Comment from Emily Alpert
Emily AlpertOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter opposes the proposed action, arguing that the public comment period is too short and that the assessment fails to adequately analyze the impacts on commercial air traffic and public safety. They specifically highlight concerns regarding rocket anomalies over land and the compatibility of Starship operations with nearby industrial developments like LNG facilities and refineries.
I am requesting that the public comment period be extended and that public hearings be held to ensure meaningful public participation. The comment time period is too short. The assessment minimizes the impact of interruption on commercial air traffic, disrupting public passengers and air cargo operations. With 22 launches and landings per year, it is estimated that 6600 flights will be affected. The assessment does not adequately analyze rocket anomalies over land. There is no analysis of environmental or public safety consequences if a malfunction occurs over land. The Port of Brownsville is planning a major expansion that include Saronic Technologies military manufacturing facility. There will also be a new oil refinery built in Port Isabel. Has the FAA evaluated whether these developments are compatible with frequent Starship launches and landings. Space X has announced plans to build a natural gas liquefaction (LNG) facility at Starbase. with feed gas supplied by a lateral pipeline connected to the Rio Bravo Pipeline at the Port. Have safety and security implications been considered? There are already LNG facilities nearby. Is having an LNG facility at Starbase compatible with landing rockets at Starbase?