Coastal Commission Says “Not Yet” to SpaceX at Vandenberg (Aug 2025)

On Thursday, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) voted 11–0 to oppose a plan that would dramatically increase SpaceX launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base. Commissioners didn’t say “never.” They said “not yet,” explaining that the application was missing core information: credible data on wildlife impacts, noise and sonic booms, potential beach and campground closures, and how any promised mitigations would be monitored and enforced.

What SpaceX (and the Air Force) asked for

The proposal would move Vandenberg from busy to very busy:

Lift Falcon 9 cadence from about 50 launches a year to roughly 95–100

Add up to five Falcon Heavy launches annually

Double booster landings to 24

Build two new landing zones and increase at-sea landings

SpaceX says the extra capacity is critical for Starlink and other missions. The U.S. Department of the Air Force, which operates Vandenberg, has also maintained that the expansion is a federal activity and sits outside the Commission’s direct control.

Why the Commission said “no” (for now)

Commissioners and staff flagged several gaps:

Biological monitoring wasn’t robust enough to judge cumulative effects, including from nighttime operations and lighting.

Sonic-boom and vibration modeling didn’t convincingly show who would be affected, how often, or how intensely.

Public access closures would likely increase with cadence—an issue for beaches, trails, and campgrounds along the Central Coast.

Accountability was unclear: how would mitigations be measured, reported, and enforced over time?

Adding to the tension: neither Space Force nor SpaceX sent representatives to the hearing, which frustrated commissioners who wanted to ask questions directly.

Does this stop the expansion?

Not automatically. Vandenberg is a federal base, and the Air Force has repeatedly argued the plan can move forward even if the CCC objects. In practice, federal agencies typically seek a state “consistency” concurrence under the Coastal Zone Management Act; the Commission’s objection is influential but not binding on its own. That’s why most coverage framed the vote as a major roadblock—not a hard veto.

The jurisdiction fight underneath

This is a genuine tug-of-war. The Commission’s staff rejects the idea that everything SpaceX does at Vandenberg is purely federal; many launches are commercial, they argue, and California has a role in conditioning coastal impacts. The Air Force’s position hasn’t changed: the activity is federal, and the state can’t regulate it. That split is spelled out in recent staff reports and correspondence.

A bit of recent history

This isn’t the first clash. In October 2024, the CCC opposed a smaller increase (from 36 to 50 launches). SpaceX sued the Commission, alleging bias and overreach, while Vandenberg operations continued at a high pace under federal authority. That legal backdrop colors how both sides are approaching 2025.

What changes right now for locals?

In the near term, not much. Launches already permitted under current limits continue. The vote mainly puts a speed bump in front of further growth and lays out, on the record, what California wants before it signs off: defensible studies, clear mitigation plans, and transparent monitoring. For Central Coast residents, the Commission’s core worry is more frequent closures if cadence climbs—something that affects beach access, campground bookings, and tourism.

For spacewatchers and customers

A cap near 50 West Coast missions would push more payloads to Florida or Texas, which matters for schedules that prefer polar orbits from Vandenberg. SpaceX’s business case is straightforward: throughput. More launches mean faster constellation build-out and more flexibility when weather or pad conflicts hit elsewhere. The Commission isn’t rejecting that logic—it’s asking for proof that added cadence won’t unduly harm the coast or shut out the public.

Politics in the background

All of this is unfolding as federal policymakers debate ways to streamline environmental review for launches. Whether any new policy survives legal scrutiny is unclear, but the conversation alone raises the stakes of federal vs. state roles in coastal permitting. If Washington loosens reviews while California digs in, expect more friction—and more headlines—around Vandenberg.

What to watch next (practical signposts)

New data—or a federal end-run. Do Space Force and SpaceX return with broader wildlife surveys, better sonic-boom modeling, and detailed closure/mitigation plans that directly answer the Commission’s objections? If yes, a narrower or phased approval could re-enter the discussion. If not, watch for a federal move to proceed anyway—likely triggering more legal wrangling.

Final environmental review. A final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) tied to Vandenberg activity is expected later this year. Its findings—and any binding commitments—will heavily shape what happens next.

Actual cadence. Regardless of paperwork, the Q4 2025 flight count will tell you if the real-world tempo is already climbing. If it is, pressure will grow for enforceable caps and ongoing monitoring, not just promises.

If you live, work, or play near the launch corridor

Follow closure alerts. County and base channels post beach/trail closures around launch windows; frequency is the worry if cadence rises.

Expect more outreach on sonic booms. As modeling improves, notices should get clearer about when and where booms may be heard.

Comment early—and be specific. When hearings open, concrete notes (which beach, which trail, what time, what impact) are far more effective than general complaints and often shape permit conditions.

Bottom line

The Commission’s unanimous “no” doesn’t slam the door on more West Coast launches, but it does set the bar: bring credible studies, bind the mitigations, and explain the trade-offs. The Air Force can still try to move ahead, but doing so without answering the record will keep this fight alive in public and in court. For now, expect the current pace to continue while both sides decide whether to revise the file or press the federal-preemption button.