nuclear-news

SpaceX Wants to Increase Launches at Boca Chica Without a Full Environmental Review

The Hypocrisy of Musk’s Anti-Regulation Stance

Despite Musk’s repeated calls for a smaller government and less regulation, SpaceX’s operations are heavily subsidized by the public,

If you are funded by the public, you should be regulated by the public. Musk’s calls, as the head of the DOGE to dismantle regulation are dangerously misguided.

Lynda Williams, December 12, 2024,  https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/12/12/spacex-wants-to-increase-launches-at-boca-chica-without-a-full-environmental-review/

On April 20, 2023, SpaceX’s Starship—the largest and most powerful rocket ever built—exploded just four minutes after liftoff from its Boca Chica spaceport in Texas. While CEO Elon Musk touted the mission as a success for clearing the launch pad, the environmental and community fallout painted a different picture. Scorched wetlands, debris scattered for miles, and fire damage underscored the risks of high-stakes experiments in a region rich with biodiversity and human history. Now, SpaceX seeks approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to increase its Starship launch frequency or “cadence” to 25 times per year—potentially 75 events annually when accounting for booster and spacecraft recovery attempts—all without completing the rigorous Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required by law for projects of this magnitude. Instead the FAA only requires a weaker form of environmental review, an Environmental Assessments (EA).

Although Musk has accused the FAA of regulatory overreach and declared on Twitter that “humanity will never get to Mars” under such constraints, the reality is that the FAA has granted him every Starship license for he has sought at Boca Chica, never once requiring a full EIS. Now, as the Trump-appointed head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk has the power to push anti-regulation initiatives like Project 2025, which seek to dismantle critical environmental protections. Without swift action to demand accountability, Boca Chica could become not just a testing ground, but a sacrifice zone for Musk’s megalomaniacal pursuit of a world where neither people nor the planet stand in his way. Unless his plans are stopped or slowed, communities, ecosystems, and taxpayers will bear the cost of his unchecked ambitions. Submitting testimony during the FAA’s public comment period is an important way to hold Musk and SpaceX accountable and demand a thorough environmental review with an EIS.

Boca Chica: A Community Under Siege

Boca Chica is far more than a launch site; it is a vital ecosystem and home to diverse communities. The region includes the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, wetlands and endangered species such as the Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle and piping plover. It is also sacred land for the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe, whose members have opposed SpaceX’s industrial encroachment on their ancestral lands. The Tigua Tribe, also known as the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, has argued that the development of the SpaceX launch site at Boca Chica Beach has disrupted their traditional ceremonial practices, which include the use of the beach for sacred rites, thereby violating their First Amendment-protected religious practices. Advocacy groups like Save RGV and the Center for Biological Diversity have stepped forward to challenge SpaceX’s operations, highlighting the disproportionate burden borne by the local environment and residents. Both organizations have filed lawsuits demanding the FAA require a full EIS for SpaceX’s activities at Boca Chica. Save RGV has highlighted violations such as discharging untreated industrial wastewater into surrounding wetlands, while the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit argues that the FAA has violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by allowing SpaceX to operate under insufficient EAs. Ironically, SpaceX is required to do a full EIS for Starship operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) under the U.S. Space Force due to stricter regulations. Yet Boca Chica, with its more fragile ecosystem, is left without the same level of scrutiny. The people of Boca Chica deserve the same protections and oversight as those at KSC.

For local residents, the impact of SpaceX’s operations is impossible to ignore. Frequent road closures disrupt daily life and block access to public beaches. Loud rocket tests and sonic booms disturb both human and wildlife populations, and the April 2023 explosion left debris scattered across miles of sensitive habitat. Meanwhile, Indigenous and local voices remain sidelined in regulatory decisions. The FAA has failed to adequately consult with communities, treating them as collateral damage in Musk’s ambitious pursuit of Mars.

According to a recent NPR story, the situation has worsened due to SpaceX’s wastewater discharges. The company has been found to have violated the Clean Water Act, with both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) levying fines totaling over $150,000. Environmentalists, including local group Save RGV, have pointed out that this disregard for environmental regulations highlights the urgent need for a more comprehensive review of SpaceX’s impact on the region. Local activist Joyce Hamilton stated, “This is potentially really damaging,” emphasizing the significant environmental consequences of SpaceX’s unchecked operations.

