Tag: FAA

FAA releases more information about SpaceX’s proposed Starfall recoverable capsule

8:41 am

Back in July 2025 it was reported that SpaceX was developing its own recoverable capsule design — dubbed Starfall and comparable in concept to Varda’s capsules.

Under the plan, internally called Starfall, SpaceX’s Starship rocket would bring products such as pharmaceutical components to space in small, uncrewed capsules, said one of the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter is confidential.

Starship would then deploy the capsules, which would spend time in orbit before reentering the atmosphere, where they could be recovered back on Earth, the person added.

Starfall concept

The FAA has now released an environmental assessment of the design that provides more information, including the first proposed demo missions. The graphic to the right is from that assessment, and provides a simplified illustration of the capsule’s size and shape.

The FAA decision approves two reentries of Starfall capsules in the Pacific Ocean about 1,300 kilometers off the coasts of California and Mexico. The capsules would launch on either Falcon 9 or Starship vehicles, going into orbit before reentry or flying a direct suborbital trajectory to the landing zone.

The capsules are disk-shaped, 0.75 meters tall and 3.1 meters in diameter at the top. The capsules have cold-gas attitude control thrusters but no other propulsion system and do not have the ability to deorbit on their own. The vehicle consists of two parts: a top plate and a heat shield. The top plate is an aluminum structure partially wrapped in an unspecified thermal protection material and weighs 1,400 kilograms. The heat shield is a carbon-fiber structure covered in thermal protection material and also contains nitrogen gas bottles used for the thrusters and other systems. It weighs about 700 kilograms.

The vehicle would slow its descent using a single main parachute, along with pilot and drogue parachutes, with the heat shield jettisoned before splashdown. The FAA documents state that SpaceX will use boats to recover all elements of the spacecraft after splashdown.

No timeline for these tests was provided. It appears SpaceX wants to manufacture and fly these in large numbers, using Starship. It also appears it would be in direct competition with Varda and a host of other startups that have raised capital and are developing their own capsules. In the U.S. Varda, Inversion Space, and Sierra Space have raised money for doing such orbital work. In Europe, The Exploration Company in France, Atmos in Germany, PLD in Spain, Genesis in Croatia, and Space Cargo in Luxembourg have also raised capital. So far, Varda is the only company to successfully fly capsules.

Because all would be depended on other rocket companies to launch their capsules, including SpaceX, Starfall raises some legitimate antitrust questions. SpaceX’s ability to undercut its rivals in this area, as both capsule and rocket provider, would be unmatched, and could easily wipe out all competition.

The competitive need for more launch providers at low cost is becoming increasingly critical.

10 comments

FAA grounds Starship/Superheavy pending completion of SpaceX’s investigation

8:01 am

According to an announcement yesterday by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Starship and Superheavy are presently grounded pending the completion of SpaceX’s investigation of the engine failures in the Superheavy booster.

After a thorough assessment of the operation, the FAA has determined the May 22 SpaceX Starship Flight 12 launch resulted in a mishap. The mishap involved the Super Heavy booster as it flew back to the Gulf of America after stage separation. There are no reports of public injury or damage to public property. 

The FAA is requiring SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation. The FAA will oversee the SpaceX-led investigation, be involved in every step of the process, and approve SpaceX’s final report, including any corrective actions.

The propaganda press will make of more this than it should. Based on the FAA’s procedures since Trump took over from Biden, the agency is not going to slow things down. It mostly just observes closely the investigation after any mishap, and as soon as the company is itself satisfied with the solution and has instigated its planned fixes, the FAA issues its stamp of approval and allows flights to proceed immediately.

For example, it acted in this manner for the Starship/Superheavy tests in 2025. It also did the same for Blue Origin in its investigation of its recent New Glenn failure. In both cases there were no delays waiting for the agency to retype the company’s conclusions. The approval was immediate. Expect the same now.

