Carbajal Introduces Bill to Assist Communities Impacted by Space Launch Noise

Rep. Salud Carbajal (courtesy)

U.S. Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24) introduced the Space Launch Noise Mitigation Study Act to require the Department of the Air Force (DAF) to assess the impact of space launch activity on neighboring communities and make recommendations for noise mitigation.

The emergence of frequent sonic booms from the increase in space launches is a new phenomenon that requires additional studies to more comprehensively understand the impacts. This legislation will produce recommendations to inform a grant program that allows affected communities to install noise-mitigating technologies.

“With space launches occurring more frequently, nearby communities have voiced concern over the intensifying noise and its effect on their quality of life,” said Rep. Carbajal. “This legislation is a crucial step forward in equipping communities with the necessary resources to reduce the disruptive impact of sonic booms and protect their well-being.”

As a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Carbajal has worked to address space launch noise and its effect on local residents.

Last December, Rep. Carbajal secured language in the annual defense policy bill that – for the first time – acknowledged the impact of space launch noises on nearby communities and called for more resources to be allocated to communities impacted by the launches.

Related News

Vandenberg SFB Leads Study on Ascent Sonic Booms in Space Launches

Rep.SaludCarbajal

Written by Rep.SaludCarbajal

Press releases from the office of Rep. Salud Carbajal. He represents California’s 24th Congressional District, encompassing Santa Barbara County and portions of San Luis Obispo County and Ventura County. Learn more at https://carbajal.house.gov/

What do you think?

Comments

0 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment

57 Comments

    • https://www.defensenews.com/space/2025/06/04/space-force-shifts-upfront-range-upgrade-costs-to-commercial-firms/

      As commercial space launch demand has grown in recent years, the Space Force’s ranges at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida and Vandenberg Space Force Base in California have become the world’s busiest launch hubs. The ranges have seen a 30% annual increase in business for several years in a row and conducted 114 missions in 2024, the bulk of them from Cape Canaveral.

      Those launch rates have put strain on range infrastructure, and the service has been weighing options for addressing the issue. The Space Force is investing nearly $1.4 billion through 2028 to widen roads to accommodate larger rockets, improve airfields, secure communication lines and increase power redundancy — part of an effort called Spaceport of the Future, which aims to run the ranges more like a commercial airport.

      • The Space Force this week revealed a new model for upgrading its East and West Coast ranges, shifting upfront costs that used to be borne by the government to the commercial launch companies that rely on the infrastructure.

        Under a new $4 billion Space Force Range Contract, which will be managed by advisory and consulting firm Jacobs Technology, commercial launch firms will place task orders and pay directly for various services required to support their launches. That includes things like costly maintenance, sustainment, operations and systems engineering for aging range infrastructure. Shifting to this new cost construct, the service said, also supports that goal.

        “This contract will transform the way operations, maintenance, sustainment, and systems engineering and integration services are provided at the Eastern and Western Ranges, to enable their eventual transformation into efficient, high-capacity multi-user spaceports,” the service said in the statement.

        • https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/4203613/

          Jacobs Technology Inc., Tullahoma, Tennessee, was awarded a $4,000,000,000 ceiling hybrid, indefinite-quantity/indefinite-delivery contract for Space Force range contract. The contract provides for operations, maintenance, sustainment, systems engineering, and integration services support to Space Force objectives for the Eastern and Western ranges serving national security, space exploration, and commercial users. Work will be performed at Patrick Space Force Base, Florida; and Vandenberg SFB, California, to include areas of responsibility, and is expected to be completed by March 31, 2035. This contract was a competitive acquisition and four offers were received. Fiscal 2025 operation and maintenance appropriations funds in the amount of $3,625,190 are being obligated at time of award.

          • https://www.amentum.com/news/amentum/

            Amentum Announces Agreement to Merge with Jacobs’ Critical Mission Solutions and Cyber and Intelligence Businesses

            Amentum announced today a definitive agreement to merge with Jacobs’ (NYSE:J) Critical Mission Solutions (CMS) and Cyber and Intelligence (C&I) businesses, creating a new leader in systems integration and technology solutions trusted by the United States and its allies to modernize their most complex missions around the world. The combined organization will be a publicly traded company with $13 billion in revenue and more than 53,000 employees in 83 countries.