Environmental Risks Ignored by the FAA

Although the FAA did complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SpaceX Starbase in 2014, it was only for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets—much smaller and less complex systems. Since then, SpaceX’s operations have expanded dramatically to include the much larger and more powerful Starship/Super Heavy launch system. The FAA has relied on a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and tiered reviews, rather than conducting a full EIS specific to Starship operations. While the FAA completed a full EIS for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches at Cape Canaveral in Florida, it has failed to apply the same standard to Starship’s vastly more powerful and experimental operations in Texas. The two systems are not comparable: Starship’s unique size, power, and planned recovery operations—along with its location in sensitive wetlands near endangered species—demand a new, comprehensive review. The FAA’s reliance on outdated assessments is grossly inadequate and leaves the area unprotected from significant, unexamined risks.

The environmental risks of SpaceX’s operations extend far beyond Boca Chica. The FAA has also permitted SpaceX to blow up Starship in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California, and north of Hawaii. Even in cases where the spacecraft are intended for “soft” landings in the ocean, the explosive charge used to destroy the spacecraft results in significant pollution, including harmful chemicals like rocket fuel residues, other contaminants, and debris that can endanger marine ecosystems. In the Pacific near Hawaii, it is dangerously close to the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, a UNESCO World Heritage Site that is considered sacred to Native Hawaiians. Despite its cultural and ecological significance, no cultural consultation has been conducted for permission to land or conduct operations near this sacred site. The monument is one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, home to over 7,000 species, many of which are endangered. The contamination of these waters from SpaceX’s operations further threatens the delicate biodiversity of this pristine marine environment. These crash landing sites are also in the direct path of humpback whale migration, potentially endangering their migratory patterns and jeopardizing their fragile populations.

In April 2023, SpaceX’s experimental launch license included a plan for Starship to crash into the Pacific Ocean just 62 miles north of Kauai. The EA claimed that fewer than one marine mammal would be harmed during the explosion, despite the spacecraft’s 100-metric-ton mass and the force of 14 tons of rocket fuel detonating on impact. The FAA’s “Finding of No Significant Impact” or FONSI ignored the area’s cultural significance and failed to consult with Hawaiian residents or agencies such as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), which co-manages the marine sanctuary. Local experts raised concerns that even minor deviations from SpaceX’s “nominal” trajectory could cause debris fields to drift into the protected waters of Papahānaumokuākea.

Why the Current Reviews for Starship Are Totally Outdated and Inaccessible

Right now, SpaceX’s licenses for launching Starship at Boca Chica are based on a 2022 PEA. But here’s the catch: that review relies on the even older EIS from 2014 which wasn’t written for Starship at all—it was written for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, which are much smaller and much less complicated. In fact, Starship isn’t even mentioned in the 2014 EIS.

The problem is simple: Starship is nearly twice the size of Falcon 9, ten times heavier, and far more powerful, with untested systems like mid-air recovery and deluge cooling that bring entirely new risks. While the 2014 EIS assumed far fewer launches, SpaceX now proposes up to 25 per year, with vastly greater environmental damage and disruption. The FAA’s reliance on this outdated framework ignores these realities and creates a confusing web of layered reviews that fail to provide a clear picture for the public or sufficient protection for local communities and ecosystems. It’s time to stop building on broken foundations and require a full, updated EIS that reflects the true scope of Starship’s operations.

Furthermore, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) which oversees NEPA have regulatins that include requirements for public participation and clear communication. The current FAA Revised Draft EA spans 75 pages and refers to over a dozen additional technical documents critical to understanding the full scope of SpaceX’s proposed operations. These referenced materials total about 1,200 pages, requiring over 80 hours to read and analyze. Written in dense, jargon-heavy language, the EA and its supporting documents are nearly incomprehensible to the layperson, effectively excluding the public from meaningful participation. NEPA mandates that environmental reviews be accessible and transparent, yet the FAA has failed to provide simplified summaries or plain-language guides. Finding the place to submit comments and testimony is ridiculously complicated. This inaccessibility undermines public input and compliance with NEPA’s core purpose, leaving communities without the tools to adequately challenge or engage with the review process. The FAA must extend the public comment period and provide simpler, more accessible documents so communities can meaningfully engage.

The Hypocrisy of Musk’s Anti-Regulation Stance

Despite Musk’s repeated calls for a smaller government and less regulation, SpaceX’s operations are heavily subsidized by the public, having received over $5 billion in federal funding for projects ranging from national security launches to satellite deployments. On top of this, SpaceX benefits from indemnities under the Commercial Space Launch Act, which caps its liability for catastrophic accidents at $500 million, effectively shifting much of the financial risk to taxpayers. As SpaceX pushes for an accelerated launch cadence, the potential for accidents—and the resulting financial burden on the public—grows. This stark contradiction highlights how Musk’s anti-regulation rhetoric is at odds with the significant taxpayer dollars and protections that sustain his company.