3 comments

FAA to begin taxing launches by payload weight

8:44 am

FAA logo

As per the provisions in last year’s reconciliation budget bill (dubbed for propaganda reasons by Trump the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”), the FAA was authorized to begin charging fees (another word for taxes) on the mass of each launch payload. The agency last week announced it is now doing so.

More information here.

For 2026, that fee is 25 cents per pound of payload, capped at $30,000 per launch or reentry. The fees would fund work on improving integration of launches and reentries into the national airspace system directed by an FAA reauthorization act in 2024.

Though the amount per launch is small compared to the cost of the launch itself, this new tax is expected to provide ample funds to allow the FAA to expand its licensing operations to meet the growing launch industry. The real challenge will be whether the bureaucracy can stay focused on its main task of serving the public, or use the money to build a new bureaucratic empire aimed at garnering power over the private sector. History suggests we should be pessimistic, and expect the latter.

In the meantime, rocket companies are simply going to apply this new tax to the makers of their payloads, who in turn will have their customers pay the cost.

30 comments

Sweden’s space agency signs cooperative licensing agreement with the FAA

11:40 am

Proposed or active spaceports in North Europe
Proposed or active spaceports in North Europe

The Swedish Space Agency has signed a cooperative licensing agreement with the FAA to help facilitate orbital launches by American rocket companies from its Esrange spaceport.

While the Esrange Space Centre has been in operation since the 1960s, it has strictly been used for suborbital flights. In 2023, SSC Space, the commercial operator of the facility, inaugurated a new launch complex at Esrange to support orbital missions. While the facility has yet to host a launch, South Korea’s Perigee Aerospace and US launch provider Firefly Aerospace have both committed to using it in the future.

Sweden’s efforts to enable US rocket launches from Esrange took another step forward on 15 April 2026, as the Swedish National Space Agency signed an agreement with the FAA to coordinate the licensing of those missions. The agreement builds on a 2025 Technology Safeguards Agreement between the two countries, which laid the groundwork for US launch providers to export what the US government considers “advanced space technology” to Sweden.

Esrange’s interior location remains a problem, however. Any orbital launch is going to have to fly over other countries, either Finland, Russia, or Norway, and it remains unclear whether those countries will approve. Norway has already expressed opposition.

0 comments

FAA confirms “no significant impact” to environment for Starship/Superheavy at Boca Chica

9:42 am

The FAA today released [pdf] its final environmental assessment reviewing SpaceX’s request to expand operations of Starship/Superheavy at Boca Chica, confirming that it has determined there will be “no significant impact” to environment.

The 2022 PEA and April 2025 Tiered EA examined the potential for significant environmental impacts from Starship-Super Heavy launch operations at the Boca Chica Launch Site and defined the regulatory setting for impacts associated with Starship-Super Heavy. The areas evaluated for environmental impacts in this Tiered EA include noise and noise‐compatible land use; aviation emissions and air quality; hazardous materials, solid waste, and pollution prevention; and socioeconomics. In each of these areas, the FAA has concluded that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Action.

The approval will allow SpaceX to do 25 launches per year (three of which are at night). The approval also appears to lay the groundwork for bringing Superheavy back not only to Boca Chica, but to Florida. It also lays the groundwork for bringing Starship back to Boca Chica after completing an orbital flight, to be caught by the tower chopsticks.

6 comments

FAA moves forward on its environmental assessment of SpaceX’s proposal to launch Starship/Superheavy from Kennedy Space Center

12:01 pm

Proposed Starship/Superheavy launchsites at Kennedy and Cape Canaveral
Proposed Starship/Superheavy launchsites at
Kennedy (LC-39A) and Cape Canaveral (SLC-37)

While NASA has already determined that Starship/Superheavy launches from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida will have no significant impact on the environment, the FAA has not yet completed its own environmental impact statement.

Last week it released a preliminary summary [pdf] of its impact statement, revealing that it has reduced its final options to either approving SpaceX’s request to do as many as 44 launches per year, or to reject any changes — the “no action alternative” — which would block all Starship/Superheavy launches at Kennedy.

