica State Park land”. They also said that “Impacts from the launch include numerous large concrete chunks, stainless steel sheets, metal and other objects hurled thousands of feet away along with a plume cloud of pulverized concrete that deposited material up to 6.5 miles northwest of the pad site.”
Another statement apart of the lawsuit commented, “the environmental impacts of the Starship/Super Heavy Launch Vehicle Program cannot be reduced through mitigation such that FAA can ensure that there will not be significant harm from the launch program, and FAA failed entirely to even address how the proposed mitigation could achieve that level of protection. Therefore, the FAA’s failure to fully consider and address the impacts of the Starship/Super Heavy Launch Vehicle Program through an EIS, and its failure to consider alternatives that would reduce the impacts of the launch program, was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Court should vacate the FONSI and accompanying Record of Decision, and remand with instructions that the FAA perform a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
All this being said, in one final quote after the first launch the FWS said, “At this time, no dead birds or wildlife have been found on refuge-owned or managed lands.” However, while no wildlife was found to be killed, a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, highlighted that post launch delays could have impeded biologists’ ability to conduct a thorough investigation. He went on to say that scavengers may have taken away carcasses before they could get there.
These comments combined with the completion of the water-cooled steel plate and even some testing of the system make it hard to determine when this process will be complete. After the first launch, Dr. Phil Metzger said, “One thing that people probably forget when building launch pads is that there is gas pressure pushing up from under the pad. Dirt has air pressure in it. If rocket exhaust finds a crack, it pressurizes the dirt under the launch pad far more. This can lift concrete slabs. If a slab starts to lift, it creates a bigger crack, and the gas that hits its edge comes to a full stop, converting its kinetic energy to super high pressure. This pressure is right at the crack so it drives even more gas to the space below the slab, lifting it even more. As concrete is eaten away it creates more paths for the gas to get through and under the concrete, and more disruption of the flow converting more kinetic energy into heat and high pressure, accelerating the process. This can run away in an uncontrolled pad failure.
He went on to say that the steel plate should solve this issue. As partially mentioned prior, SpaceX has already somewhat tested this system with a few static fires. The first static fire using this new pad infrastructure was last month on the 6th. During the SpaceX live stream, they commented that the test was partial thrust but didn’t go into specifics. Looking at the footage you can see the water deluge system spraying tons of water well before ignition. Once the engines ignite the Raptor’s thrust pushes down the high water columns and produces a mass amount of steam and large white clouds.
You can also see the flames produced by the engines shooting between the six legs of the orbital launch mount. Drone shots provided by SpaceX after the static fire showed a better view of the pad which looked to be in great condition. Most importantly during the actual test, very little if any actual debris could be seen flying around. The other recent test produced very similar results. This along with the physical pad changes hopefully will give the Fish and Wildlife Service the confidence to approve and get this process moving.
Conclusion
SpaceX has run into a new hurdle as the FWS has 135 days to submit a final biological opinion. They were not happy with the first launch and can extend this timeframe if they need more information. We will have to wait and see how it progresses and the impact it has on the space industry.
