The SpaceX Starship and Super Heavy vehicles for Flight 5 have been ready to launch since the first week of August. The flight test will include our most ambitious objective yet: attempt to return the Super Heavy booster to the launch site and catch it in mid-air.
SpaceX recently received a launch license date estimate of late November from the FAA, the government agency responsible for licensing Starship flight tests. This is a more than two-month delay to the previously communicated date of mid-September. This delay was not based on a new safety concern, but instead driven by superfluous environmental analysis. The four open environmental issues are illustrative of the difficulties launch companies face in the current regulatory environment for launch and reentry licensing.
SpaceX engineers have spent years preparing and months testing for the booster catch attempt, with technicians pouring tens of thousands of hours into building the infrastructure to maximize our chances for success. Every test comes with risk, especially those seeking to do something for the first time. SpaceX goes to the maximum extent possible on every flight to ensure that while they are accepting risk to our own hardware, they accept no compromises when it comes to ensuring public safety.
Starship’s water-cooled steel flame deflector has been the target of false reporting, wrongly alleging that it pollutes the environment or has operated completely independent of regulation. This narrative omits fundamental facts that have either been ignored or intentionally misinterpreted.
At no time did SpaceX operate the deflector without a permit. SpaceX was operating in good faith under a Multi-Sector General Permit to cover deluge operations under the supervision of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). SpaceX worked closely with TCEQ to incorporate numerous mitigation measures prior to its use, including the installation of retention basins, construction of protective curbing, plugging of outfalls during operations, and use of only potable (drinking) water that does not come into contact with any industrial processes. A permit number was assigned and made active in July 2023. TCEQ officials were physically present at the first testing of the deluge system and given the opportunity to observe operations around launch.
The water-cooled steel flame deflector does not spray pollutants into the surrounding environment. Again, it uses literal drinking water. Outflow water has been sampled after every use of the system and consistently shows negligible traces of any contaminants, and specifically, that all levels have remained below standards for all state permits that would authorize discharge. TCEQ, the FAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated the use of the system prior to its initial use, and during tests and launch, and determined it would not cause environmental harm.
When the EPA issued its Administrative Order in March 2024, it was done before seeking a basic understanding of the facts of the water-cooled steel flame deflector’s operation or acknowledgement that we were operating under the Texas Multi-Sector General Permit. After meeting with the EPA—during which the EPA stated their intent was not to stop testing, preparation, or launch operations—it was decided that SpaceX should apply for an individual discharge permit. Despite previous permitting, which was done in coordination with TCEQ, and the operation having little to nothing in common with industrial waste discharges covered by individual permits, we applied for an individual permit in July 2024.
The subsequent fines levied on SpaceX by TCEQ and the EPA are entirely tied to disagreements over paperwork. SpaceX chose to settle so that they can focus our energy on completing the missions and commitments that they have made to the U.S. government, commercial customers, and ourselves. Paying fines is extremely disappointing when they fundamentally disagree with the allegations. The EPA has agreed that nothing about the operation of the flame deflector will need to change. Only the name of the permit has changed.
Environmental regulations and mitigations serve a noble purpose, stemming from common-sense safeguards to enable progress while preventing undue impact to the environment. However, with the licensing process being drawn out for Flight 5, SpaceX finds it is delayed for unreasonable and exasperating reasons.
On Starship’s fourth flight, the top of the Super Heavy booster, commonly known as the hot-stage, was jettisoned to splash down on its own in the Gulf of Mexico. The hot-stage plays an important part in protecting the booster during separation from Starship’s upper stage before detaching during the booster’s return flight. This operation was analyzed thoroughly ahead of Starship’s fourth flight, specifically focused on any potential impact to protected marine species. Given the distribution of marine animals in the specific landing area and comparatively small size of the hot-stage, the probability of a direct impact is essentially zero. This is something previously determined as standard practice by the FAA and the National Marine Fisheries Service for the launch industry at large, which disposes of rocket stages and other hardware in the ocean on every single launch, except of course, for SpaceX Falcon rockets which land and are reused. The only proposed modification for Starship’s fifth flight is a marginal change in the splashdown location of the hot-stage which produces no increase in likelihood for impacting marine life. Despite this, the FAA leadership approved a 60-day consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service. Furthermore, the mechanics of these types of consultations outline that any new questions raised during that time can reset the 60-day counter, over and over again. This single issue, which was already exhaustively analyzed, could indefinitely delay launch without addressing any plausible impact to the environment.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
The rent seekers always strive to be on the toll booth and love to be the ones extending permissions to the actually productive.
So no enemy of them gets anything done.
Musk is not tied to America, not even born/grew up there, and there are plenty of countries that would love SpaceX and not have bureaucratic obstacles in his way.
If he up and moved, who would lose the most, America or Elon?
Shut down FAA on commercial space for 10+ years.
It’s not just Musk. This is how any industry is treated by democrats.
Lol. Not too many lawyers or scientists commenting I guess. Is there any actual evidence of the supposedly intense malice toward Elon from the administration, and that translating into interference? Other than circular reasoning?
“Why is the FAA imposing bureaucratic obstacles on SpaceX?”
“Because Biden and Harris hate Elon and are using their vast unconstrained and untraceable control of the government to destroy him!”
“How do we know they’re doing that? What’s the evidence?”
“Just look at what the FAA is doing to him! Why else would a major Federal agency hold up a permit for TWO MONTHS!?!?”
