Starship tower under construction in 2022 Photo: Charles Boyer
Things are hopping over at Kennedy Space Center. The Artemis II crew is preparing for humanity’s first crewed mission around the Moon in over 50 years, and Crew-12 awaits its turn to rotate astronauts aboard the International Space Station. That’s keeping NASA and its contracting partners working hard and tightly focused on the missions.
At the same time, the Federal Aviation Administration is on the verge of completing its environmental review of SpaceX’s plan to launch Starship from Launch Complex 39A.
The FAA’s first estimated completion date for the Final Environmental Impact Statement is January 30, 2026 — today — according to the federal permitting dashboard. While it may not be released today, it does indicate that the document and the Record of Decision will be released soon.
What’s At Stake
SpaceX could receive regulatory clearance to operate the world’s most powerful rocket from the same complex where Apollo 11 and dozens of Space Shuttle missions got their starts.
None of those historic missions ever concluded at LC-39A, however, and that’s part of what SpaceX is planning to do fairly regularly at KSC: launching Starship Heavy and landing Starship missions there after their job in space has been completed. Their proposal kicked off the process whose middle act could conclude any day now.
Where We Are In The Process
SpaceX Starship LC-39A Approval Milestones
SpaceX Starship Approval Milestones: LC-39A at Kennedy Space Center
FAA Environmental Impact Statement & Launch License Process
Milestone
Date
Status
Details
Notice of Intent Published FAA
May 10, 2024
Complete
FAA initiated the EIS process via Federal Register publication
Public Scoping Period FAA
May–June 2024
Complete
Public input gathered on scope of environmental review; ended June 24, 2024
Draft EIS Released FAA
August 4, 2025
Complete
Draft EIS published for up to 44 Starship launches and 44 landings per year
Draft EIS Public Comment Period FAA
Aug 4–Sept 29, 2025
Complete
Public hearings held at KSC (Aug 26), Cape Canaveral (Aug 28), and virtually (Sept 3)
Final EIS Publication FAA
Q1 2026 (expected)
Pending
FAA will address all public comments and issue the Final EIS
Record of Decision (ROD) FAA
~Jan 30, 2026 (est.)
Pending
FAA issues ROD with decision, mitigations, and monitoring requirements
Per permits.performance.gov estimated completion date
Vehicle Operator License Issuance FAA
After ROD
Upcoming
New or modified commercial launch license for Starship-Super Heavy operations at LC-39A
Infrastructure Completion SpaceX
Mid-2026 (projected)
Upcoming
Launch mount (installed Nov 2025), tank farm, deluge system, chopstick upgrades, service structure outfitting
First Starship Launch from LC-39A SpaceX
2026 (targeted)
Upcoming
Initial vehicles will be transported from Starbase, Texas via barge
Lead Agency: FAA |
Cooperating Agencies: NASA, Dept. of the Air Force, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service Source: FAA Stakeholder Engagement Portal, Federal Register, permits.performance.gov |
Updated: January 2026
The FAA Isn’t NASA Though…
At Kennedy Space Center, NASA and the FAA have distinct roles. NASA manages the spaceport and leases LC-39A to SpaceX. On the other hand, the FAA has authority over commercial launch licensing, and, as the responsible agency, it must complete an independent environmental review before SpaceX can launch or land Starship from the site.
“While the 2019 Environmental Assessment prepared by NASA provides an analytical baseline, the environmental impacts of these proposed changes to Starship-Super Heavy LC-39A development and operations will be specifically analyzed in this EIS,” the FAA noted in its project documentation.
The scope has changed dramatically since that 2019 assessment. SpaceX now proposes up to 44 Starship launches per year — nearly double the original 24 — along with booster catches at the pad using the company’s signature “chopstick” tower arms, a capability that didn’t exist when NASA issued its original Finding of No Significant Impact.
The FAA released its Draft EIS on August 4, 2025, triggering a public comment period that closed on September 29. The agency held public hearings at Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, and online, collecting feedback that must be addressed in the Final EIS before a Record of Decision can be issued.
Now the Final Environmental Impact Statement is on deck, and that could come out any day.
Meanwhile, Back At The Rocket Ranch…
SpaceX hasn’t sat on its hands waiting for regulatory approval. The company has transformed LC-39A over the past year, pivoting from a Starship tower not being worked on to an active construction site steadily advancing toward operational status.