In addition to federal subsidies, SpaceX also benefits from generous incentives provided by the state of Texas and the city of Brownsville. Texas has offered tax breaks, land leases, and infrastructure support to encourage SpaceX’s development of the Boca Chica launch site. Brownsville, a city with one of the lowest median incomes in the U.S., has also provided SpaceX with significant tax exemptions and financial incentives to attract the company to the region. These subsidies not only reduce SpaceX’s operating costs but also shift the financial burden onto Texas taxpayers and the local community. While Musk criticizes government regulation, his company is essentially a recipient of state and local welfare, further illustrating the gap between his public persona and the reality of SpaceX’s reliance on public funds.

If you are funded by the public, you should be regulated by the public. Musk’s calls, as the head of the DOGE to dismantle regulation are dangerously misguided. Those who benefit from public money and protections must be held accountable to the same level of oversight that ensures the safety, health, and well-being of the public they rely on. The people who are regulated should not be in control of deregulation. Its a conflict of interenst.

Musk’s Mars Myth and Planetary Risks

Musk’s plan to make humanity a “multiplanetary species” reflects a childish understanding of the challenges we face on Earth. His rush to colonize Mars, driven by a naive belief that it offers a backup for human survival, overlooks the fact that Mars is a hostile, uninhabitable world that couldn’t sustain a colony without Earth’s support and resources. Using his X platform, Musk is pushing the Mars survival myth to convince the public to fund his childish dream of conquering the “final frontier” of space on the taxpayer dime, all while demanding the dismantling of public agencies that protect people and the planet. Instead of risking Earth’s biosphere for an uncertain future on Mars, we should focus on safeguarding our home planet.

In addition to SpaceX, dozens of private companies and countries are ramping up rocket launches to deploy satellites, explore the moon, and mine asteroids. With thousands of launches expected annually in the coming years, the environmental impact—particularly on the ionosphere—could be catastrophic. The ionosphere plays a critical role in protecting Earth from harmful radiation from the sun and space, and the long-term consequences of rocket chemicals on this protective layer are still not fully understood. These risks have yet to be adequately addressed in the environmental review process, either domestically or globally.

We must act before the unregulated rush to space spirals out of control, leading to catastrophic unintended consequences damaging the ionosphere and the ecosystems that sustain life on Earth. Musk’s goal of making humanity “multiplanetary” could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the push for Mars colonization leads to the destruction of Earth’s biosphere. The future of our planet is at stake, and yet this critical issue is being ignored. There is no Planet B, and it certainly isn’t Mars.

Public Input: A Critical Opportunity

Public comments are due by January 17, 2025. You don’t have to be an expert to submit comments and it doesn’t take much time. You can read the EA here and submit comments electronically, by mail or in person or on zoom here. Here is a sample testimony you are free to use or modify:

“I am submitting this testimony to urge the FAA to require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for SpaceX’s Starship operations at Boca Chica. The current Revised Environmental Assessment (EA) is based on a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) from 2022, which in turn relies on a 2014 EIS written for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy—rockets that are far smaller and less complex than Starship. This outdated and insufficient review fails to account for the unique risks posed by Starship, including its size, power, experimental systems, and increased launch frequency. A full EIS is critical to assess the environmental, safety, and community impacts of this project and ensure transparency and accountability. Additionally, the FAA must extend the public comment period and provide simpler, more accessible documents so communities can meaningfully engage. Other impacted communities, such as Hawaii, where proposed crash sites are located, must also be included in the review process.”

Submitting comments to the FAA is important, but it’s not enough. We must take it a step further and push the Senate, which oversees the FAA, to hold them accountable. The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, specifically its Subcommittee on Space and Science, oversees the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, which regulates commercial spaceflight. Progressives on this subcommittee, such as Senators Edward Markey (D-MA) and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), have stood for transparency and environmental protections. Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), a member of the full committee, has also championed science-backed policy. It’s critical to contact these lawmakers and demand they pressure the FAA to require a full EIS and ensure NEPA reviews are accessible to the public. We must not allow the billionaire space cowboys to turn Earth into a sacrifice zone for their ego trips to Mars.

Lynda Williams is a physicist and environmental activist living in Hawaii. She can be found at scientainment.com and on Bluesky @lyndalovon.bsky.social

December 18, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Reference, space travel, USA | Leave a comment