David Bowie’s hit song "Space Oddity," about the fictional astronaut Major Tom, was released as a single in 1969. Environmental impact statements (EIS) for rocket launches in the US were not required at that time. Rocket launches in 1969, including Major Tom’s ill-fated space journey and the Apollo 11 mission, occurred before the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in January 1970 and thus did not go through formal environmental reviews.
It’s unlikely NEPA could have saved Major Tom. But as rocket launches grow bigger and more frequent and states promote new spaceports, environmental assessments will be essential to understand and mitigate the chemical and physical impacts on our planet.
To Infinity and Beyond?
President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) Enabling Competition in the Space Industry 1 has sharpened debate over whether and to what extent NEPA applies to rocket launches, spaceport installations, and activities in outer space. In line with the Administration’s efforts to streamline or accelerate environmental reviews involving federal agency actions, this EO seeks to promote the US commercial space industry by making regulations simpler and possibly exempting certain types of activities.
The EO directs the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to streamline or expedite the Department’s environmental reviews and other licensing requirements for rocket launch and reentry permits. It further authorizes the Secretary to determine which Department of Transportation (DOT) actions may be exempt from NEPA and whether new or existing categorical exclusions are warranted for certain launch and reentry activities. The EO also instructs federal agencies to accelerate environmental and administrative reviews for spaceport infrastructure and directs the CEQ Chair, working with relevant departments, to develop new NEPA categorical exclusions for spaceport development projects with minimal environmental impact. It also directs the Secretary of Commerce, with DOT, Department of Defense, and NASA, to evaluate state compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), assess whether states are obstructing spaceport development, and notify the Department of Justice of any conflicting actions.
NEPA, we’ve had a problem.
Yes, indeed. Environmental reviews at three of the country's most prominent spaceports highlight the importance of evaluating space industry activities.
Legal and regulatory challenges to launch permits have prompted agencies and the commercial space industry to adopt new environmental safeguards. At Vandenberg Air Force Base, environmental reviews led to adjustments in launch trajectories to reduce sonic-boom impacts over the Channel Islands, and schedules are sometimes shifted to avoid sensitive wildlife periods such as marine mammal pupping 2. At present, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and US Coast Guard are preparing a new EIS supporting the redevelopment of Space Launch Complex (SLC)-6 to support Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy operations at the renamed Vandenberg Space Force Base 3.
At SpaceX’s Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, the FAA in 2022 required more than 75 mitigation measures, including restrictions on lighting to protect birds and sea turtles, limits on road and beach closures, and habitat buffers 4. Launch pad construction plans have also been modified in some cases to avoid wetlands and other sensitive habitats. A separate legal case is still active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, concerning impacts to sensitive ecological areas in surrounding park and National Wildlife Refuge lands after the dramatic explosion of the inaugural Starship rocket launch in April 2023. Five environmental groups claim the FAA failed to adequately review environmental protocols before approving the flight 5.
At Cape Canaveral / Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the nation’s oldest spaceport, a draft EIS released in May 2025 addresses SpaceX’s plan for up to 44 Starship launches annually from Kennedy Space Center’s LC-39A 6. It raises concerns about impacts on the bald eagle, citing noise, vibrations, visual disturbances, sonic booms, and restricted access; it also mentions wildlife like sea turtles and migratory birds as vulnerable to beachfront and operational disruptions. Public hearings are scheduled for late August and a virtual session on September 3, 2025. The public comment period closes on September 22. While earlier environmental assessments in 2017, 2019, and 2020 shaped past operations7, the 2025 draft EIS marks a significant expansion in scope and scrutiny.
What Happens to Planet Earth, Stays on Planet Earth
The space industry, and spaceports specifically, have very large environmental footprints. NEPA requirements for environmental assessments contribute to balancing humankind’s ambitions in outer space with protections here at home on Planet Earth. Without changes to NEPA, some argue, innovation and competitiveness will stifle US participation in the rapidly evolving space industry. Earth-bound critics of the EO, on the other hand, believe the order favors industry growth over environmental protection, imposing potentially significant environmental consequences to air, land, and water resources at launch sites and in surrounding areas.
The debate over the scope and application of NEPA to space launches continues. Legal challenges are likely to persist as the commercial space industry grows. Without doubt, environmental assessments can be invaluable to the commercial space industry for identifying and mitigating impacts and limiting liabilities. Consider the scene in the 2009 reboot of Star Trek with actor Christopher Pine in the role of a young James T. Kirk. Recall when young Kirk decides in the morning after a rough bar brawl to join Starfleet, riding his motorcycle through Nebraska cornfields with a massive spaceport and starship construction in the distance. Was that facility subject to a NEPA review?
_______________________
References
1 White House Executive Order August 2025.
2 Final EA, Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy Launch Vehicle Programs from Space Launch Complex 4 East. March 2011.
3 Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Authorizing Changes to the Falcon Launch Program at Vandenberg Space Force Base. 89 FR 100986-100987. Doc. No. 2024-29446, 12/13/2024.
4 FAA, 13 June 2022. https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-requires-spacex-take-over-75-actions-mitigate-environmental impact-planned?utm_source=chatgpt.com
5 . Center for Biological Diversity v. Federal Aviation Administration; Case 1:23-cv-01204, filed 05/01/2023, US District Court for the District of Columbia; Time Magazine 30/05/2023; E&E News.
6 FAA, 12 August 2025. https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship_ksc
7 NASA Programmatic EIS, 2017; ULA 12 June 2019; FAA, 21 February 2024;