The most visible progress came in November 2025, when SpaceX transported a new orbital launch mount from its Roberts Road manufacturing facility to the pad. The original mount design was scrapped earlier in 2025 in favor of hardware matching the company’s latest configuration at Starbase in Texas.
Other work continues as well — construction of a tank farm to store propellants, outfitting the service structure and more. Clearly, SpaceX expects good news in the EIS and ROD, and given that Starship is an integral part of Project Artemis, it’s fair to say that those two legal hurdles are effectively fait accompli, and that when they are released, they will be positive for this ongoing project.
Cape Canaveral, Florida as seen from STS-66 Atlantis Photo: NASA
Public Comment Period Ended June 24th
Interesting comments from other launch providers as well as the general public regarding the potential of Launch Complex 39A being used as a launch pad and landing zone for SpaceX’s Starship have been published online by the FAA: Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Office of Commercial Space Transportation. Notably, United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin have weighed in with their thoughts, and their statements on the EISZ echo many of the general public’s concerns.
Blue Origin
Blue Origin, who has manufacturing, launch and refurbishment facilities at Kennedy Space Center and also Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, weighed in strongly.
They propose capping Starship Heavy launch and landing activities to a certain number in a given time period, limiting launches to a certain time period on any given day, government-built infrastructure to de-conflict other launch facilities from Starship activities, mandatory penalties for SpaceX violating launch licenses or environmental agreements, and also for SpaceX to indemnify (compensate for harm or loss) from any Starship activities at LC-39A:
• Capping the rate of Ss-SH launch, landing, and other operations, including but not limited to test firings, transport operations, and fueling, to a number that has a minimal impact on the local environment, locally operating personnel, and the local community, in consideration of all risks and impacts, including but not limited to anomaly risks, air toxin and hazardous materials dispersion, road closures, and heat and noise generation.
• Government investment in additional launch infrastructure that would make more launchpads available to other entities in a manner that deconflicts Ss-SH operations from other launch providers at KSC and CCSFS to preserve the health and safety of their personnel and Assets.
• Government investment in additional infrastructure for KSC and CCSFS that would reduce the risk to other launch providers at KSC and CCSFS in order to preserve the health and safety of their personnel and Assets by diverting traffic from the Proposed Action area, including but not limited to improving the Roy D. Bridges Bridge to accommodate transport of large Assets.
• Limiting Ss-SH operations to particular, limited times to minimize and make predictable their impact on the local community, and allotting other launch providers the right-of-firstrefusal or schedule priority for certain conflicting launch or other operational opportunities.
• Mitigating the effects of Ss-SH that would require evacuation or other operational pauses at other launch providers’ launch sites through infrastructure improvements or other operational changes.
• Require SpaceX and/or the Government to indemnify third parties for any losses caused by or related to Ss-SH operations, including commercial disruption incurred due to the operation of Ss-SH.
• Institute independent mandatory penalties for SpaceX for conducting operations not included in an active EIS or other environmental restriction, violating a launch license, or any other laws, regulations, or other rules for operating.
Blue Origin also calls for the FAA to study effects of noise on workers at or near LC-39A, roadway capacity, infrastructure maintenance and other effects.
If interested, you can read Blue Origin’s comments in full:
ULA, which launches the Atlas V and Vulcan rockets for commercial and federal government customers from Space Launch Complex 41, made the following statements:
EIS Must Address Evolving Starship Heavy Design
“SpaceX intends to launch a larger model at LC-39A than it is currently testing in Boca Chica. In April 2024, SpaceX revealed plans to, at minimum, quadruple payload capability to make up for shortfalls in predicted performance. Starship will eventually be 492 feet tall, “roughly 20% higher than the massive system aboard the Super Heavy rocket right now.”21 The Super Heavy booster is expected to hold up to 4100 metric tons of propellant, and Starship up to 2,600 metric tons.22 The maximum lift-off thrust is anticipated at 103 meganewtons.23 The resulting launch impacts would far exceed current impacts seen during current Boca Chica launches. Additional growth of the Starship launch vehicle may be planned if performance continues to fall below expectations.
