FAA Reviews SpaceX Launch Increase, Landing Pad Plan

FAA Reviews SpaceX Launch Increase, Landing Pad Plan

FAA Issues Environmental Take on SpaceX Request for More Launches, New Landing Pad

by Richard Tribou

Falcon 9
Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

If SpaceX gets its way, the Space Coast will get a lot more rocket rumbles and sonic booms as the company increases Falcon 9 launches and builds out new landing pads at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and Kennedy Space Center.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released a 116-page draft environmental assessment for the first of those targeting Canaveral's Space Launch Complex 40, where SpaceX wants to increase launches from 50 to 120 per year.

The assessment looks to set up SpaceX to proceed with its plans, although the agency rejected a proposal to build yet another new landing pad at Canaveral because of .

The FAA has partnered with the Air Force, Coast Guard, and NASA for the assessment, with NASA as the lead agency for a second assessment expected this spring for KSC's Launch Complex 39-A, where SpaceX wants to increase launches from 20 to 36, including up to five of its larger Falcon Heavy rockets each year.

The proposed construction of new landing sites would solve the company's reliance on two landing pads at Canaveral's Launch Complex 13, which it will soon lose access to, as space has been set aside for two other commercial launch providers—Phantom Space and Vaya Space—neither of which have launched yet.

The goal of the Space Force is to have SpaceX and other launch providers maintain landing sites at the same location from which they launch. The Space Force does not intend to renew SpaceX's license to land at LC 13 after it runs out this summer.

Proposal Outcome
Increase launches from 50 to 120 per year at SLC 40 Supported by the FAA
Build new landing pad at Canaveral Rejected due to environmental concerns
Increase launches from 20 to 36 at KSC Pending further assessment

For Canaveral, the final design only calls for a single landing pad despite SpaceX proposals to build two. Environmental impacts were cited as the primary reason for this decision, with significant concerns regarding impacts on Florida scrub-jay and southeastern beach mouse habitats, wetland coverage, and flight safety for the SpaceX hangar

“The FAA's preliminary conclusion indicates that the proposed actions will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” – FAA Draft Environmental Assessment

SpaceX is seeking to land up to 34 first-stage boosters a year at the new site. With past activities, the company recorded 12 booster landings in 2024 and six in 2023.

Planned Infrastructure Improvements

Infrastructure Component Description
Landing pad A single 400-foot diameter pad with a gravel apron
Nitrogen gas line New pipeline for post-landing operations
Crane area Storage area for crucial equipment
Development footprint Approx. 10 acres added to the site

Next Steps for SpaceX

A public comment period has been set by the FAA through April 24. A virtual public meeting will occur on April 16, and those interested must register to join. The agency may issue a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) or proceed with the more rigorous Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which could impose a two-year delay on any construction.

Other environmental evaluations are currently underway by the FAA and the Air Force concerning SpaceX's Starship and Super Heavy rocket launch operations. A critical fact is that all licenses will only be issued if all factors across safety, risk mitigation, and financial responsibility are met.

Conclusion

The assessments reveal the challenges and considerations associated with expanding commercial launch operations. Balancing development with environmental preservation remains crucial for future ambitions within U.S. aerospace sectors.

Subscribe to Josh Universe newsletter and stay updated.

Don't miss anything. Get all the latest posts delivered straight to your inbox. It's free!
Great! Check your inbox and click the link to confirm your subscription.
Error! Please enter a valid email address!