            “Uniting our great organizations – Amentum, CMS, and Cyber & Intelligence Solutions – creates a leading provider of systems integration and technology solutions with the talent, scope, scale and footprint to deliver excellence and a wider range of solutions for our clients,” commented Amentum CEO John Heller. “Our combined company will deliver extensive expertise in the government’s highest priority areas of energy, space exploration, intelligence and analytics, and digital modernization. We look forward to the union of our strong teams and a bright future ahead.”

      • SIRSANDY – It might be easier for you if you simply submit a single post with your volumes of information as an Op-Ed. More people will read an article than continuous and exceedingly lengthy comments. You’re clearly well informed and putting a lot of time into this, so just a thought!

    • And if CoastWatch is referring to SpaceX, can they make it; could they have gotten where they are, without massive government subsidies and contracts? Granted, they’re the only proficient launch company at this time, but they had a lot of government aid.

  1. The reality is this legislation is a joke and another waste of tax payers dollars and time. This is another reason why taxes keep going up because money gets wasted on dumb programs like this. Do something that actually matters Salud. You can’t mitigate the expanding sonic boom across an entire county. Go back and take physics 101 and pull your head out of the sand. The launch facilities have existed before Carbajal was born, if you don’t like it, move away or buy some ear plugs, it’s only going to continue. Just wait until they bring the Starship to Vandenberg and start launching military assets from it. It’s 10 times louder than the existing launches. You’d be better off buying people cups of hot chocolate for school kids so they can sit back and watch history being made and be inspired by it.

    • from notes a friend took while watching a presentation on Starship:

      “The rocket is astronomically loud when it launches. You can literally see the shock waves in the clouds. I don’t see how Starbase, TX is going to even be inhabitable with two launches per day.”

      Yeah. That’ll be fun.

      • Noise impact

        Regarding noise, the EIS states: “Launch and landing operations create engine noise and sonic booms. Noise levels would not exceed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) thresholds for daily noise exposure limits. Residents within the area surrounding VSFB would likely hear launch engine noise and sonic booms during return landings at VSFB. Noise-induced structural vibration during launches and landings caused by rocket engine noise and sonic booms may cause annoyance to building occupants in and around Lompoc, CA. In southeastern Santa Barbara, Ventura, and northwestern Los Angeles Counties, residents would likely hear occasional sonic booms, which would vary in impact location and levels depending on mission trajectories and weather conditions, and may cause annoyance because of induced secondary vibrations, or “rattle” of objects within buildings.”

        When it comes to the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches and landings, the EIS also states: “Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches and landings at SLC-4 and SLC-6 have the potential to cause damage to some structures depending on the overpressure levels the structures are exposed to as well as the construction quality and condition of the structures. Damage associated with noise and vibrations may occur to lightweight or brittle structural elements in poor condition, such as windows and plaster that are pre-cracked, prestressed, older and weakened, or poorly mounted; however, damage to windows and plaster in good condition and structural damage to buildings is not expected. Launches typically generate sonic booms over water which are not expected to damage structures. Booms in some areas may rarely exceed 4 pounds per square foot (psf). Damage to structures is unlikely below 2 psf, and more likely at 4 psf and above. Overall, while 4 psf sonic booms are more likely to cause damage compared to 2 psf, the extent of damage still depends on other factors, including the construction quality and maintenance of the structures.”

      • Suddenly, in unison, the colony members raise their heads and look north as the low rumble of a SpaceX rocket launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base culminates in a sonic boom. Startled, the seals rush, or “flush,” into the ocean. In one instance, blood pools in the surf among the mass of frantic bodies.

        “Stress from such disturbances can lead to miscarriage or premature birth,” stated Becki Norton with Carpinteria Seal Watch (CSW), a citizen group that monitors the protected rookery, one of only four in Southern California.

        https://www.independent.com/2025/06/11/vandenberg-rocket-launches-spooking-carpinteria-harbor-seals/

    • https://www.safety.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4192330/vsfb-pioneers-research-on-ascent-sonic-booms/

      Vandenberg Space Force Base stands as a vital hub where Guardians and Airmen oversee launches that safeguard U.S. interests and uphold America’s edge in the space domain. Each mission highlights American innovation, fortifies resilience, and increases security for the nation and its allies.

      As space launch becomes more frequent, the leadership at the base are striking a delicate balance—ensuring critical support for missions that strengthen national defense, while addressing concerns like launch noise and the unique ecosystem that surrounds it.