The overall tone of this summary suggests strongly that the FAA is almost certainly going to approve SpaceX’s request, allowing as many as 44 launches per year from launchpad LC-39A, as shown on the map to the right. As it notes in describing the “no action alternative”:

SpaceX would not launch Starship-Super Heavy from LC-39A. NASA would not develop, implement, or approve agreements with SpaceX associated with Starship-Super Heavy operations at LC-39A. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need. [emphasis mine]

In other words, rejecting SpaceX’s request would not fulfill the FAA’s obligation to serve the public. It would also not fulfill the FAA’s obligation to serve a fellow government agency, NASA, which has already approved this SpaceX request in a 2019 environmental assessment.

It appears a final decision by the FAA is imminent. A nice summary of this FAA document can be found here, which notes that if approved, it will give SpaceX license approval to launch Starship/Superheavy as much as 146 times per year, from its launchpads at Boca Chica, Kennedy, and Cape Canaveral. Note too that this FAA assessment is independent of the Air Force’s environment assessment, which has already approved 76 launches per year at the SLC-37 launchpad.

6 comments

FAA lifts airline and rocket launch restrictions

11:34 pm

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) earlier today announced it is lifting the restrictions on airline traffic as well as rocket launch limitations imposed due to the government shutdown.

The change will go into effect 6 am (local time) on November 17, 2025.

The restrictions had limited flights out of 40 major airports across the country. Normal flight schedules should resume tomorrow. For rockets, this means launches can once again take place at any time of the day. The restrictions had placed a curfew on any launches from 6 am to 10 pm local time.

The press release included this intriguing tidbit:

The FAA is aware of reports of non-compliance by carriers over the course of the emergency order. The agency is reviewing and assessing enforcement options.

If the FAA does anything to penalize any airline or rocket company it would be a very typical example of government pettiness. But then, I have learned never to expect anything better from bureaucracies.

0 comments

FAA issues a launch curfew due to the shutdown

10:31 pm

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today issued a launch curfew that will ban all launches and re-entries from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm local time.

Accordingly, with respect to commercial space launches and reentries, under the authority provided to the FAA Administrator by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40103, 40113, and 46105(c), and authority delegated to the FAA Administrator under 51 U.S.C. § 50909(a), it is hereby ordered that, beginning at 6:00 a.m. EST on November 10, 2025, and until this Order is cancelled, Commercial space launches and reentries will only be permitted between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. local time.

It appears the curfew has been imposed because of a shortage of air traffic controllers due to the government shutdown. Each launch needs to be coordinated with air traffic control, and it appears the FAA won’t have the people it needs to do this during the day. This is part of the overall 10% reduction in flights at forty of the busiest airports nationwide imposed at the same time, also due to the shutdown.

This order is going to probably impact planned launches by SpaceX, Rocket Lab, and others, with SpaceX likely affected the most.

Note: I got the curfew times backwards initially, and was corrected by my readers. Post is now correct.

14 comments

FAA releases proposed revisions to environmental assessment at Boca Chica to accomodate full orbital testing and return of both Superheavy and Starship

12:33 pm

The planned return trajectories for both Superheavy and Starship
The planned return trajectories for both
Superheavy and Starship

The FAA today released [pdf] a new draft of the environmental assessment of SpaceX’s Superheavy/Starship operations at Boca Chica that will allow for full orbital flights as well as for both to return to that launchpad.

The two maps to the right show the two planned return paths for Superheavy (top) and Starship (bottom) as it comes back from orbit. In both cases the ships will return to Boca Chica to be caught by tower chopsticks. The reassessment analyzed the impacts of these trajectories, including its impact on aviation traffic, and concluded the proposal was acceptable. From its conclusion:

The 2022 PEA [Programmatic Environmental Assessment] and April 2025 Tiered EA [environmental assessment] examined the potential for significant environmental impacts from Starship-Super Heavy launch operations at the Boca Chica Launch Site and defined the regulatory setting for impacts associated with Starship-Super Heavy. The areas evaluated for environmental impacts in this Tiered EA include aviation emissions and air quality; noise and noise-compatible land use; hazardous materials; and socioeconomics. In each of these areas, the FAA has concluded that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. [emphasis mine]

This approval is still only a draft. It must go through a public comment period, ending October 20, 2025. There will also be a virtual public meeting on October 7, 2025. Information about submitting comments or participating in that virtual meeting can be found here.

