SpaceX’s plans to launch its two-stage Starship-Super Heavy rocket 44 times a year from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida have come under fire from its two main rivals: United Launch Alliance (ULA) and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin.
The A starship the vehicle is the world’s largest rocket. Its two stages are SpaceX’s Super Heavy booster and an upper stage spacecraft known somewhat confusingly as the Starship or “Ship” that could one day carry a crew of up to 100 astronauts.
After testing over the past few years, the Starship/Super Heavy design has gone through a series of redesigns, the latest of which resulted in a rocket that will stand up to 492 feet (150 meters) tall. To put this into context, Saturn V was 363 feet (111 meters) tall, while NASA’s new manned version Space Launch System it is 322 feet and 98 meters high. The SpaceX rocket is huge and the plan is to carry astronauts Moon and Mars.
Before SpaceX may obtain a license to initiate launches from launch pad 39A v Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida, an environmental impact statement must be provided detailing the impacts SpaceX launches would have on the local environment and wildlife, as well as neighboring businesses and residents. It’s being done by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and is currently in a consultation phase where local businesses, organizations and the public can weigh in on the pros and cons of SpaceX’s plans. And well, SpaceX’s rivals didn’t hold back.
Blue origin sent a 3 page letter FAA, in which they are asking for a cap on the number of takeoffs and landings, reducing the 44 planned launches to an unspecified number “that has minimal impact on the local environment, local operating personnel and the local community,” they wrote.
The Blue origin the objections also point out that Starship–Super Heavy will hold an “unprecedented” 5,200 metric tons of liquid methane fuel, which is highly flammable and could cause a devastating explosion on the launch pad if something went wrong. Blue Origin says the safety margins are so wide that they overlap with the launch pads, hangars and offices of several other companies, including Blue Origin itself at Launch Pad 36, all of which are leased from the Kennedy Space Center.
Criticism hit ULA even harder 22 page document which the company submitted as part of the consultation. They’re not holding back, accusing SpaceX of creating its own environmental impact statement for its extravagantly named “Starbase” in Boca Chica, Texas, from where they’ve been testing the Starship until now.
In the letter, ULA points out that SpaceX’s environmental impact statement suggests that debris from any launch mishap would only cover a square mile (2.5 square km). In April 2023, during Starship’s first test flightthe debris was instead scattered within a 6-mile (9.6 km) radius, endangering the surrounding area and showing how much SpaceX underestimated the danger to those around it. The explosion led to environmental groups filing a lawsuit against SpaceX and the FAA, which was ultimately dismissed in court. At Kennedy, ULA’s base is just 3 miles (4.8 km) from SpaceX’s launch pad 39A, which understandably makes them nervous.
“With the increased launch thrust planned for Starship, debris from a similar launch failure could reach larger, populated areas around KSC,” said ULA, whose recommendation is that SpaceX launch Starship from Boca Chica instead.
“As the largest rocket in existence,” ULA wrote, “an accident would cause severe or even catastrophic damage, while normal launch operations would have a cumulative impact on structures, launch vehicle hardware, and other critical launch support equipment.”
On the other hand, Blue Origin has proposed that the government build new launch pads further away from 39A for those companies like them that could potentially be affected by SpaceX’s starship operations.
There was also great interest in the environment and local wildlife. At least 3 or 4 launches per month would be required to reach the target of 44 launches per year, which would result in launch pad 39A being used year-round. The Merritt Island Wildlife Association (Merritt Island is the peninsula on which the Kennedy Space Center is located) pointed out that the spotlights will shine on almost all time on 39A, which will disrupt the natural rhythms of wildlife, such as by sending migrating birds astray.
Meantime, Defenders of nature organization in Florida points out that near Boca Chica, the eggs of nesting birds were broken by falling granular debris from previous starship test flights. The birds are known to nest near Launch Pad 39A, and more frequent launches would harm the bird population in the area. However, Defenders of Wildlife expresses its belief that using 39A is better than building brand new launch sites on undeveloped land near the Kennedy Space Center, as proposed by Blue Origin, which would also have a major environmental impact.
Extensive investigation by the New York Times posted on June 8 detailed the environmental damage caused by SpaceX’s operations at Boca Chica, noting that the damage has sparked a debate “about how to balance technological and economic progress with the protection of sensitive ecosystems and local communities”. While FAA officials are aware of the environmental problems Starship causes, the agency also emphasized that the vehicle is vital to the U.S. space program.
“Blowing debris into state parks or national land is not what we prescribed, but the bottom line is that no one was hurt, no one was injured,” Kelvin B. Coleman of the FAA told the New York Times. “We certainly don’t want people to feel like they’ve been bulldozed. But it’s a really important operation that SpaceX is doing down there. It’s really important to our civilian space program.”
A starship could affect more than just wildlife. SpaceX’s water flood system sprays a million gallons of water onto the pad during launch to protect it from damage during launch by absorbing much of the heat. While much of this water evaporates, the rest drains into collection tanks around the launch site. ULA questions whether and how this water will be treated, whether it contains any toxic or otherwise dangerous chemicals, and what will prevent it from escaping into the water source.
SpaceX is also interested in a second launch pad, having inquired about using Launch Complex 37 from 2026 at the neighboring Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. The US Air Force is conducting its own environmental study of the proposal before granting permission.
ULA also questions SpaceX’s decision to stop using coastal drone ships to land the Super Heavy booster and instead land them back on 39A, which they say “shifts the risks of system failure onto the communities, businesses and environment that surround KSC.” .”
All three companies are competing for the same NASA contracts, and some observers might see the complaints as sour grapes from SpaceX rivals, which are struggling to keep up. SpaceX’s Elon Musk responded in a seemingly mocking manner to Blue Origin’s complaint on social media, posting “Sue Origin” on X (the social media company he owns) in the days following the company’s letter.
However, regardless of the motivation for the complaints, many of them regarding safety and environmental impact appear to be relevant. Even NASA has doubts; space agency officials previously stated that he could effectively abort the incident on the launch pad NASA away from their only means of attainment International Space Stationwhich would leave the astronauts to fend for themselves.
Blue Origin and ULA’s objections to starship operations at KSC involve the two companies believing the rocket is too untested, too dangerous and too disruptive to fit into the ecosystem of other Kennedy Space Center users.
However, it will be up to the FAA to decide whether such concerns are justified and sufficient to prevent them Elon Musk and SpaceX from making their Starship dreams come true.