      U.S. Space Force Col. Mark Shoemaker, Space Launch Delta 30 commander and Vandenberg’s host installation commander who leads the Vandenberg spaceport and test range, has a comprehensive view of these responsibilities.

      “Community and environmental considerations at Vandenberg remain consistent regardless of who is providing launch services from a U.S. Space Force installation,” said Shoemaker. “As stewards of this base, we are working with our regulatory partners to evaluate processes to ensure consistency across the Vandenberg spaceport and test range and we are committed to doing so efficiently and with speed.”

      A groundbreaking research collaboration between the U.S. Space Force, Brigham Young University, California State University-Bakersfield, the Federal Aviation Administration, SpaceX, and NASA is revolutionizing the understanding of launch acoustics and sonic booms. While previous research on acoustic shock waves is substantial, it focused primarily on aircraft. Rocket launches create more complex sonic boom patterns than aircraft due to their unique flight path, rapid acceleration, and extreme altitude changes.

      “This is a significant focus area for us. As we safely move launches further east to open access to operational orbits, we’re encountering new challenges, such as the phenomenon of sonic booms during ascent along the coast of California,” said Shoemaker. “This situation presents opportunities for research, and we’re currently working on modeling these effects to better understand and account for them in operational planning.”

      The collaborative sonic boom study, which has monitored 11 launches to date with plans to track more throughout 2025, employs a network of approximately 25 high-tech monitoring stations spread across 500 square miles of California’s central coast. These stations, positioned from the beaches between Isla Vista and Malibu to the hills of Ojai, capture data on the complex sonic boom patterns created by rockets.

      “It’s like trying to catch lightning in a bottle,” explains Kent Gee, Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University, who leads the academic research team. “All launches generate sonic booms; however, their audibility to the public is influenced by several factors, including the launch trajectory, the size of the rocket, and atmospheric conditions.”

      Rockets launched from Vandenberg SFB follow flight paths that primarily go south, or south-southeast. These trajectories are carefully chosen to avoid flying over populated areas in accordance with U.S. public safety priorities. One factor that makes studying these flight paths complex is the presence of multiple microclimates along California’s Central Coast, south of Vandenberg.

      “We are in the process of understanding these microclimates and creating a three-dimensional map of sound to understand how launches impact different areas,” said Gee. “The data we have collected is already yielding surprises.”

      Launches with nearly identical flight paths can produce vastly different noise levels on the ground, said Gee. This variability has sent researchers on a quest to unravel the complex interplay between rocket trajectories, weather conditions, and topography.

      But the project goes beyond mere data collection. The U.S. Space Force is actively implementing measures based on current findings. Prior to launch, during the Launch Readiness Review process, data models are analyzed to predict noise impact. After launch, the team uses data collected from the monitoring stations to validate predictions and guide future improvements and adjustments aiming to reduce potential disturbances.

      “It’s a delicate balance,” Shoemaker said. “Every adjustment we make has ripple effects. Fly too far west, and it could compromise our ability to get satellites into the required orbit. Fly too far east, and there might be increased noise in populated areas. But we’re committed to collecting data, following the science, and optimizing operations.”

      To select launch times, Shoemaker’s team works closely with launch companies, like SpaceX, to occur during less impactful hours of the day whenever possible. For example, many launch times have been adjusted to occur between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. instead of the middle of the night. However, there will always be missions that can only be launched in the middle of the night due to where the satellite must be placed in space relative to the Earth.

      Vandenberg SFB also hosts an Interagency Environmental Working Group, which began meeting quarterly in September 2024. This forum brings together representatives from various agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, FAA, California Coastal Commission, and other environmental organizations to share information, review and discuss data and reports related to coastal resource impacts. Recent meetings have focused on the collaborative sonic boom study’s current findings and implications.

      Despite several hurdles, the study represents a significant step forward in scientific research and space launch. It’s a powerful acknowledgment that the future of space exploration hinges not only on technological breakthroughs, but also on an unwavering commitment to rigorous research and adaptive strategies.

      In this dance between cutting-edge technology and effects of progress, Guardians and Airmen at Vandenberg Space Force Base continue to play a critical role in writing the next chapter of space capabilities for the nation.