Such meetings are likely to see the leftist anti-Musk crowd come out in droves, screeching how we are all gonna die if these launches are allowed. The FAA will nod its head, and then ignore the Chicken Littles and approve this plan.

The plan itself tells us that SpaceX is definitely gearing up the first orbital flights of Starship next year, along with the first attempts to catch it with the tower chopsticks.

2 comments

The causes behind the launch failure of Firefly’s Alpha rocket in April

9:20 am

In late August the FAA and Firefly completed the investigation into the launch failure of Firefly’s Alpha rocket in April, clearing the way for the company to resume launches.

At the time however this approval was reported here merely as a quick link on X. The company however also published its conclusions at that time which explained the cause of the failure. For completeness I post that now, describing what happened just after the first stage separated from the second stage.

Alpha’s first stage then experienced a rupture milliseconds after stage separation. The pressure wave hit Alpha’s second stage, leading to the loss of the engine’s nozzle extension and substantially reducing stage two thrust. The second stage was able to recover attitude control and continued to ascend to an altitude of 320 km until running out of propellant. The vehicle was three seconds short of achieving orbital velocity and five seconds short of the target payload deployment orbit.

The ground-based video, onboard telemetry, post-flight empirical testing and Computational Fluid Dynamics analysis corroborated excessive heat from Plume Induced Flow Separation as the most probable root cause of the mishap. Alpha Flight 6 flew a higher angle of attack than prior missions. Plume-induced flow separation intensified heat on the leeward side reducing structural margins, causing the booster to rupture from stage separation induced loads.

Fortunately, the corrective actions are straight forward: increase thermal protection system thickness on Stage 1 and reduce angle of attack during key phases of the flight. Corrective actions have already been implemented.

The company expects to resume flights in the very near future, probably before the end of 2025.

0 comments

Court throws out environmental lawsuit against SpaceX, FAA, and Starship/Superheavy

8:45 am

The federal district court judge for the District of Columbia yesterday dismissed entirely the environmental lawsuit that had been filed against SpaceX and the FAA by anti-Musk activists following the first orbital test launch of Starship/Superheavy.

More details here. The lawsuit itself [pdf] was filed in 2023, claiming that the FAA’s environmental assessment of SpaceX’s activities at Boca Chica would do no harm to the environment were wrong.

SpaceX activities authorized in the FONSI/ROD [the environmental reassessment issued last year] have and will adversely affect the surrounding wildlife habitat and communities. In addition to harm from construction activities and increased vehicle traffic, rocket launches result in intense heat, noise, and light pollution. Furthermore, the rocket launches and testing result in explosions which spread debris across surrounding habitat and cause brush/forest fires — including one that recently burned 68 acres of adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. The FAA calls these explosions “anomalies,” but in fact they occur frequently, with at least 8 over the past 5 years. FAA acknowledged that many more such “anomalies” are expected over the next 5 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has found that prior SpaceX rocket explosions harmed protected wildlife and designated habitat in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

At the time I noted this:

In other words, rockets and launch sites should never be placed inside wildlife refuges, because such activity is detrimental to wildlife.

A more false statement cannot be made. Under this conclusion the launch facilities at Cape Canaveral, which have been operating in the middle of a wildlife refuge now for more than six decades, should be shut down immediately. All the wildlife there must certainly be dead!

We have almost three-quarters of a century of empirical data in both Florida and California that spaceports are clearly beneficial to wildlife, because they actually create the refuge by reserving large areas where development cannot occur. This court decision merely confirms reality, something it appears increasingly the left doesn’t have much grasp of.

