Elon Musk’s Rocket Red Glare

[Updated: Tue., Aug. 6, 2024, 12:30pm]

California Coastal Commission planning staff are seeking a cut-the-baby-in-half solution with the Air Force and Elon Musk’s SpaceX at this Thursday’s Coastal Commission hearing over the dramatic increase in rocket launches planned for by Musk, his private space launch company, and the Air Force. Instead of objecting outright to what’s known as a “consistency determination” to a proposed increased in rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base — from six a year to 36 — the Coastal Commission staff is now recommending what’s known as a “conditional concurrence.”

This softening of opposition — coming amid a gathering swell of environmental opposition — reflects two intransigent realities. The Air Force insists the Coastal Commission — as a state agency — has exceptionally limited say over what it does on federally owned land as part of what the Air Force deems part of a federal military undertaking. In addition, the deadline for the Coastal Commission to take any action — no matter how nominal — on Vandenberg’s proposed rocket launch expansion expires August 10. If no affirmative action is taken by that date, by default, the Air Force is granted the consistency determination.

That would effectively mean the Coastal Commission finds the increase in rocket launch activity is “consistent” with the Coastal Zone Management Act even though commission staff and boardmembers have expressed strong misgivings about the environmental impacts of a proposed project that has expanded in size numerous times since its first unveiling more than a year ago. What was initially proposed as an increase from six to 36 SpaceX launches a year has since increased to 50, then to 90, then to as many as 120.

With this ever-changing, ever-expanding proposal, staff and commissioners have complained that the environmental analysis required to assess the project’s impacts and mitigations has failed to keep pace. Key decisions, they contend, will be made based on inadequate information.

“Much of this information has been provided over the last few weeks, and Commission staff has put its limited capacity and resources under significant strain in order to review it and reevaluate the project,” the staff report objected.

A “conditional concurrence” would allow the commission to meet the August 10 deadline while attempting to secure an agreement from the Air Force to scrupulously and meticulously monitor the impact of the additional launches, their accompanying sonic booms to nearby sea otters, harbor seals, snowy plovers, red legged frogs, monarch butterflies, and pallid bats. If the Coastal Commission gets its way, the Air Force will agree to present annual written reports. To the extent such reports expose impacts to these populations, the Coastal Commission is intending the Air Force to take further steps to soften the blows.

One of the key issues that initially gave commissioners serious heartburn about Musk’s expansion plans was its impact on overnight campers — and day users — at the county’s popular Jalama Beach. Given the prospect of possible mechanical failures, additional launches pose additional safety risks to the public at large, initially requiring campground evacuation. Given that Jalama can accommodate as many 920 campers a night — not to mention a couple hundred additional day users — that’s a significant number of people to find themselves forced to evacuate because of Musk’s rocket launch schedule.

Launch scheduling has proven to be notoriously fickle given the unpredictability of meteorological conditions, noted Jeff Lindgren with the county’s Department of General Services, meaning as many as half had to be postponed. If and when Musk and SpaceX were to hit the 100-launch mark — as has been proposed by 2026 — Lindgren said the possibility existed Jalama could be inaccessible to the public 150 days of the year.

“That’s a lot of disruption,” he stated.

This nightmare scenario definitely got the attention of the coastal commissioners; in response the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) got involved. SpaceX and the Air Force crafted alternative plans to limit launch-based evacuations to days only when the population of campers and beachgoers onsite at Jalama reached certain threshold numbers.

The most recent threshold Lindgren was aware of is 465. Since last August and this April, Lindgren said, there have been three evacuations. In the seven months before that, there had been 15. Then as now, the maximum number of “allowed” launches by the Coastal Commission was 12.

Another possible change involves timing of rocket launches. By launching more at night or mid-week — as opposed to weekend days — Lindgren said impacts to Jalama can be minimized.

As to negotiations between Space X and the FAA over ways to soften the environmental impacts of the accelerated launch schedule — from once every four months to three times a month — Lindgren said he has not seen the details. It was his understanding, he said, that an agreement has been hammered out in concept, but that the data is still being reviewed before any bottom line is signed.

A major bone of contention between the Coastal Commission and the Air Force is the extent to which the Air Force is giving Space X — a private company — a protective shield from the commission’s regulatory authority when only a small fraction of the flights proposed are of military origin or application. The vast majority of launches, it turns out, are of a private and commercial nature, usually to deliver the satellites used to provide cell phone service for T-Mobile into polar orbit.

As much as some commissioners have fulminated over this, they’ve gained little to no traction with the Air Force colonels who have functioned to date as Musk and his company’s agents in front of the commission. To date, neither Musk nor any representatives from SpaceX have shown up to address the Coastal Commission at prior hearings on this matter.

The Coastal Commission will be meeting this Thursday, August 8, at 9 a.m. in Calabasas to deliberate about the project and the proposed conditional concurrence. For those wishing to participate, the meeting is accessible by Zoom and public comment will be taken. View the live stream here.