    • https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/05/falcon-9-sonic-booms-can-feel-more-like-seismic-waves/

      The Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara, California, serves military space launch missions as well as launches for NASA and commercial entities like SpaceX. But how do all those launches affect residents living along the Central Coast? People might marvel at the spectacular visual display, but as launch activity at the base has ramped up, so have the noise complaints, particularly about the sonic booms produced by Falcon 9 launches, which can reach as far south as Ventura County. The booms rattle windows, frighten pets, and have raised concerns about threats to the structural integrity of private homes.

      There have been rockets launching from Vandenberg for decades, so why are the Falcon 9 launches of such concern? “Because of the Starlink satellites, the orbital mechanics for where they’re trying to place these in orbit is bringing [the trajectories] closer to the coast,” said Brigham Young University’s Kent Gee, who described his research into sonic boom effects on neighboring communities in a press briefing at a meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in New Orleans. And the launches are occurring much more frequently, from two to three launches per year in the 1980s to between five and seven launches each month today. There were 46 Falcon 9 launches out of the Vandenberg base in 2024 alone, per Gee.

      Gee joined a project called ECOBOOM (Environmental and Community Observation of Sonic Booms) to study the factors that can impact just how jarring those sonic booms might be, conducted jointly by BYU and California State University, Bakersfield, with cooperation from the Space Force. “Space Force is interested in this because they feel a sense of stewardship,” said Gee. “These rockets from SpaceX and other providers are launched from the base for a variety of missions and they want to understand the effects both on and off base, trying to understand how they can complete the mission while minimizing [negative] impacts.”

      Gee and his cohorts monitored 132 separate sonic booms last summer, relying on data gathered via a network of 25 or so acoustic monitoring stations located along 500 square miles, including the beaches of Isla Vista and further inland to the hills of Ojai. “The measurements were made in parks, people’s backyards, parking lots, wastewater plants, and all sorts of different locations,” said Gee.

      There has been a great deal of research on supersonic aircraft, but the sonic booms produced by rockets like the Falcon 9 are acoustically distinct, according to Gee. For instance, most sonic booms have two shock waves, but the Falcon 9 booster produces a boom with three shocks as it descends through the atmosphere after launch. Gee co-authored a paper earlier this year analyzing the acoustic signatures of three Falcon 9 flyback sonic booms.

      While the first and third shocks were what one might typically expect, the second central shock “is formed by a combination of the grid fins and the lower portions of the booster, including the folded landing legs,” Gee and BYU colleague Mark C. Anderson wrote. “These lower portions of the booster produce a rarefaction wave that tends to migrate toward the back of the shock system while the grid fins produce a shock wave that tends to migrate toward the front of the shock system.” Those shock waves merge, and their relative strengths determine where this second shock appears in the full sonic boom acoustic signature.

      Sonic booms from rockets are also lower frequency, with peaks of less than 1 Hz—below the range of human hearing. The result is less of a “boom” and more of a “bang,” according to Gee, that can last a few seconds, compared to milliseconds for a typical acoustic wave. It’s more akin to a seismic wave, particularly if one is indoors when it hits. “Sometimes you get a very low amplitude rumble, but it comes on suddenly, and it’s there for a few seconds and disappears,” he said. It’s also one reason why the sonic booms can travel so far afield of the Vandenberg base.

      Could the similarities confuse California residents who might mistake a sonic boom for an earthquake? Perhaps, at least until residents learn otherwise. “Since we’re often setting up in people’s backyard, they text us the results of what they heard,” said Gee. “It’s fantastic citizen science. They’ll tell us the difference is that the walls shake but the floors don’t. They’re starting to be able to tell the difference between an earthquake or a sonic boom from a launch.”

  2. Summary of Scoping Comments submitted for preparation of the Space Force Base’s Environmental Impact Study

    VSFB_Falcon_Launch_Draft_EIS_May_2025.pdf (200 pp, 7,919 K)
    https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/details?eisId=514981

    Air Quality
    • Increase in air pollution from increased launches (80).
    • Concern about the localized depletion of ozone in California (50).
    • Concern about rocket fuel and increased need with more launches (45).
    • Rockets create debris, soot, and fiberglass that falls in neighborhoods (35).
    • Concern about reducing the launch window availability by ‘overcrowding’ the lower atmosphere.
    • Concern about exceeding the World Health Organization standards in nitrogen oxide emissions.
    • Request the project obtain an Authority to Construction (ATC) permit from the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
    • Request for the project follow all Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District regulations.

