By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Elon Musk’s SpaceX is bidding to resume booster recovery operations in Bahamian waters with up to 19 further landings projected should the necessary government approvals be obtained.

The just-released Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which the Davis administration demanded before any further landings in the Exuma Sound are permitted, asserted that “the environmental impacts of the Falcon 9 booster recovery are minimal” due to its design and operational features.

However, while seemingly paving the way for SpaceX to obtain the necessary certificate of environmental clearance (CEC) from the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP), the study by its Bahamian consultants, BRON Ltd, nevertheless conceded it had “identified critical areas for improvement” following the much-hyped and controversial February 18, 2025, booster recovery.

“Data gaps, chiefly due to scheduling shifts and equipment limitations, restricted the completeness and consistency of the environmental monitoring effort. These findings underscore the importance of strengthening future logistical planning, standardising methodologies, and investing in more robust and calibrated instrumentation, particularly for noise monitoring,” BRON Ltd’s EIA conceded.

“Several methodological constraints, namely, limited hydroacoustic resolution, access restrictions due to adverse weather and tidal conditions, and reduced temporal sampling windows due to launch rescheduling impacted the overall completeness and resolution of the monitoring effort.”

The SpaceX EIA pledged that these issues were being addressed through increased monitoring “at all priority locations”, with an focus on bird and and wildlife migration corridors, although these locations have to be determined with scientific and environmental groups. Air and water quality monitoring will also be “refined”, and shipping and marine traffic will be given advance warning of any booster recoveries.

The study pledged “implementation of dynamic marine traffic management, through advanced notification to mariners, establishment of time-bound exclusion zones and co-ordination with the Port Department”.

“In alignment with the anticipated series of future launches and booster recoveries in The Bahamas, a structured programme of continued environmental oversight will be initiated,” the EIA added.

“All subsequent launches will require environmental revalidation under the DEPP’s CEC process, with full submission of monitoring data, mitigation efficacy reports and impact assessments within the Government of The Bahamas’ stipulated reporting intervals. A year-long monitoring post landing will be conducted to assess long-term and cumulative impacts.”

Noting that the booster recoveries are part of a wider deal between SpaceX and the Government, specifically the Ministry of Tourism, Investments and Aviation, the EIA said: “This EIA evaluates the environmental impacts associated with both the initial booster recovery and the projected series of up to 19 additional Falcon 9 landings.

“The EIA includes assessments of underwater noise, marine traffic, potential debris generation, air emissions and wildlife disturbances. It also considers terrestrial ecological resources on Important bird areas (IBAs) on nearby cays.

“The environmental impact assessment determined that the overflight, re-entry, landing and demobilisation of the SpaceX Falcon 9 booster in Exuma Sound are likely to result in primarily negligible to minor impacts across most assessed parameters. SpaceX has successfully landed 400 times on a drone ship in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans with no observed impacts to species,” BRON Ltd wrote.

“No major disturbances to air or water quality, marine habitats or terrestrial ecosystems were observed during the first landing exercise in the Exuma Sound. Acoustic impacts were detectable both in air and underwater but were short in duration and below thresholds likely to cause physiological harm to marine fauna.

“No evidence of waste discharge, marine debris or adverse community impacts was recorded. Potential indirect impacts include minor marine traffic interference and short-term noise exposure. In a standard, anomaly-free scenario, these operations were found to be environmentally compliant, with the potential for minor beneficial economic contributions through engagement in logistical and support services.”

The EIA added that SpaceX’s Ministry of Tourism tie-up is “part of a broader agreement.... to enable technological collaboration, digital infrastructure expansion and space industry growth in alignment with the Bahamas National Development Plan (Vision 2040) to maximise the value added from the tourism sector...

“A series of additional Falcon 9 launches and recovery missions are scheduled for the Exuma Sound, Bahamas, requiring continued environmental oversight. These activities signal a new chapter of space-industry collaboration within The Bahamas and underscore the need for robust environmental safeguards, stakeholder engagement and adaptive management.

“The number of landings in the Exuma Sound are expected to vary monthly. Launch and landings involve numerous aspects that could delay a launch, such as weather at the launch site, weather at the landing site, availability of airspace, amongst other considerations.”

As for why The Bahamas has agreed to accept Space X’s booster landings, the EIA said: “Under the ‘no action alternative’, Falcon 9 boosters would not land in the Exuma Sound. SpaceX would continue to land first-stage boosters outside of Bahamian territorial waters.

“The ‘no action alternative would not support the SpaceX and Ministry of Tourism programme objectives, such as advancing space technology, meeting the commercial demand of the Starlink network, or fulfilling the international partnership.

“Additionally, it would also neglect an opportunity to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal [of] expanding affordable access to the Internet and ICTs (information and communications technologies), particularly in least developed countries (LDCs),” it added.

“The ‘no action alternative’ would eliminate the economic and social benefits associated with rocket landings. The first landing event demonstrated that even short-duration operations can result in measurable local economic stimulation. During the initial mission, local hotels, restaurants and service providers indicated an increase in activity as spectators and support personnel travelled to the area to witness the landing.

“This surge in visitation led to increased customer flow to small businesses, providing short-term revenue boosts that helped alleviate ongoing financial strain, particularly for small, locally-owned establishments. The cancellation or absence of future landings would remove these opportunities, thereby limiting workforce engagement, reducing visibility for local vendors and diminishing potential investments in regional infrastructure or tourism.”

Explaining why Exuma Sound was chosen as the location for the booster recoveries, the EIA added: “The Exuma Sound provides a sheltered, deep water location for the drone ship and recovery vessels to safely operate. The sea state in the Exuma Sound is generally calm compared to the Atlantic Ocean, particularly in winter months, which reduces the potential for damage to the first-stage booster during droneship transit back to Florida....

“A landing location outside the Exuma Sound is not feasible due to several factors. First, landing locations west of the Exuma Sound would shift the trajectory west, forcing the vehicle to fly closer to densely populated areas such as New Providence, Port-au-Prince and Santo Domingo. This trajectory would likely result in an exceedance of public safety risk criteria which are calculated for all populations based on the best international standards.

“Shifting the location west would shift the landing location within ten miles of the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park. This ultimately would prevent SpaceX from landing in The Bahamas. In addition to the public safety concerns, a new landing location further west would require landing in shallower water. This water is too shallow for the drone ship to navigate, making this landing location unfeasible,” the EIA added.

“Landing locations east would also shift the Falcon 9 trajectory east, forcing the vehicle to fly closer to Eleuthera and Cat Island, which is also in exceedance of public safety risk criteria and within ten miles of the protected areas in South Eleuthera and North Cat Island. The sea state conditions east of Eleuthera and Cat Island are not conducive to safe landing while the area may be deep water similar in depth to the Exuma Sound.

“Similarly, the northern and southern Bahamas would shift the trajectory closer to densely populated locations, protected areas and less reliable sea state conditions. A landing location north and south of Exuma are not viable as there is not enough propellent remaining in the rocket to reliably land. Finally, altering the landing location would also result in the fairing splash down area potentially stretching over the populated areas if certain wind conditions occur.”