Given these changes, the EIS must perform a comparative analysis between current usage impacts and the proposed operations, with a rocket proposed to be more than double the size of any currently licensed launch vehicle and with increased frequency of launches.”
ULA also notes that returning booster and Starship vehicles locates the risk associated with these activities locally, rather than at sea:
Landing a booster at LC-39A, rather than in the ocean, shifts the risks of a system failure onto the communities, businesses, and environment that surround KSC.
They state that the EIS should also include impacts on other launch service providers:
“The FAA’s EIS should evaluate SpaceX’s proposed operations at LC-39A in conjunction with SpaceX’s proposed operations at SLC-37. This should further include an assessment of national security space capabilities and the associated vulnerabilities presented by the consolidation of these operations at adjacent launch complexes within a six-mile area. This also potentially increases the threat to other national security space launch providers located in the same six-mile area. SpaceX seeks to frequently launch the largest rocket ever from two launch sites within a six-mile area. Just one Starship launch site is likely to disrupt other launch operations in the area and cause significant environmental impacts”
ULA also states that the EIS should consider potential harms to local businesses and properties.
LC-39A sits in a bustling center for space operations. That center is surrounded by communities, including Cape Canaveral and Titusville, and important ecosystems, including the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and the Canaveral National Seashore.
The EIS must consider any disruptions to the health and safety of local communities and ecosystems, from both normal operations and any potential accidents. This includes impacts on traffic, economic and property harms to local businesses and individuals, and concerns about environmental justice. Impacts to public safety must also be addressed, including but not limited to nearby schools, hospitals and other key public support infrastructure and services.
These are just a few highlights from the ULA document. If interested, you can read their entire statement below, or download it and read using Acrobat Reader or another PDF compliant viewer.
The incomplete Starship Launch Tower pad 39A at KSC stands to the right SpaceX’s Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy launch tower. Photo: Mark Stone/FMN
In a recent Department of the Air Force announcement, the Air Force said an Environmental Impact Study isunder way for potential new launch facility at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station or Kennedy Space Center.
The proposed facility would be aimed at providing an Eastern Range launch pad for SpaceX’s Starship, the largest, most powerful rocket ever built. By comparison, Starship has over 16 million pounds of thrust, compared to NASA’s new Space Launch System, which has half of that.
What Is An Environmental Impact Study?
In the United States at the federal level, an EIS is a report mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), to assess the potential impact of actions “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” This requirement under NEPA does not prohibit harm to the environment, but rather requires advanced identification and disclosure of harm.
The first Draft of the Cape Canaveral EIS is scheduled to be released in December of this year.
Debate Starts To Heat Up
While both the future of commercial spaceflight and NASA’s plans for the moon and beyond demand such heavy lift capabilities, an expected debate has started to emerge from environmental groups as well as some local residents, who are gearing up to express opposition to the potential new facility proposed at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. At the same time, others support the possible move fully and are embracing the idea.
The new Starship has already flown twice from SpaceX’s Starbase development facility in South Texas, with both test flights ending in a “RUD”, or rapid unscheduled disassembly – catastrophic vehicle failure. (RUD is space lingo for “it blew up.”)
It is likely SpaceX will face the similar battles with environmentalists and some locals in Florida that they already face in Texas, even if the situations are somewhat different.
The Lay of the Land In Boca Chica
Space X’s Starship stands on the pad in Boca Chica, TX. prior to it’s second flight test. Photo: Richard Gallagher/FMN
A few years ago, SpaceX had begun construction of a Starship launch tower near Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39A, but that work has apparently been stopped in favor of a Starship facility near Boca Chica, Texas, where Starship being developed and test flights conducted.
Since then, SpaceX has proceeded with extensive construction of what it calls Starbase, with two highly-publicized Starship launches during 2023.
In the interim some environmental groups loudly complained about the Texas facility, its proximity to federally protected wetlands as well as dust created by the first launch, and noise from both.
In a move to apparently remedy the standoff over, SpaceX offered a lopsided land swap to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). As reported by ABC 13 News from Houston, SpaceX offered to turn over 477 acres near the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in exchange for only 43 acres from the Boca Chica State Park (near Starbase).
The Parks and Wildlife staff appeared ready to take the deal: “[We] view it as a way for the agency to increase public access and protect grasslands and wetlands … these conversations continue more than a decade of cooperative work with SpaceX to carry out our respective missions as neighbors,” the TPWD statement said. A vote was set for January 25, 2024.