6 comments

SpaceX gets FAA approval to double its annual launches from Cape Canaveral

9:02 am

After several years of paperwork, the FAA yesterday approved SpaceX’s request to double its launch rate at the Space Force’s Cape Canaveral spaceport.

In addition to the annual launch increase from 50 launches to up to 120, the Federal Aviation Administration’s environmental review also approved a new on-site landing zone that could accommodate up to 34 booster landings per year. These boosters are the reusable first-stage portions of Falcon 9 rockets that SpaceX lands and refurbishes for future flights.

The review, finalized on Wednesday, found what’s known as a “Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact,” meaning the proposed changes “would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment” under federal law, with impacts reduced by specific protective measures. [emphasis mine]

The highlighted words illustrate the absurdity of these environmental reviews. We know without doubt and without any major review that rocket launches do no harm to the environment or wildlife. We have seven decades of data in Florida proving it.

According to the article both the FAA and the Space Force still need to issue further approvals before this request can go forward. Expect the Space Force to agree, without much bother. The FAA needs to amend SpaceX’s launch licenses, and this should also happen relatively quick, especially with Trump as president.

1 comment

Oh by the way, the FAA has approved the August 24th launch of Starship/Superheavy

12:07 pm

Increasingly irrelevant in the right places
Increasingly irrelevant in the right places

My headline reflects the sense of utter irrelevance of the FAA in announcing its approval of the launch licence for the tenth test launch of Starship/Superheavy (now scheduled for August 24, 2025) as well as its “closing” of its “investigation” into the failure during test flight nine.

As per the FAA in its statement, “There are no reports of public injury or damage to public property. The FAA oversaw and accepted the findings of the SpaceX-led investigation. The final mishap report cites the probable root cause for the loss of the Starship vehicle as a failure of a fuel component. SpaceX identified corrective actions to prevent a reoccurrence of the event.”

The FAA did not “oversee” SpaceX’s investigation. No one at the FAA has the slightest qualifications for doing so. All its bureaucrats did is sit in and watch, and when SpaceX’s engineers completed their work and “identified corrective actions,” the FAA paper-pushers pushed some paper to rubber stamp those conclusions.

Moreover, unlike during the Biden administration, the FAA did not waste any time or money retyping the SpaceX investigation. They simply approved it as is, and issued the launch license. And they apparently instantly agreed to the schedule proposed by SpaceX. In fact, it appears almost as if SpaceX announced the date before the FAA announced the license approval.

Elections matter. And they would matter less if we had had the sense in the past century to not cede so much power to an unelected federal bureaucracy that is really unfit to do the work we gave them. The goal now should be to take that power away from them, and to do it as quickly as it is humanely possible.

It appears at least when it comes to FAA launch licenses, Trump has made some significant progress towards this goal.

8 comments

Trump administration moving to reduce rocket launch environmental regulations

9:16 am

FAA logo

According to a draft executive order that has not yet been released, the Trump administration is planning a major revision of the FAA’s environmental and launch regulations that has badly impacted rocket companies, with the goal of streamlining licensing.

The order would give Trump even more direct control over the space industry’s chief regulator by turning the civil servant position leading the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation into a political appointment. The last head of the office and two other top officials recently took voluntary separation offers.

The order would also create a new adviser to the transportation secretary to shepherd in deregulation of the space industry.

…The draft order also seeks to restrict the authority of state coastal officials who have challenged commercial launch companies like SpaceX, documents show. It could lead to federal officials interfering with state efforts to enforce their environmental rules when they conflict with the construction or operation of spaceports.

The order would also have the secretary of transportation ‘reevaluate, amend, or rescind’ sections of Part 450, the FAA licensing regulations that it imposed during the Biden administration that was supposed to streamline licensing but ended up adding considerable new red tape which contributed significantly to squelching the new launch industry that had popped up during the first Trump term.

