SpaceX has been working for years to bring Starship to Florida and has already built launch infrastructure for the vehicle at Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39A; the tower and other equipment for Starship is often seen in coverage of Falcon 9 launches there. SpaceX is working with NASA, the FAA, and other agencies on an environmental impact statement (EIS) for Starship launches there, while a separate review is underway with the Department of the Air Force to support Starship launches from Cape Canaveral’s Space Launch Complex (SLC) 37, previously used by the Delta IV.
If those environmental reviews are finalized, SpaceX would be able to perform 44 Starship launches a year from LC-39A, as well as 88 landings (44 each of Super Heavy and the Starship upper stage), as well as 76 launches from SLC-37, along with 152 landings. By contrast, SpaceX is currently approved for 25 launches and 50 landings a year from Starbase.
The prospect of adding 120 launches and 240 landings a year to Cape Canaveral, particularly of a vehicle the scale of Starship, has raised concerns both inside and outside the spaceport. Other launch companies wonder what impacts Starship launches will have on their operations, from the availability of propellants to hazard zones that could disrupt their work.
The EIS for Starship launches from LC-39A, for example, showed restriction zones for tests and launches extending south to include SLC-41, the pad that United Launch Alliance uses for Atlas and Vulcan; for launches, the zone stretches west almost to the Vehicle Assembly Building.
Tory Bruno, CEO of ULA, said in an August media briefing that the disruption caused by Starship launches could be “unprecedented” given the vehicle’s size, suggesting it could affect other launch providers as well. The EIS for Starship launches from SLC-37 showed restriction zones for launches extending from SLC-41 south to sites assigned to emerging launch vehicle companies like Relativity Space and Stoke Space. It stops just short of SLC-36, the pad Blue Origin uses for New Glenn. “It’s something that’s not been on the range before, so they need to do a very thorough and careful analysis of that,” Bruno said of those Starship reviews. “We are counting on them to do it so we can all use the range.”
An online public meeting in early September about the LC-39A study brought in people concerned about other effects. The restriction zones for launches would require closing Playalinda Beach, a popular beach just north of KSC, dozens a times of year for tests and launches. One person suggested it would force people to go to beaches further north, including one that has long been a clothing-optional beach, causing a clash of cultures.
Others worried about the impact of the launches themselves, which would stretch far from the launch pad given the size of the vehicle. The study found that up to 14% of residents in nearby communities would be awakened by the noise of a nighttime launch, and up to 82% by the sonic boom from a Super Heavy booster landing.
Launch noise also posed a “substantial” risk of damage claims within several kilometers of the pad, all within the boundaries of Kennedy Space Center. Outside KSC, the study found a 1-in-1,000 risk of damage. At the public hearing, people worried about the impacts the noise and vibration would have, particularly on older homes.
The effects of Starship launches from Florida could spread much further in terms of its impact on aviation. Launches would create aircraft hazard area (AHA) corridors extending well into the Atlantic. “AHAs may necessitate the closure of dozens of coastal and deep-water oceanic airways over the Atlantic Ocean, requiring substantial aircraft rerouting to avoid the AHAs,” the LC-39A study stated.
Reentries would also create AHAs from Mexico and Central America to Florida as Starship reentered from west to east to land back at KSC. “AHAs may necessitate the closure of dozens of coastal and deep-water oceanic airways” from the Pacific to the Atlantic Coast, the report stated. “Multiple airports may require departure stops due to the overlying AHA.”
The report found that launches could create delays ranging from 40 to 120 minutes for launches and 40 to 60 minutes for landing. That could affect, during peak travel times, as many as 400 aircraft for launches and 600 for landings.
That has raised alarm bells for both airlines and airports. Among those who spoke at the online public meeting in September was John Tiliacos, chief operating officer of Tampa International Airport.
“There is the potential that there is going to be significant impact to commercial aviation,” he said. “That’s something that the FAA needs to give consideration to and, frankly, come up with a plan to mitigate that.”