But several days before the vote, the Parks and Wildlife staff sought public comment. Over 1,039 comments were against the land exchange compared to 263 for it. The TPWD also received a letter from influential Cameron County Judge Eddie Trevino Jr against the project. The Parks and Wildlife then hastily postponed the vote until its March 28 meeting.
Texas Public Radio reported:
Save RGV (Save Rio Grand Valley) a nonprofit group advocating against the development of liquified natural gas plants and SpaceX in the Rio Grande Valley, worries how [a] land exchange could impact sensitive wildlife areas in the future.
“The proposed exchange will further environmental impacts, including more light, noise, run-off, pollution, and traffic,” Mary Angela Branch, Save RGV member, said in a public comment to the TPWD commission. “This exchange would set a bad precedent for trading away unique sensitive habitat and public land.”
“Another question posed by Save RGV is whether TPWD possibly blocked a land purchase by Cameron County, where both parcels of land are located. One commissioner has pushed back at the exchange deal, saying the county had plans to use the land for its own conservation project.”
In December, Jeff Foust at SpaceNews reported that Texas’s congressional representatives were getting involved:
Cruz argued that the environmental reviews resulted in “asinine delays” even as the United States competes with China and Russia in spaceflight. “I’m not advocating for a wholesale repeal of our environmental laws or NEPA. I’m just arguing for them not to be applied in a dumbass way that slows down commercial space.”
The second Starship launch was “after months of delay stemming from bureaucratic red tape from AST, Fish and Wildlife and other agencies injecting themselves into the process,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, at a Dec. 13 hearing by that committee’s space subcommittee. AST is the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
As both proposed launch pads are on Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, no land exchanges will be needed for Florida. Until a recent deal with the State of Texas, Starbase existed on an approximately 55-acres of land, whereas CCSFS is1,325 acres, and that before the adjacent Kennedy Space Center is considered – that site has 6,000 acres of land for facilities and roads, and has 7.8 million square feet of building area, and 564 miles of roads, including 184 miles of paved and 380 miles of unpaved roads.
It should be noted that the Boca Chica Starbase is located within about 5 miles of populated Port Isabel. In contrast, the CCSFS Launch Complex 37 is about 15 miles from Titusville and 8 miles from Cape Canaveral. Both are well out of the designated Blast Debris Area that is recognized for launches: the Saturn V in the 1960’s and 1970’s and also the recent Artemis I launch of SLS had BDAs of 3.5-4.0 miles from the launch site.
The Debate Begins in Florida
With the third test flight of Starship expected for next month in Texas, attention is shifting to SpaceX’s plans for Florida’s launch facility, and the recent announcement from the DAF of an EIS for a launch pad at CCSFS. The Department of the Air Force, which controls the bulk of the Cape Canaveral peninsula via the US Space Force, has made it clear they are in need of Starship’s heavy lift capability.
At a recent Space Mobility Conference, Gary Henry, senior advisor for national security space solutions at SpaceX, said that Starship holds the potential to become a mobility platform for the U.S. military. “The cost element of this is going to be pretty compelling, and it’ll happen soon,” Henry said. The military also intends to use the massive Starship as an inflight refueling and logistics depot, supporting Space Force missions.
Additionally, NASA’s plans for the moon and beyond hinge on Starship as part of the Artemis program, with plans for a crewed moon landing within this decade.
Such ambitious plans would require a fairly rapid cadence in Starship launches. A NASA official said last year that the use of Starship for Artemis lunar landings will require “in the high teens” of launches both from Texas and Cape Canaveral.
Locals and environmental groups are already voicing their concerns on social media, encouraging residents to research the environmental and community issues and then attend one of the upcoming public comment forums in the area.