It all just makes sense!
they want to force a 2 month delay, or they are forcing a 2 month delay? it’s Fish And Wildlife.
The core problem is there was not a rocket exhaust deluge specific permit. SpaceX and TEQC decided on one that was close enough. EPA got snippy and told SpaceX to use a different, again not specific permit. Assuming a runrate of $100 million a month, this delay will cost a lot of money.
This isn’t a new problem either. The shuttle had chlorine products in it’s deluge water from the SRB’s, so a catchment pond was added to the launch complex.
The Left is the enemy of mankind’s Future.
And enemy of mankinds present and enemy of accurate memory of mankind’s past.
It’s POLITICALLY DRIVEN.
“All The President’s Men”
Whitehouse is mobilizing and weaponizing all resources against its perceived enemies.
There have been a recent spate of articles against Musk from obviously partisan people — eg. Robert Reich, who called for a govt boycott of SpaceX!
It’s because Musk has agreed to join Trump’s cabinet for downsizing govt and improving efficiency.
Delaying the Starship Integrated Flight Test 5 until late November is meant to deprive Musk from a potential victorious accomplishment in the run-up to the election in early November. This is another example of the Biden Whitehouse’s naked abuse of power for partisan political purposes.
yes, very insightful. 2 month to go past the election.
Most likely Musk’s timeline for Mars are already obsolete. No way Starship will land on Mars on 2026. Considering FAA regulations, I would bet uncrewed starship on Mars in 2030 and crewed starship in late 2030s.
Even if Trump happens to win in November, I expect some last ditch effort to spike Musk’s business empire before the inauguration, but after that Starship development should shift back into overdrive.
2026 is feasible for an uncrewed launch in late 2026, assuming Harris loses. If she wins, she’ll probably even increase the bureaucratic war against Musk, and might even try to break up SpaceX on anti-trust grounds.
[ What if SpaceX stays (or did keep) ‘neutral’ within political positioning? ]
[ “But in this case, the ionospheric hole was created “due to the shock wave generated by the Starship explosion,” which temporarily scattered the free electrons within the ionosphere, essentially stripping the plasma of its normal properties, the researchers wrote.”
‘https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/catastrophic-spacex-starship-explosion-tore-a-hole-in-the-atmosphere-last-year-in-1st-of-its-kind-event-russian-scientists-rev‘
It could be very interesting, if Starship&Booster launches would measure air mix (or plasma properties) on different altitudes with different flight plans and locations? From my POV, for that, there’s scientific data missing(?)
Never recognized any FAA concerns, and on my part it’s interest in scientific explanations for maybe problems to solve, before that effects are massively negative to safety and&or, yes, environment. The reasoning and publishing date from FAA feels like a somewhat not regular procedure, but touches forms of ‘arbitrariness’? (Not sure, if there’s something like a presidential directive towards a governmental institution?) For the professionals within that matter it’s probably in the details, not present to me, i guess.
‘law’ is independent from persons status in society, ideally, but what else to tell about human history and interpretations in ‘consuetudinary law’ (?) ]
I see you failed to point out that at the tail end of that Russian scientific research into the ionosphere hole they concluded that the hole “self healed” in short order. I seem to remember 30 or 45 minutes or there about and was inconsequential to the environment or to humans. In that same vein the hole in the Ozone from aerosols and other pollution is STILL there and isn’t expected to fully close for at least another decade or so. Again, I’m paraphrasing here so these MAY not be EXACT numbers but I’m also not grossly exaggerating.
Would the permitting requirements change if it was conducted on international waters? Ie outside of the USA?
If so, it may be worth putting everything on barges
Sure, it’s all a big conspiracy to annoy Elon Musk because he’s anti-democrat. Government regulations have never slowed down other companies have they? Just Elon Musk companies right???? Right????
It’s a good point. The applied rules are moronic, but is it on purpose or is it just a side effect of a stupid regulation system? How can you tell the difference?
The change in behavior about February of 2021? And hopefully February 2025.
For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law
SpaceX ought to have grounds to sue the FAA over this. The FAA was created specifically to ensure flight safety, not to engage in obscure and superfluous “environmental” causes. This is simply another reason to vote the Biden-Harris regime from power.
This action is beyond belief for the US public. The Democratic party picks its heroes and then keeps the news organizations from reporting to the American public on the progress SpaceX is making. Politics has no place in the Space program and our news media should be covering and getting the population excited about the future of space travel. News should not be controlled by the White House and the Democratic party. I believe the biggest thing Kennedy did was setting the goal to get to the moon. “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”. We should be getting the people in America EXCITED about what Musk is doing in America. Why do I have to search You Tube to hear why the next launch is delayed two more months. And my tax dollars are not the chief supply of money!!!!!!
This is what happens when a democracy is transitioning into a dictatorial police state: Enemies of the state get subject to arbitrary punishment, with scarcely any attempt even to justify it.
Musk’s only sin in their eyes and it’s the ultimate sin: He’s not with them, therefore he’s against them
Imagine what they’d have done by now if both the DOJ and NASA didn’t desperately need Falcon.
^they don’t need falcon, they need starship! The very rocket that the FAA is slowing the iterative design tests of! Artemus is HIGHLY dependent on Space X for all of the Artemus missions.
Falcon IS used by the Govt for classified satellite launches but they have several other options for those
The inimical disposition of the government towards Elon Musk becomes more clear.
They can destroy an enemy in many ways, and burying him in red tape is just one them.