This article was cowritten by Dr. Pamela and Erik.
This week we’re doing something we’ve never done before; we’re dedicating the majority of the show to a single story: SpaceX’s recurring failure to follow the rules, regulations, and norms of international spaceflight. We have the receipts, and we hope that you will hear us out before you hit that @ button.
I and aerospace correspondent Erik Madaus are taking on this topic knowing it will bring us a certain amount of internet hate because we recognize that accidents in spaceflight happen when engineers and technicians are pushed to do more than they are able and when the people above them don’t listen to their concerns.
The Rogers Commission in 1986 found that NASA needed new safety features not just on the shuttles, but also built into the organizational handling of future missions, because the circumstances of the Challenger accident – launching with a frozen O-Ring – were only possible because of the culture to push forward that silenced the engineers who expressed concerns. Nearly 20 years later, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board would find many of the same cultural issues had arisen within NASA yet again, and they recommended the establishment of an Independent Technical Engineering Authority that is responsible for technical requirements and all waivers to them.
Ultimately, it was recognized that the old military adage is true: slow is smooth and smooth is fast. And it was recognized that the wolf can’t guard the hen house; independent outside authority is needed to safeguard the processes that safeguard the people and spacecraft.
Today, as we will detail in this article, SpaceX is trying to bypass FAA and EPA regulations on Earth. We won’t have time to get into it here, but it has also been found that StarLink’s latest generation of missions are flouting FCC licensing in how they broadcast from space. This is happening while company representatives and their hoards of fans suggest SpaceX be made exempt from federal regulations.
As journalists, it isn’t our responsibility to tell you what should or shouldn’t happen, but it is our obligation to point out history, provide context, and report facts. We ask you to read, to think, and to decide for yourself if SpaceX, or anyone else, should be above the law, especially when they are launching vehicles capable of blasting a hole in the ionosphere.
Handing Over the Keys to the Capsules
We live at a point of transition for spaceflight. For the past decade, we have been watching as NASA encourages commercial space corporations to take over their job of carrying satellites, space missions, and even humans to outer space.
For the most part, the transition has been going smoothly. From what we’ve been able to determine, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, and other US-based companies have launched without incurring fines or triggering investigations other than mishap investigations. Virgin has been launching largely out of Spaceport America, and Blue Origin out of Launch Site One in West Texas. Other, smaller companies, have attempted launches from sites ranging from Alaska to Maine.
Meanwhile, in Boca Chica, Texas, SpaceX has managed to incur fines from the FAA and EPA and is currently being sued by, I kid you not, Cards Against Humanity.
Let’s look at what is going on by launch site.
SpaceX vs the FAA for Florida Launches
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governs operation of all vehicles operating within US airspace. Relevant to this story, this includes putting forward rules on pre-flight requirements, and operations of airport towers and spacecraft control rooms. There are standard procedures for when companies want to make changes, and it doesn’t matter if it’s the local airport that serves crop dusters or the facilities in Florida serving the latest spacecraft; if you want to change how things are done, the FAA has to approve it.
In May 2, 2023, SpaceX requested changes to both its preflight checklists and its control center for Falcon 9 launches in Florida. Specifically, they asked to skip their T-2 hours poll and to move to their Hanger X control center. The FAA was unable to approve these changes in time for a June 18 launch. WIthout approvals, SpaceX used the requested control center and launch procedures. To be clear, they had an approved count down procedure, and an approved control center. They had also given the government less than eight weeks to approve changes.
For comparison, passports take 6-8 weeks.
Later, on July 19, 2023, SpaceX requested a new launch license for their Falcon Heavy to use a new rocket propellant farm. Nine days later they launched using the new tank farm but without new approvals. Again, they had a permit for their old setup, and they didn’t give the government ample time.
As a result of these actions, the FAA has proposed two different civil penalties totaling $633,000.
The Polaris Dawn Mission Occurs
We appreciate that these FAA violations haven’t occurred during crewed missions, but it is important to remember that SpaceX launches people into space, including non-NASA civilians.
Let’s step back for a moment and look critically at the successful Polaris Dawn mission.
