Details still fuzzy for Trump’s plan to streamline space licensing
Plenty of U.S. space companies have bemoaned the amount of government red tape required to launch. Last year, SpaceX called some of the requirements “patently absurd,” referring to issues raised by FAA when licensing Starship launches.
For these operators, the Trump administration’s August executive order calling for sweeping changes in how space activities are regulated may grant a reprieve. These include potentially scrapping environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for launch and reentry licenses; redefining safety requirements for new vehicles; and streamlining approvals for building new spaceports and “novel” activities like satellite servicing or in-space manufacturing.
Some would welcome these changes. “The environmental process of getting a license was exceptionally onerous,” said Wayne Monteith, who led FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation from 2019 to 2022. For example, “when we talk to interested parties about applying for a spaceport license, we tell them to plan on starting five years before,” he said.
He added that removing such barriers “will be good for the industry.”
Others believe such streamlining has the potential to do more harm than good. “I think it’s crazy,” said Moriba Jah, a professor of aerospace engineering and engineering mechanics at the University of Texas at Austin, and chief scientist of Privateer, a space data company. “It’s irresponsible. It’s very colonial, very exploitative and extractive.”
The executive order directs the Department of Transportation and Department of Commerce to respond by the end of the year with recommendations on how to proceed.
It is the suggestion of eliminating NEPA reviews that is perhaps the most eyebrow-raising for the experts I spoke to. Today, there are few instances where NEPA does not apply to space activities in the U.S., under what’s called a categorical exclusion. The Federal Communications Commission has such an exclusion for launches conducted for communications purposes, like SpaceX’s deployment of its Starlink broadband constellation.
Otherwise, NEPA requires agencies, including NASA and FAA, to conduct environmental reviews of space activities including launches and reentries. Full assessments can take years. Take, for instance, FAA’s review of Starship launches from SpaceX’s site in Boca Chica, Texas, which lasted from 2020 to 2022 and prompted thousands of public comments.
Multiple environmental groups raised concerns about the Boca Chica launches, including worries that the debris, noise and heat from ascending Starships would destroy bird eggs and the nearby fragile coastal wetlands. The American Bird Conservancy cautioned the launches would damage nesting shorebirds and other animals.
Another version of this is playing out in Florida, where SpaceX is seeking to expand its activities at Cape Canaveral. Along with its current Falcon launches, SpaceX wants permission to conduct up to 44 launches of Starship a year from Launch Complex 39A, as well as the associated landings of Starship and its Super Heavy booster. The U.S. Space Force is in parallel conducting its own environmental review of SpaceX’s request to launch up to 76 Starships a year from the nearby Launch Complex 37, located on Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.
FAA, which is conducting the review of the LC-39A plan, in August hosted a public meeting at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex. The event was attended by about 100 locals, many of whom expressed concerns. Up to 44 launches and landings a year would also mean 44 additional static fire tests and associated sonic booms from any landings back at the Cape. (Some Starships would land at sea on barges, and some might have no landing attempt).
Attendees said they fear the noise and vibration of Starship launches would far exceed what they have experienced with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Another big concern is reduced public access to the nearby Playalinda Beach, which may need to be closed at least 60 days each year due to the proposed launch cadence, according to FAA.
“I can sleep through a Falcon 9 launch, but Falcon Heavy wakes me up,” said Charlene Melcher, who moved to nearby Titusville eight years ago. “My house shakes; my dogs and cats are terrified. I like to watch the rockets, but I can’t imagine how much worse this will be. I worry about debris also after seeing Starship explosions in Texas.”
Michelle Hanlon, executive director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi, said she would be surprised if environmental reviews could be done away with entirely for activities like this. “It’s going to be very, very hard to say that launch should be categorically excluded because we know for a fact launch affects everything on Earth,” she says. “There’s just no way to gauge what the impact of those launches will be unless you understand the level of fuel being used and so forth.”
The executive order also seeks to streamline the licensing process for reentering spacecraft. Varda Space Industries of California found this particularly taxing when its Winnebago-1 reentry spacecraft was stuck in orbit from September 2023 until February 2024 while waiting for FAA to approve its license.
Thanks to the Part 450 regulation introduced in 2021 by Monteith, that process was already streamlined years ago, with Varda able to now perform multiple similar missions without needing another lengthy review.
“Once they got through that first [one], they’ve got the second, third, and fourth flights all approved,” said George Nield, head of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from 2008 to 2018. “In many cases, the criticism of FAA is probably a little unfair.”
The same policy approach applies to launch too, Nield noted. “Once you’ve got your license and you’re using the same vehicle for the same kind of trajectory and mission, you can launch as many times as you want,” said Nield.
“You just need to renew your license every five years. So, what’s the problem?”
Another area identified by the executive order is “novel” space activities, which includes on-orbit operations like in-space manufacturing and activities like lunar exploration that current regulations don’t cover. Tackling this area might be a way for the U.S. to streamline how it approves such activities, as countries like China make rapid progress.
“The issue is the U.S. government is internationally answerable for all its national space activities,” said Chris Johnson, director of legal affairs and space law at the Secure World Foundation in Washington, D.C., pointing to Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. “Historically, we haven’t had the national legislation which makes it clear how we’re going to be doing those things.”
Working out which agency is responsible for each domain could be one of several ways the U.S. simplifies its regulatory process. “I’ll be curious to see what those first regulations look like,” said Hanlon.
Staff reporter Paul Brinkmann contributed reporting.
Related Posts