  3. Climate Change
    • Concern about the increase in greenhouse gas emissions when focus should be on decarbonizing practices (3).
    • Concern about the contribution of the entire process of design, engineering, construction and satellite launches to global warming (3).
    • Concern about the launches to impact the local weather (2).

  4. Space Debris
    • Presence of space “junk,” debris, and pollution from rockets (100).
    • Include an analysis of the Kessler Syndrome and resulting cumulative or indirect impacts of new satellites and other new orbiting material that would be introduced under the proposed action (10).
    • Concern about the ability of early detection systems to be confused by “space junk” and not be able to identify potential threats in the lower atmosphere.

  5. Cumulative Impacts
    • Concern about cumulative impacts of increasing the launch cadence (30).

    Noise
    • Concern that sonic booms cause property damage (e.g., cracks appearing in walls or foundations, windows breaking) (890).
    • Request launches be conducted during daytime hours to reduce noise at night (700).
    • Concern about increase in noise and sonic booms with increased launches (680).
    • Concern about noise impacts on pets (415).
    • Request that all residents receive notice prior to launches via email or text message (100).

  6. • Concern that noise is affecting children’s sleep patterns and their ability to learn (50).
    • Disproportionate noise impact on those who reside in mobile homes (3).
    • Request for the noise study to make a clear distinction between landing operations on the base versus landing operations on drone ships (2).
    • Concern that sonic booms will impact fault lines in the Proposed Action area (2).
    • Concern about the creation of a ‘sonic boom cone’ extending 101 miles in the surrounding areas for each launch.
    • Request for sonic boom analysis to be measured from real-time launches and maximum permissible sound levels throughout the year rather than computer modeled numbers.

  7. • Concern that knowledge of the timing of launches does not help with severe reactions from sonic booms.
    • Request noise levels inside homes from sonic booms be measured.
    • Request to include Ojai Valley in the sonic boom analysis.
    • Request for all sonic boom field measurements collected from Santa Barbara to Malibu to be made public.
    • Request that noise complaints submitted to VSFB between the Environmental Assessment comment period and now should be considered in the noise evaluation of this EIS.

  8. • Claim that residents that moved to the area prior to 2024 have a legal right to live without the “nuisance” of weekly launches.
    • Concern that sonic boom landings are not necessary since there is the option to use drone ships.
    • Request for new mitigation measures to be implemented to reduce or dampen the current sonic boom produced by launches.
    • Question how the night-time launches don’t violate current California noise ordinances.
    • Concern about possible hearing loss from the sonic booms over time.
    • Stated there is no concern about launches if the sonic booms are mitigated or prevented.
    • Concern that these sonic booms violate the existing over-land sonic boom prohibition from 1973.
    • Request for a third party to complete the analysis on noise.

  9. Terrestrial/Freshwater Biological
    • Concern that noise from launches will impact wildlife (257).
    • Concern about the impact launches may have on birds (167).
    • Request for studies on the snowy plover and how it is impacted by the launches (35).
    • Concern about the impact on legally protected species such as the golden eagle or snowy plover (25).
    • Concern about the impact on local farm animals (2).
    • The California red-legged frog and snowy plover are not intelligent enough to be permanently impacted by the increased launches.
    • Concern about the impacts on insect behavior due to increased vibrations.
    • Request to look further into the environmentally sensitive habitats that are located in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.
    • Concern about the impact on Monarch butterflies.

  10. Marine Biological
    • Request for environmental impacts on marine life to be studied more closely (97).
    • Concern that the increased launches will interfere with the migration pathways of marine life (89).
    • Concern about impacts on critically important environmental marine resources, including marine sanctuaries (45).
    • Concern about the impacts on the local seal populations (including those at Carpinteria Seal Sanctuary) and the potential for sonic booms to cause them to abandon or trample their young (6).
    • Marine life is more bothered by human activity than the launch noise so the Proposed Action will promote a healthier ecosystem (2).
    • Concern about sonic booms causing beached whales (2).
    • Concern that marine species are hypersensitive to the pressure changes and sounds produced by launches (2).
    • Request for a comprehensive maritime surveillance plan with an operational capability.
    • Concern about the impact on southern sea otters.