Local Concerns Expressed on Social Media
In a Facebook group called “Fight For Zero Brevard”, one resident posted:
“PLEASE go do your research concerning the massive change in attitude by all the people who live near Boca Chica and the huge impact Starship has had to their environment and wildlife….there was such pushback by Boca Chica residents during their time to write in public comments that a much more “rigorous” environmental study was called for pushing SpaceX’s time frame out and there has been a lawsuit filed by numerous groups concerning the environmental impact hence part of the reason for SpaceX’s shift to now focusing on Cape Canaveral.“
In another group, a poster said: “There is no question that a keener eye needs to be placed on the negative effects of launches and space programs in general. Thanks for alerting us to this. The space center is a cool thing to have in our backyards, but not at the expense of human and environmental health.“
Still, others expressed concerns about the increased noise pollution of launches, the safety of residents in the event of a mishap, and the environmental effect of the fallout of heavy metals.
Not all residents shared those concerns, touting the positive effects of the space program. A Facebook poster wrote:
“We are, after all, the Space Coast right? The space program and its associated tourism drives Brevard County’s economy. We have all of the necessary capabilities and infrastructure, so it’s a natural.“
Another said that,
“The economic future of the area depends on Starship coming to the Space Coast. Anyone who remembers the cratering house prices and boarded up businesses after Apollo and the Shuttle should be supporting SpaceX bringing Starship here.“
As of yet, none of the Space Coast’s federal representatives (Congressman Bill Posey, Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott) have weighed in on the potential of Starship flying out of Cape Canaveral or the ongoing Environmental Impact Study. Nor have any local officials, but to be fair, it has not been long since the EIS study was announced by the DAF, and their offices may also be evaluating the new documents.
Public Hearing Dates
March 5: 4-7 PM, Catherine Schweinsberg Rood Central Library, 308 Forrest Ave., Cocoa.
March 6: 4-7 PM, Titusville Civic Center, 4220 S. Hopkins Ave., Titusville.
March 7: 4-7 PM Radisson Resort at the Port, 8701 Astronaut Blvd., Cape Canaveral.
There is also an online meeting for those who cannot attend in person:
Talk of Titusville urges all interested parties to attend at least one of the meetings and to make their voice heard.
Draft Study Results Expected Late This Year
After making the study announcement and holding public hearings in March, the Environmental Impact Study will appear as a draft release of the report sometime in “winter” 2024. (As there is only one official winter month, that of December, it may be that the draft EIS is due that month.) That is not set in stone, however, so stay tuned for an announcement of specifically when that date may be.
This article was originally published on Florida Media Now, and is added here courtesy of FMN. Correspondents Jim Siegel, Charles Boyer, and Mark Stone contributed.
Starship’s second test flight lifts off in Texas in 2023. Photo: SpaceX
The Department of the Air Force (along with cooperating agencies the FAA, NASA, and the U.S. Coast Guard) is undertaking environmental impact studies for launch pads for SpaceX’s heavy-lift Starship rocket according to a a recent public release from them. They are also eliciting public comments, with four meetings scheduled for March 2024.
Contents
For your convenience, here is a list of sections to this lengthy article. Click an option to jump to the part you are interested in. To return to the top, click the Back button in your browser.
The DAF has placed a new website online for information regarding a new Environmental Impact Statement for Cape Canaveral Space Force Station at https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/. On it, they say
“The need for the Action is to ensure DAF Assured Access to Space without compromising current launch capabilities and fulfill (in part) the U.S. Congress’s grant of authority to the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Section 2276(a), “Commercial space launch cooperation,” that the Secretary of Defense is permitted to take action to:”
“Maximize the use of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) space transportation infrastructure by the private sector in the U.S.
“Maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the space transportation infrastructure of the DOD.
“Reduce the cost of services provided by the DOD related to space transportation infrastructure at launch support facilities and space recovery support facilities.
“Encourage commercial space activities by enabling investment by covered entities in the space transportation infrastructure of the DOD.
“Foster cooperation between the DOD and covered entities.”
Department of the Air Force, Retrieved February 16, 2024
Starship At a Glance
Currently under development near Brownville, Texas, Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built. According to SpaceX, it will be fully reusable, and capable of lifting 150 tons of payload to orbit in a reusable configuration, and 250 tons when it is configured as a conventional expendable rocket.
Current Starship designs are 397 feet tall, and 29.5 feet in diameter, producing some 16.7 million pounds of thrust at liftoff.
By comparison, the Saturn V rockets used for the Apollo Program were 362 feet tall, and produced 7.6 million pounds of thrust. By any measure, Starship is a huge rocket with immense power, and its launches and returns will be heard across the Space Coast.