As is usual for the propaganda press, the article at the link implies that these changes would result in horrible environmental consequences as well as increased safety risks to the public. What it does not note is that these changes appear to simply return the regulatory framework back to what existed prior to the Biden administration, a framework that had existed for more than a half century previously. The environment and public safety did just fine under those more freedom-oriented rules. I am sure both will do just fine again.

This order might also help explain Trump’s decision to withdraw Jared Isaacman as NASA administrator and appoint Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy as interim NASA administrator. The order puts much of this work on his head, and having him in charge of NASA will likely aid that work.

2 comments

Cruz’s pork/budget bill also adds new taxes to rocket launches

10:08 am

Ted Cruz, a typical
Ted Cruz, a typical “tax-and-spend” Republican

It appears the Senate appropriations bill that was put forth last week by senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), head of the Senate’s commerce committee, was not simply filled with pork, it also establishes a new tax structure for rocket launches, with the money supposedly allocated to pay for the increased red tape required by the FAA.

Cruz’s section of the Senate reconciliation bill calls for the FAA to charge commercial space companies per pound of payload mass, beginning with 25 cents per pound in 2026 and increasing to $1.50 per pound in 2033. Subsequent fee rates would change based on inflation. The overall fee per launch or entry would be capped at $30,000 in 2026, increasing to $200,000 in 2033, and then adjusted to keep pace with inflation.

You can read the bill here [pdf].

In a statement by Cruz during a senate hearing last week, he justified these new taxes as follows:
» Read more

13 comments

In demanding an investigation by SpaceX into the Starship failure on this week’s test flight, the FAA puffs up its chest and pounds it like a chimpanzee

11:44 am

My heart be still: As reported in numerous propaganda media outlets today, the FAA has announced that it is demanding an investigation by SpaceX into the fuel leaks that caused Starship to tumble and then burn up in an uncontrolled manner as it came down in its designated landing zone in the Indian Ocean. From the FAA’s statement:

The FAA is requiring SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation for the Starship Flight 9 mission that launched on May 27 from Starbase, Texas. All Starship vehicle and Super Heavy booster debris landed within the designated hazard areas. There are no reports of public injury or damage to public property. The mishap investigation is focused only on the loss of the Starship vehicle which did not complete its launch or reentry as planned.

This FAA demand for an investigation is meaningless and not news, because SpaceX doesn’t need the FAA to require it. Does anything think SpaceX wasn’t going to do an investigation without an order from the FAA?

Nor will the FAA’s demand change anything. Once SpaceX completes and submits its investigation, the FAA will approve it immediately. No one at the FAA is qualified to question it. The FAA might participate in that investigation as an outside observer and add some value, but in the end the investigation and subsequent actions are entirely in SpaceX’s hands.

The FAA also admits that even though Starship came back out of orbit in an uncontrolled manner, breaking up over the Indian Ocean, it did so exactly as the mission’s contingency plans intended. No one was hurt. Nothing was damaged on the ground. And all the debris fell within the designated landing zone. From the FAA’s legal perspective, there is nothing to investigate, since its only responsibility is to limit harm to the public. SpaceX did what was requested, most admirably. The FAA admits as much in not requiring a mishap investigation of the Superheavy failure.

That the propaganda press is trying to make a big deal about this is a joke. These press reports are merely more propaganda attempting to pump up the importance of government power while denigrating anything to do with Elon Musk.

8 comments

SpaceX confirms 9th test flight of Starship/Superheavy now scheduled for May 27, 2025

9:19 am

Starship/Superheavy on March 6, 2025 at T-41 seconds
Starship/Superheavy on March 6, 2025 at T-41 seconds

SpaceX has now confirmed May 27, 2025 as the launch date for the ninth test flight of Starship/Superheavy out of its Starbase spaceport at Boca Chica.

The launch window opens at 6:30 pm (Central), with the live stream beginning 30 minutes earlier. The flight will attempt to refly the Superheavy booster used on flight seven. To push the booster’s limits, it will test “off-nominal scenarios” upon return, requiring for safety that it land in the Gulf of Mexico and not be recaptured by the chopsticks. (Just as I don’t change names or my language willy-nilly because leftists demand it, I won’t play Trump’s name-changing game here. The Gulf of Mexico was given that name more than two centuries ago, most likely by the early Spanish explorers, and that name has been good enough since.)