  11. Water Resources
    • Concern about an increase in water pollution with increased cadence (68).
    • Concern about the increased need for water due to increased cadence (67).
    • Request release of a detailed analysis of the wastewater created from each launch.

  12. Cultural Resources
    • Concern about impacts on critically important prehistoric archaeological resources (2).
    • Request analysis of potential effects on historic properties over time from increased
    cadence, booms, and vibrations (2).
    • Request a comprehensive inventory and assessment of all historic properties within the area of potential impact.
    • Request to financially support cultural resources and programs in the area.

  13. Utilities
    • Concern that launches can cause power outages and burst water mains.
    • Concern that launches are causing cell service interference.
    • Concern about removal or demolition of mobile service tower and environmental mobile shelter on SLC-6.

  14. Socioeconomics
    • Concern property values will decrease with more launches and disturbances (258).
    • Taxpayers should not subsidize commercial space programs (189).
    • Concern that the only wealth being added to the area is going to Elon Musk (7).
    • Concern about those who must evacuate Jalama Beach when a launch occurs and how the increase will make this harder on those individuals (5).
    • Concern that increased launches is only to support a private enterprise’s requests (3).
    • Concern about negative impacts on local economy if launches are reduced or stopped.
    • Concern that ‘over-regulation’ of the environment is chasing business out of the state.
    • Reinvestment needed for impacted communities from private entities that benefit from taxpayer subsidized activities (2).
    • Request a breakdown of commercial versus governmental launches per year.
    • Evaluate impact on small businesses from decline in tourism and health problems.
    • Concern about housing shortage from additional workers supporting increased cadence.

  15. Transportation
    • Concern about increased traffic.

    Human Health and Safety
    • Concern about health impacts from noise and vibrations, including those sensitive to noise and/or people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or prior trauma (560).
    • Concern about potential fires to start due to a failed launch (100).
    • Concern about individuals with autoimmune conditions being impacted greatly by the increased activity (46).
    • Concern about sonic booms and launches to cause ear pain and headaches (18).
    • Request for a detailed assessment of the psychological and physiological impacts of the increased launches on residents.
    • Concern when satellites die and reenter the atmosphere, they burn toxic chemicals (98).

  16. • Concern about carcinogenic materials being released and how they will be mitigated (2).
    • Concern about unknown health impacts of materials used that will become apparent for future residents to have to deal with (2).
    • Concern about toxic materials to be introduced to marine life.
    • Concern about human’s increased exposure to Hydrazine propellant.
    • Concern about the impact rocket exhaust will have on soil quality and plant health.
    • Concern about the impact of sonic booms and vibrations on the nuclear power plant in the region.

  17. Solid Waste Management
    • Concern about solid waste reentering the atmosphere and falling back to Earth (180). Coastal Resources (Coastal Zone Management Act)
    • Concern about violations to the Coastal Zone Management Act with previous increase to 50 launches per year. (3)
    • Concern that California Coastal Commission recently rejected the Air Force’s consistency determination (2).
    • Include all data and results from sonic boom monitoring, as well as current or potential new avoidance and minimization measures, as agreed to under previous conditional consistency determination.

  18. General Project
    • Support for the No Action Alternative (725).
    • Request to reduce or stop launches rather than increasing frequency to 100 (654).
    • Request to change the launch location to uninhabited or nonresidential and less wildlife rich areas (395).
    • Threat to sue for property damages (194).
    • SpaceX missions wrongly classified as essential defense missions (170).
    • Support for increasing the space program, research, technology, and/or launches (69).
    • Concern that the space industry is being monopolized (60).
    • The scale of this project warrants a slow and cautious approach to analysis (3).

  19. • Request to “dogleg” the trajectories to allow for the sonic boom to not fall over land (3).
    • Request for the inclusion of all SLC-6 modifications in the EIS (2).
    • Request for more detailed descriptions of the launch and landing operations to be held at each space launch complex (2).
    • Request for the EIS to include all projected launch rates for the future (2).
    • Request for launches to be limited to 20 per year to create a balance between innovation and environmental stewardship (2).
    • Request for analysis of additional viable alternatives, such as more gradual, step-wise increase in frequency of launches guided by biological monitoring results.
    • Request for government oversight of SpaceX activities.

  20. Submitting Public Comments

    The DAF is holding three in-person public hearings and a virtual public hearing to provide the public with the opportunity to learn more about the proposal and provide input.

