Why would the FAA delay the launch until November, you  might ask yourself. Surely they have a good reason – perhaps safety? Well, let Spacex explain it, and Bill Whittle comment on it.

First, Bill’s YouTube commentary, titled ‘Just Plain Spite’:

Now, SPACEX explains:

FLIGHT 5

The 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.

This will be a singularly novel operation in the history of rocketry. 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 we are accepting risk to our own hardware, we accept no compromises when it comes to ensuring public safety.

It’s understandable that such a unique operation would require additional time to analyze from a licensing perspective. Unfortunately, instead of focusing resources on critical safety analysis and collaborating on rational safeguards to protect both the public and the environment, the licensing process has been repeatedly derailed by issues ranging from the frivolous to the patently absurd. At times, these roadblocks have been driven by false and misleading reporting, built on bad-faith hysterics from online detractors or special interest groups who have presented poorly constructed science as fact.

We 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.

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 our previous permitting, which was done in coordination with TCEQ, and our 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. We chose to settle so that we can focus our energy on completing the missions and commitments that we have made to the U.S. government, commercial customers, and ourselves. Paying fines is extremely disappointing when we fundamentally disagree with the allegations, and we are supported by the fact that EPA has agreed that nothing about the operation of our flame deflector will need to change. Only the name of the permit has changed.

Continue reading at the link provided above.