Similar to how SpaceX Falcon 9 completes in many of its launches today, the Starship booster would return to land at its launch site when its task for the mission has been completed. Unlike Falcon 9, which lands at a landing area close by, Starship would return to its pad, where it would be grappled by “chopsticks” as it completed its final approach.
Starship is planned to be a fully reusable vehicle, meaning that its second stage (often simply called “the ship” in SpaceX parlance) would reenter and return to land at its launch pad using the same chopsticks as the booster.
Starship is still somewhat early in its development, with two test launches so far, and a third on the plate for the next few weeks. Along with SLS, it is a vehicle integral to Project Artemis, this time in the role of being the Human Landing System. HLS is where astronauts will land, live and work on the lunar surface, with the forward plan being for extended stays.
Starship’s Propellants: Are They Toxic?
Unlike other rockets in the past that use highly toxic propellants, Starship relies on commonly found materials. The two propellants the power Starship’s Raptor engines are liquid oxygen and liquid methane. Methane is also known as “natural gas” and is used in many homes as stoves, heating systems and even some pool heaters here locally.
Methane combustion produces carbon dioxide and water as its byproducts. Starship utilizes a highly pure form of methane and oxygen, meaning that it does not have many other byproducts in its exhaust.
By comparison, rockets that use RP-1 as their fuel (Falcon 9, Saturn V, Atlas-V and many others) have carbon dioxide,water vapor, soot, sulfur containing compounds and small amounts of nitrogen oxide. All things considered, methane is a far cleaner fuel than RP-1.
Starship does not rely on solid rocket boosters (SLS, Atlas-V, Vulcan, Space Shuttle) SRBs typically emit aluminum oxide, soot, carbon dioxide, hydrogen chlorides, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen and other trace gases.
What About The Starship Tower at LC-39A?
The Starship tower under construction at LC-39A at Kennedy Space Center prior to Crew-7 launching from the adjacent Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy launch mount. Photo: Charles Boyer / Talk of Titusville
SpaceX began construction of a Starship launch mount adjacent to its Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy launch pad at LC-39A at Kennedy Space Center a couple of years, but it appears that construction has been halted for the time being while the company perfects and finalizes their Starship design and along with it, the launch mount itself.
The proposed action by DAF for the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station does not address that launch mount or its future. There is a separate Environmental Impact Statement for that launch pad and Starship. That EIS is being conducted by the FAA as the lead agency, while for this one, the Department of the Air Force is the lead agency. Both EIS efforts have major stakeholders as part of the EIS team.
Three launch pads: on the left in the background, SpaceX is raising a launch tower for Starship. Center, Artemis-1 on its launch pad. Right, in the background, is where SpaceX launches its Falcon-class rockets, including astronauts into Earth orbit. Photo: Charles Boyer / Talk of Titusville
Proposed Launch Pads At CCSFS from Department of the Air Force
The US Space Force is part of the Department of the Air Force, much like the US Marines are to the US Navy, as such DAF is the lead agency where Cape Canaveral Space Force Station is involved. For Starship DAF has proposed the following:
SpaceX would modify and use SLC-37 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS)
SpaceX and CCSFS would build a new pad, SLC-50, between the current SLC-37 and SLC-40
No action, where no Starship constructions or launch occurred from CCSFS
Option 1: SLC-37
SLC-37 Photo: Google Earth
Located nearly due east from NASA Parkway, SLC-37 currently is used by United Launch Alliance for Delta IV Heavy launches. That program has all but ended, with only one launch of the venerable heavy lifter remaining. That launch is scheduled for the March time frame when the company will loft the NROL-70 payload from the pad. After that, there are no Delta IV Heavy launches remaining.
A United Launch Alliance (ULA) Delta IV Heavy rocket carrying the NROL-68 mission for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) lifts off from Space Launch Complex-37 on June. 22, 2023 at 5:18 a.m. ET. Photo: United Launch Alliance
SLC-37 is one of the older launch complexes at the Eastern Range — Construction on it started in 1959 and was used by NASA to support the Saturn I program starting in 1963. It originally had two launch pads, 37A and 37B, though 37A was never used. Saturn I launched from it from 1964-65, and the site was modified for Saturn IB launches, the most notable of which was Apollo 5. After that, in 1972, LC-37 was mothballed until 2001 when ULA began using it for Delta launches.
