SpaceX’s plan to launch its monstrous Starship-Super Heavy two-stage tandem from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center has drawn attention — and concern — from two competing aerospace companies, who are warning federal officials that the 500-foot-tall rocket would be too untested, too dangerous and too potentially disruptive to the nation’s busiest spaceport and its surrounding area.
United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin, both of which have significant footprints on the Space Coast and see SpaceX as direct competition, have filed written objections with the Federal Aviation Administration.
The FAA is preparing an environmental impact statement to evaluate the potential impact of Starships launching up to 44 times a year from Pad 39A at KSC. SpaceX is also eyeing a potential second Starship launch pad at the adjacent Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.
“As the world’s largest rocket, 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,” ULA officials wrote in a 22-page letter to the FAA.
ULA cited the April 2023 Starship explosion at SpaceX’s private launch site in Boca Chica, Texas, which sent debris across a six-mile radius. At Cape, ULA officials noted that their launch pad is just three miles from Pad 39A and that other companies are located nearby.
“If a similar accident were to occur again, debris could reach ULA’s operations and could injure people or property. And with the increased thrust planned for Starship, debris from a similar launch failure could reach larger, populated areas around KSC,” the ULA letter said.
Blue Origin employs more than 2,700 full-time employees in Brevard County and has invested more than $1 billion in developing the world’s first privately built heavy-lift launch platform for future launches of the New Glenn rocket.
Cape Canaveral:Is There a Launch Today? Upcoming SpaceX, NASA, ULA Rocket Launch Schedule in Florida
In a three-page letter to the FAA, Blue Origin officials proposed limiting the number of Starship-Super Heavy launches and landings to “a number that has minimal impact on the local environment, local operations personnel, and local community.”
And ULA urged the administration to consider an alternative to allowing SpaceX to bring Starship to KSC: leave the giant rocket in Boca Chica, where it is now.
SpaceX officials did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Space companies compete for contracts
In the days following his competitors’ comments to the FAA, SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk had just two words to say to X: “Sue Origin.” Some media outlets have portrayed these comments about Starship’s environmental study as a battle between billionaires, most notably Musk and Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos.
However, Don Platt, director of the Florida Institute of Technology’s Spaceport Education Center in Titusville, said, “If a large company has the ability to complain about one of their competitors in a public forum, they probably will.”
“You have to consider the source. They don’t want to just hand over the keys to the space industry to SpaceX. And right now it looks like that’s really what’s happening,” Platt said.
“And it’s not really because of anything that the government is being dishonest about or anything like that. It’s just that SpaceX is just, they’re operating. They’re doing their thing. They’re successful. And Blue Origin and ULA are both struggling to keep up,” he said.
Not counting potential Starship missions, SpaceX rockets have accounted for 46 of the 49 launches from the Space Coast so far this year. ULA has secured the other three launches, while Blue Origin officials hope to begin launching New Glenn rockets by the end of the year.
All three space companies are competitors for NASA contracts. Tensions between SpaceX and Blue Origin arose after NASA selected Starship to land humans on the moon with the Artemis program. Blue Origin filed a lawsuit against NASA, further stating that Starship is “extremely complex and risky.”
In 2023, NASA was able to add a second human landing system for Artemis. NASA selected Blue Origin’s Blue Moon to land astronauts on the moon alongside Starship on future missions.
Blue Origin and ULA warn of dangers from spacecraft
The FAA is preparing the Starship environmental impact statement as part of the permitting process to authorize future launches from KSC. In addition, the U.S. Air Force is conducting an environmental study of SpaceX’s goal of bringing Starship Super Heavy launches to Launch Complex 37 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in 2026.
In their letters to the FAA, Blue Origin and ULA warned of a number of dangers associated with Starship. Among the companies’ concerns:
- According to Blue Origin, Starship Super Heavy operations are expected to have a greater environmental impact than any launch system currently operating on the Space Coast. The two-stage rocket can carry “up to an unprecedented 5,200 tons of liquid methane for propulsion.”
- Landing boosters on Pad 39A, rather than using drone ships in the Atlantic Ocean, “shifts the risks of system failure to the communities, businesses and environment surrounding KSC,” ULA said.
- Blue Origin was concerned about the safety of its employees and assets in the event of an anomaly. Concerns were raised about debris dispersal, explosion overpressure, sonic booms, explosions, fire, noise, air pollution and hazardous materials.
- Disruption of other launch providers. “SpaceX regularly plans to launch the largest rocket ever from two launch sites within a six-mile radius. Launching just one Starship site would likely disrupt other launch operations in the area and have significant environmental impacts,” ULA said.
Local residents are also concerned about Starship’s environmental impact
FAA officials accepted Starship public comments through June 24, and they also heard from Brevard groups. The federal agency held public open houses in mid-June at the Raddison Resort at Cape Canaveral Harbor and the KSC Visitor Complex. The project website can be found at faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship_ksc
In a letter to the FAA, Charlie Venuto, president of the Merritt Island Wildlife Association, praised the repurposing of Pad 39A for Starship, especially compared to the option of building a new launch complex on undeveloped KSC property.
However, Titusville-based MIWA argues that the FAA environmental study should examine a range of environmental impacts from Starship, such as:
- Quality of the stormwater management system to protect the ecologically threatened Indian River Lagoon.
- Effects of artificial lighting on nesting sea turtles, migratory birds, breeding birds and nocturnal animals.
- Cumulative effects on air quality, damage to the stratospheric ozone layer, habitat destruction, the ability to implement conservation management techniques such as controlled burning, and carbon emissions, taking into account Blue Origin’s upcoming New Glenn rockets.
In a 10-page letter, officials from the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge noted that the KSC and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station environmental studies “appear to be related actions being considered separately, making the two impact analyses, including cumulative impacts, less efficient and less comprehensive, and requiring substantial cross-integration between the two.”
The Southeastern Fisheries Association noted that it supports national defense and space exploration efforts. That said, the group wants the FAA study to consider the physical, social and economic impacts of Starship on all stakeholders, including fishing families, local communities, businesses, restaurants, lodging facilities and Florida’s tourism industry.
UCF Space Expert: Multiple Robust Space Companies Are Critical
Phil Metzger is director of the Stephen W. Hawking Center for Microgravity Research & Education at the University of Central Florida. In an email, he said he thinks ULA’s statement about Starship is fair because it asks the FAA to do its job while also reporting potential impacts to the environment, neighboring communities and other companies launching at the Cape.
“They noted that it is in the national interest to have multiple healthy launch companies for assured access to space, so that one company’s operations would not have to shut down competitors. I think that is all legitimate and should be emphasized,” Metzger said.
However, he said he believes Blue Origin made “a serious mistake” by capping Starship’s launch frequency.
“This would be the least creative and least helpful solution to potential problems on the Cape,” Metzger said.
“Space is becoming increasingly important to the world, to national security and to economic prosperity, and the U.S. must scale up the launch velocity — from all providers — and not create caps that will ultimately harm every company and the nation as a whole,” he said.
For the latest news from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, visit floridatoday.com/space.
Brooke Edwards is a space reporter for Florida Today. Contact her at [email protected] or at X: @brookeofstars.
Space is important to us, which is why we work to bring you top industry and launch coverage in Florida. Journalism like this takes time and resources. Support it with a subscription here.