|
Only have a minute? Listen instead
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
SpaceX is ready to go with its fifth Starship suborbital test flight from Boca Chica/Starbase, with Starship 30 and Super Heavy booster 12 stacked at the launch site.
However, the Federal Aviation Administration is not ready to grant the necessary updated launch license, citing safety concerns, and says it won’t do so before late November. The Starship and booster both have undergone multiple pre-launch tests, including a full static-fire test of Super Heavy’s 33 Raptor engines on July 15.
The last Starship suborbital test took place on June 6.
Not only is the FAA delaying issuance of the Starship Flight 5 launch license, on Sept. 17 it proposed a fine of $633,000 on SpaceX for what the agency said were violations of the terms of licenses for two SpaceX launches — of a Falcon 9 and a Falcon Heavy — from Florida’s Kennedy Space Center in 2023.
FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker, addressing a Tuesday hearing of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the House Transportation Committee, likewise cited safety concerns as the reason for the fines, claiming that SpaceX conducted the Falcon launches without FAA permission.
As for the FAA’s delay in issuing the Starship Flight 5 license, it’s because SpaceX filed an application to the agency without “disclosing they were in violation of Texas and federal law on some matters, and that’s a requirement to get a permit,” according to Whitaker. In response to questions from a member of the committee, Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-California, Whitaker said the delay is also due to the FAA’s analysis of sonic booms caused by the booster’s high velocity descent after launch.
A sonic boom, which sounds like a quick thunderclap, is created by the shock wave produced by a flying object traveling faster than the speed of sound, Mach 1, or about 761 mph at sea level on a “standard day,” according to NASA.
With Flight 5, SpaceX plans — for the first time ever — to land the Super Heavy booster back on the launch pad at Boca Chica rather than in the Gulf as with previous flights.
Whitaker characterized the sonic boom analysis as “safety-related” and suggested that the FAA was correct in imposing a two-month delay on the Starship Flight 5 license, which originally was to have been granted in September.
“I think the two-month delay is necessary to comply with the launch requirements and I think that’s an important part of the safety culture,” he said.
Following the hearing, SpaceX released a letter (also sent to Kiley) charging that Whitaker was mistaken on every count.
“In responding to your questions, Administrator Whitaker made several incorrect statements today regarding SpaceX,” the letter stated. “In fact, every statement he made was incorrect.”
The company argued that it was, in fact, fully licensed for the two Falcon launches in 2023 and that the “FAA has not alleged otherwise.”
“With respect to Starship, neither of the two items he referenced, including the sonic boom, are related to public safety, but to environmental considerations that had been previously evaluated as posing no risk to the environment,” SpaceX wrote.
The company also argued that, despite Whitaker’s contention, SpaceX was not in violation of Texas state law, and in fact had a permit for its launchpad water deluge operations from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The deluge system, which releases tens of thousands of gallons of freshwater during each launch, is designed to lessen the effects of the blast.
The Environmental Protection Agency notified SpaceX on March 13 that its deployment of the system was in violation of the Clean Water Act. No fine was issued, though the EPA insisted SpaceX comply with federal regulations. SpaceX operated the system again on March 14, for its third Starship suborbital test flight, despite the EPA warning. SpaceX deployed the system multiple times before applying to TCEQ for a permit on July 1.
Following an Aug. 12 CNBC report that the company had violated environmental regulations by “repeatedly releasing pollutants into or near bodies of water,” SpaceX responded on X, the social media platform owned by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, calling the news report “factually inaccurate.” SpaceX posted that it had worked diligently on the permit with TCEQ and believed it had permission from state and federal agencies to continue to operate the system in the meantime.
“Throughout our ongoing coordination with both TCEQ and the EPA, we have explicitly asked if operation of the deluge system needed to stop and we were informed that operations could continue,” the company wrote.
Still, on Aug. 29 TCEQ assessed a $3,750 fine against SpaceX for illegally discharging wastewater into wetlands surrounding the launch site, after the state agency found that the company had not applied for a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit before operating the system. This prompted a post on X from Musk the following day that read, “Just to be clear, this silly fine was for spilling potable drinking water! Literally, you could drink it.”
On Sept. 10, the EPA proposed a $148,378 fine against SpaceX in part for what the agency claimed was wastewater discharge from the launchpad deluge system without a federal permit.
In the Tuesday letter to Kiley, the company rejected “any allegations from FAA that SpaceX violated any laws.”
“SpaceX is the safest, most reliable launch provider in the world, and is absolutely committed to safety in all operations,” the letter stated.
“It is deeply concerning that the Administrator does not appear to have accurate information immediately available to him with respect to SpaceX licensing matters,” the letter also stated.