The Saturn IB launch vehicle (SA204) for the Apollo 5 mission lifted off on January 22, 1968. The unmarned Apollo 5 mission verified the ascent and descent stage propulsion systems, including restart and throttle operations of the Lunar Module. Photo: NASA
Given that SLC-37 has hosted launches for around sixty years, it presumably would have the least environmental impact of the two options the Space Force listed. Undoubtedly, that would have to studied and verified before SpaceX could begin construction at the facility.
Option 2: SLC-50
Slightly north of SLC-37 is another potential location for a new pad, according to the Space Force release.
Approximation of the proposed alternative area for an SLC-50 Photo: Google Earth
This is currently an undeveloped area of the facility, and conversion and construction of a new launch pad would require environmental impact studies to be completed prior to any construction there.
Option 3: No Construction
This is what it sounds like, no Starship launch pad would be built at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. Given that NASA has stated that no new LC-49 pad studies or activities are underway from the Kennedy Space Center side of the Eastern Range, that leaves either the LC-39A launch mount being completed for Starship or Starship not launching from the Eastern Range at all.
The latter option — no launch pad, no Starship — would be problematic for both SpaceX and for NASA, who is relying on Starship for the Artemis program and its lunar lander. It is possible that SpaceX and NASA could reach agreement to complete the Starship Launch Mount at LC-39A at Kennedy Space Center, but that comes with its own issues.
Project Flight Paths
Many people may be wondering just where Starship would fly. The simple answer appears to be that it would be able to take the typical range of trajectories as other rockets that have flown or are flying from the Eastern Range today.
Notably, however, “polar” (North-South orbits) trajectories such as the ones SpaceX’s Falcon 9 has taken from to time from SLC-40 were not mentioned and we presume not in the current plans for Starship.
It is also worth noting that like Falcon 9, Starship and its boosters will return to the Cape to land, be refurbished and reused. That will bring sonic booms, just like the old Space Shuttle landings and today’s Falcon 9 RTLS missions such as Crew-8 on March 3, 2024.
From the DAF-supplied information packet:
Starship would fly from 40º – 115º from its launch mount, which is a typical range of azimuths for Eastern Range Rockets
Why Not Stay In Texas?
SpaceX’s launch facility in Texas at Boca Chica has a limited acceptable set of trajectories available to it — Florida is to the East, Texas and the Gulf states are to the north, and Cuba and other land masses are to the south.
Two paths from Boca Chica would would avoid overflight of most far downrange landmasses, though they may also require performance reducing “dogleg” maneuvers to avoid other landmasses and achieve proper orbit. The red areas show previous Falcon 9 drop zones. Cape Canaveral can accommodate a much more diverse set of launch inclinations without overflying populated areas.
For test launches, Starship plans to thread a launch path over the Gulf of Mexico and then to orbit. From the Eastern Range, a much wider set of trajectories are available due to the Atlantic Ocean being mostly devoid of people or property over a much wider area.
All things considered, Starship operations from the Eastern Range and the Cape is a preferable destination for SpaceX and for NASA.
Potential Economic Impact For The Space Coast?
Starship launches from the Eastern Range could easily bring billions of dollars in economic activity to the Space Coast region: SpaceX launch support jobs at the Cape, along with the associated jobs that are created to support the families of those workers, and of course tourism.
As a major Starship launch port, the Space Coast would cement itself now and in the future as the starting point for space launches of all types. The area has seen boom and bust in its history, and having the most dominant commercial space company in the world using Cape Canaveral Space Force station as its main operational site would all but ensure a prosperous future for the area.
Local Public Hearings Scheduled
The public has been invited to have their say about the proposed alternatives:
Talk of Titusville strongly encourages interested members of the public to participate in these meetings. As the leading company for launch services in the world, much of the Space Coast’s economic future rests on this decision.
Next Steps
February 16, 2024
After making the announcement and holding public hearings in March, the EIS will then conduct studies and prepare a draft release of the EIS in Winter 2024. Being that there is only one winter month in December, that indicates that the draft EIS is due that month. That is not set in stone, however, so stay tuned for an announcement of specially when that date may be.
Challenges For A South Texas Spaceport.pdf
You must be logged in to post a comment.