Polaris Dawn is the first mission in the Polaris Program, headed by Shift4 CEO Jared Isaccman. The first mission, on a Crew Dragon, would include the first private spacewalk. Missions two and three have not been fully defined, but the second will be on another Crew Dragon and the third is planned to be on a Starship vehicle.
Polaris Dawn had a four-member crew, Isaccman, his best pal Scott Poteet, and two SpaceX employees, Sarah Gillis, who’s responsible for Crew Dragon astronaut training, and Anna Menon, who’s responsible for Crew Dragon program operations.
The mission was originally scheduled for 2022, but was delayed to summer 2024 with launch ultimately occurring from SLC-40 on September 10th, marking it the first human spaceflight from that pad. This was also the first human flight since Apollo 7 in 1968 from Cape Canaveral.
The crew flew to the highest altitude of any capsule remaining in Earth orbit: 1,408 kilometers.
The EVA happened on day 3 of the 5 day mission and involved Isaccman and Gillis sticking their torsos outside of the hatch and moving around for about 7 minutes each, before returning to the capsule. Neither spacewalker free floated, which was the original plan but quietly dropped before the mission. They also utilized a special structure, called the Skywalker, as an EVA Support.
Since Crew Dragon does not have an air lock, all 4 crew members needed to be suited up. Part of the extensive modifications of Crew Dragon Resilience involved clearing it for extended time with the interior open to vacuum, as it was not designed for this.
The four astronauts wore new, SpaceX developed EVA suits that are unlike any NASA has flown since Gemini. The suit’s motion looked very limited, particularly on the left arm. During Isaccman’s “spacestand”, his suit temperature started at 90 degrees Fahrenheit while shaded by the capsule during orbital night, and only got warmer.
SpaceX’s suits are air cooled.
Water cooling has been the standard for US and Russian EVA suits since the 1960s, following near fatal heat exhaustion on early US and Soviet spacewalks.
This “EVA” spacesuit was only designed to protect Jared as he stuck his head out of the capsule for a few minutes to perform his stunt of the first commercial spacewalk, and it succeeded at that. They clearly cannot be used for actual work, like Isaccman’s proposed Hubble repair (which NASA has refused).
In addition to the EVA, the crew did other tech demos, including testing a Starlink laser receiver, which allowed for longer and higher quality live videos than seen during Inspiration4, which used ground stations only.
Polaris Dawn successfully splashed down near the Florida Keys, successfully completing a five-day mission.
SpaceX vs the EPA in Boca Chica
Florida isn’t the only place where SpaceX is raising regulatory eyebrows.
At the same time, in Texas, SpaceX has been failing to file needed paperwork completely.
On September 10, 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, issued a public notice of a proposed civil penalty of $148,378 for discharging industrial wastewater without a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. They were also cited for spilling liquid oxygen into the wetlands.
The EPA administers the Clean Water Act federally, but States such as Texas are allowed to run their own programs if their water quality standards are as high or higher than federal standards.
The kind of permit SpaceX required is available through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and SpaceX has previously applied for and successfully received this kind of a permit for their facility in McGregor Texas and at their Falcon launch pads in Florida and California, through those states environmental permitting agencies.
A permit, once obtained, lays out what can be discharged as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. This kind of a permit is required for a subdivision that has street level drains, as well as for major launch facilities that use a water deluge system.
And under the Clean Water Act all discharges of “pollutants” through a “point source” into “waters of the United States” are prohibited without a permit.
This means there are no circumstances under which it is legal for water from the deluge system to be released directly into the environment as is currently occurring.
Directly discharging contact process industrial wastewater into wetlands is not allowed, permit or not.
All industrial wastewater must be captured and treated. Heat, such as produced by rocket engines, is a pollutant under the Clean Water Act (33 CFR § 1362 (6)). In addition, when water was tested after use in the deluge system, it was found to contain elevated levels of mercury, cyanide, sulfate, zinc, manganese, hexavalent chromium, iron, and total dissolved solids.
