The California Coastal Commission has unanimously voted against SpaceX’s plan for a dramatic expansion of rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base, citing environmental and regulatory concerns.
“The sonic booms and their impacts on California’s people, wildlife and property are extremely concerning,” Commissioner Linda Escalante said at a hearing Thursday in Calabasas.
“The negative impacts on public access, natural resources and environmental health warrant our scrutiny under California as a standard of review.”
SpaceX wants to boost annual launches from 50 to 95 per year, a massive jump from when SpaceX started at the Santa Barbara County facility in 2024.
But the accelerated timeline has increased friction between Elon Musk’s space company and state regulators, who question whether SpaceX is sidestepping normal permitting processes by operating as a federal contractor.
The commission argues that the majority of launches serve commercial rather than government purposes. SpaceX has contracts with U.S. Department of Defense to launch spy satellites.
Military officials maintain all launches benefit national security objectives, even missions deploying Starlink satellites for Musk’s commercial internet service.
However, commission staff argued the primary purpose of the launches is to expand SpaceX’s commercial telecommunications network rather than serve federal agencies.
A staff report emphasized that SpaceX now “owns significantly more satellites than the combined total owned by every country and every other company in the world,” supporting the company’s recent $400-billion valuation.
The report argued that while the launches may benefit the federal government, the question is whether they are conducted “on behalf of” the government rather than for commercial purposes.
It’s not clear what impact the California Coastal Commission’s vote will have.
If launches qualify as federal activities, Space Force, a branch of the Department of Defense, can proceed without coastal commission permits and only needs to attempt mitigation agreements.
The Department of the Air Force was not present at the hearing, and the commission’s unanimous objection does not prevent SpaceX from continuing its launch activities.
“I must say, I’m just a little disappointed that the Air Force didn’t want to participate with us,” Commissioner Dayna Bochco said. “I truly, truly hope that we can persuade them to conduct the monitoring, to do the work that it takes to understand how this rapid increase in launches is affecting not only the environment, but in this case now, the citizenry of the peoples that live around there.”
Representatives of the Air Force and SpaceX could not be immediately reached for comment.
The proposed expansion would nearly double SpaceX’s current activity at Vandenberg, which hosted 51 launches last year, with 46 conducted by the company.
The proposal includes 24 rocket landing events annually, which generate additional sonic booms that have drawn complaints from coastal residents.
Environmental groups including the Surfrider Foundation and Sierra Club opposed the expansion.
Jennifer Savage, a representative of the Surfrider Foundation, said Space Force is planning to proceed with the increase without providing the biological monitoring, sonic boom modeling or mitigation tracking needed to assess impacts.
The commission has identified deficiencies in current wildlife monitoring programs, particularly regarding impacts on marine mammals. Sonic booms from rocket launches and landings have been reported as far southeast as Ojai, with residents describing house-rattling effects.
Relations between SpaceX and the commission have been strained since October, when commissioners rejected a plan for 50 annual launches.
SpaceX responded by filing a federal lawsuit alleging the commission overstepped its authority and voted based on Musk’s political activities rather than environmental concerns. That lawsuit is pending.
Commission staff concluded that the Air Force “has not provided sufficient information to enable the Commission to determine that the proposed project is consistent with the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management Program.”