    In-Person Public Hearings (5 p.m. – 8 p.m. Pacific Time)

    Tuesday, June 10, 2025
    Four Points by Sheraton/Ventura Harbor Resort, 1050 Schooner Dr., Ventura, CA 93001

    Wednesday, June 11, 2025
    Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol, Santa Barbara, CA 93105

    Thursday, June 12, 2025
    Hilton Garden Inn, 1201 North H St., Lompoc, CA 93436

    The DAF welcomes the public’s participation during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement public review and comment period from May 23, 2025, through July 7, 2025. This public comment period also supports consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations. The DAF requests comments on the Proposed Action and Draft EIS from elected officials; federal, state, and local agencies; Native American tribes; and interested members of the public. To ensure DAF has sufficient time to consider public input during the preparation of the Final EIS, please submit comments by July 7, 2025. Public comments may be submitted in the following ways:

    • In-person at one of the three public hearings
    • During the virtual public hearing
    • Via the online comment form
    • By mail to:
    ATTN: VSFB Falcon Launch EIS
    c/o ManTech International Corporation
    420 Stevens Avenue, Suite 100
    Solana Beach, CA 92075

    • Hello, just adding a note to say this was a reply to a lengthy excerpt from an article.
      It can be located at: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/praxis-dryden-brown

      As it turns out, after all these long years of scouring the earth, Praxis will build right here, in America, about a three-hour drive from the sun-dappled patio where we are currently sitting, and one hour north of Santa Barbara, the old-money coastal town where Brown grew up. The new city will be called Atlas. “The opportunity,” he told me, “is to build on Vandenberg.”

      • This city idea didn’t get far, and they bought a ton of land:

        A company named California Forever, backed by Silicon Valley billionaires, has acquired over 60,000 acres of land in Solano County, California for the purpose of building a new city. The company spent nearly $1 billion to purchase this land, making them the largest landowner in the county. The proposed city would be located near Travis Air Force Base and aims to accommodate up to 400,000 residents.

        https://californiaforever.com/

        https://www.fastcompany.com/91331972/tech-billionaires-plan-for-a-new-california-city-may-bypass-voter-approval#:~:text=A%20group%20backed%20by%20tech,miles%20northeast%20of%20San%20Francisco.

        https://californiaforever.com/the-bold-city-project-of-the-tech-elite/

        • Ah, I see. Yet another new city idea.
          No worries. If it happens, it’ll be decades down the line. And by then… things will be crappier and there will be even less water.

          “Cities backed by technologists are not exactly a new idea. In recent years, tech billionaires have rolled out one sweeping blueprint after another—envisioning utopian hubs of innovation marked by walkable cities, clean energy, smart infrastructure, and gleaming high-rises. One such project is California Forever, which is backed by a string of blue-chip Silicon Valley investors like Marc Andreessen, Michael Moritz, and Reid Hoffman. One comparative advantage to Praxis’s designs on Vandenberg is that California Forever has already secured more than 50,000 acres of land northeast of San Francisco, largely zoned for agricultural use only.

          But, according to Brown, there is one big problem with California Forever: “Candidly, California Forever is a really boring center-left project,” he says, that is “pandering to the local communities and the farmers or something…. These are boomer, lower-middle-class farmers who hear about Marc Andreessen and are like, ‘This guy seems weird,’” said Brown. “It is low testosterone.”

          What Brown is building is “more like the Gundo”—the hard-tech hub of El Segundo just south of Los Angeles that has lately become a breeding ground for companies working in defense tech and manufacturing. “This is a Jetsons/pioneer/1950s/space-futurism insane city on federal land. It is a revival of the aesthetic, classical ideas in America. It is a high-testosterone futuristic vision versus the chill, community-oriented one.”

    • As was stated in the reply to Sacjon above, thank you for the well-taken constructive input. Wish there was an area under a page break in which support material could be posted. Apologies for the spacious info drops.

    • To be fair… these comments/excerpts are rarely submitted. Without stooping to using the term “spew” it could be determined that your great number of posts put into aggregate form would be rather mountainous by comparison. It often only takes a spare minute to dip into the pool of knowledge. But you are right, it does take up space.

Pedestrian Struck by Vehicle Off Hollister Ave

Over Newsom’s objections, Trump deploys National Guard to LA after immigration sweeps