Starship meanwhile attempt the same test profile planned for the previous two flights but stymied by the failure of the spacecraft before reaching orbit. It will test a Starlink satellite deployment system, do a relight of one of its Raptor engines, and test its thermal ability to survive re-entry.

The company also released a report describing the results of its investigation into the previous launch failure on March 6, 2025.
» Read more

6 comments

FAA issues revised launch window and flight restrictions for future Starship test flights

11:00 am

Flight path for Starship's ninth test flight

Due to the breakup of Starship over the Atlantic during its last two test flights, the FAA today issued [pdf] revised launch window and flight plan restrictions for future flights, in an attempt to placate somewhat the concerns of the United Kingdom.

The map to the right, taken from the FAA assessment, shows in red the area where air traffic is impacted by the next Starship/Superheavy launch, now tentatively planned for next week. Note how the path threads a line avoiding almost all land masses, thus limiting the worst impact to just the Bahamas, the Turks & Caicos Islands. Though the launch will effect 175 flights and require one airport on these islands to close during the launch window, to minimize the impact the FAA has required that the launch window be scheduled outside peak travel periods.

At the same time, the FAA after discussions with the governments on these islands has approved this flight plan, noting that “no significant impacts would occur” due to the ninth flight.

The agency has not yet actually issued the launch license, but it will almost certainly do so in time for SpaceX’s planned launch date. Since the advent of the Trump administration the FAA has no longer been slow walking these approvals in order to retype the results of SpaceX’s investigation. Instead, as soon as SpaceX states it has satisfactorily completed its investigation, the FAA has accepted that declaration and issued a launch license. Expect the same this time as well.

2 comments

FAA okays increase in SpaceX launches from Vandenberg from 36 to 50 per year

11:44 am

The FAA today approved an environmental reassessment at Vandenberg Space Force Base that permits SpaceX to increase its annual launches there from 36 to 50.

The reassessment determined (not surprisingly) that there was “no significant impact” on the environment caused by the increased number of launches.

We already have more than seven decades of empirical data at spaceports in both Florida and California that rocket launches do no harm to the environment, and in fact act to significantly protect wildlife and natural resources because they require the creation of large regions where no development can take place.

The real question should be this: Why is the federal government wasting taxpayer money on these reports? They are utterly unnecessary, and only serve to hinder the freedom of Americans while spending their taxes on make work that accomplishes nothing.

5 comments

Head of the FAA’s commercial space office takes Trump buy-out

10:36 am

Kelvin Coleman, the head of the FAA office that regulates and issues all launch licenses, has now decided to accept the buy-out offered by the Trump administration and retire.

Coleman has led the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, known as AST, since 2022, after being named deputy associate administrator in 2017. During that time, the amount of commercial launch activity has grown enormously, from 23 licensed launches in 2017 to 157 in 2024.

That has put a strain on the office, which the FAA has responded to by seeking additional staff and other resources, as well as streamlining the licensing process. The latter included new launch and reentry licensing regulations, called Part 450, that took effect in 2021.

Industry, though, has complained about the implementation of Part 450, leading the FAA to create a space-related Aerospace Rulemaking Committee, or SpARC, to collect industry input on ways to improve Part 450. FAA officials said at the Commercial Space Conference in February that the SpARC was expected to complete its work by July, and that it was working on other improvements, such as a new electronic system for license applications.

It was apparently under Coleman’s leadership that Part 450 was created and implemented. The FAA claimed it would streamline the licensing process. Instead, it did the exact opposite. Under Coleman and Part 450, the red tape from the FAA actually increased significantly, to the point that it apparently caused the several rocket startups to close down.

It is quite possible therefore that Coleman decided to take the buy-out because he suspected his time at the FAA was limited anyway, that the Trump administration wanted him out.

1 comment
1 2 3 … 13