While Elon Musk has claimed that SpaceX wasn’t aware they needed a permit to release water someplace that it rains, their prior application for a needed permit at their McGregor facility indicates the truth is more complex than his off hand comment implies.
In fact, on July 1, 2024, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality acknowledged the receipt of an application that can be found through the Texas State website, an application in which SpaceX provided fewer details than I’d expect from the builders of a local custard stand. For instance, when asked for the construction dates of all buildings and structures at their Boca Chica Facility, they just put N/A. Their “brief history of the property, and the name of the architect/builder, if known” was just filled in as “SpaceX launch facilities.”
Here I have to wonder if the need to apply for a permit 330 days prior to any intended discharge may have been an issue. I have to wonder, did someone decide it was better to ask forgiveness than permission of the EPA??
Pushing is something SpaceX does a lot.
In 2023, Elon Musk pushed for the launch of Starship 24 on Booster 7 for April 20, 2023. In other words, he pushed for 24/7 to launch on the stoner holiday 4-20. This launch took place prior to the construction of anything that could dampen the force from the rocket’s engines and prevent damage to the launch pad. The overpressure caused a failure of the pad surface, sending large chunks of concrete into the Gulf of Mexico and the wildlife refuge next to the site. Smaller dust sized particles rained down on launch viewers at Port Isabel 10 kilometers from the launch pad. It also burned 3.5 acres of state nature preserve next to the launch facility. That incident caused an accident investigation as well as an investigation into how the protected wetlands around the facility may have been affected.
While there had been earlier discussion of using metal sheets to protect the pad – construction that wasn’t complete in time for 4-20 – after the pad’s damage was assessed, the decision was made to build a water deluge system, such as is commonly used at Florida launch pads. However, this system used an “innovative” showerhead, instead of a standard flame trench to direct the exhaust and suppress the sound.
When Starship 2 took off 212 days later on November 18, the required 330 days for a permit in Texas had not transpired, and indeed, no permit had been applied for at that time.
In the days since the EPA has issued notice of their plans to fine SpaceX, we have continued to see SpaceX release water at their Boca Chica facility, much to the meme-ing of social media users everywhere.
No, the EPA is not trying to hold back SpaceX. They are just trying to hold all individuals and corporations to the same standards. What is not clear is why SpaceX didn’t apply for a permit when they built their site, or at least on the day they decided on a water deluge system. The extra 120 days or so they might have had to wait in 2023 and early 2024 is time they could have used on other things, and time they are likely going to lose now and in the future.
SpaceX vs Cards Against Humanity
And SpaceX is doing themselves no favors. They aren’t putting themselves in the good graces of locals who face road closures, periodic evictions from their homes, or find SpaceX has casually taken over use of their land.
Yes folks, SpaceX, a company owned by the wealthiest man in the world, is squatting on other people’s property in West Texas.
On September 19, Cards Against Humanity filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Cameron Country, Texas against SpaceX for building and storing materials on their land in West Texas. Cards against Humanity had purchased this land along the Rio Grande river in 2017 to protect it from being used for Border-Wall construction under the Trump administration. This land was a pristine nature habitat and Cards Against Humanity aimed to keep it that way thanks to funds raised through the sale of 2017 Holiday “Cards Against Humanity Saves America” booster packs.
Rather than try and explain what happened next, I’m just going to read you what they posted online:
“Elon Musk’s SpaceX was building some space thing nearby, and he figured he could just dump his shit all over our gorgeous plot of land without asking. After we caught him, SpaceX gave us a 12-hour ultimatum to accept a lowball offer for less than half our land’s value. We said, ‘Go fuck yourself, Elon Musk. We’ll see you in court.'”
The photos they’ve posted are rather damning, and I can only assume SpaceX didn’t have building permits for the structures they built on Cards Against Humanity’s land.
This case is actually more than just one company telling another to get off their formerly pristine lawn.
Cards against Humanity argues in their filling that “SpaceX, with CEO
Elon Musk at the helm, has already damaged the reputation of CAH with its supporters.”
To quote from their filing, “The 2017 holiday campaign that resulted in the purchase of the Property was based upon CAH undertaking efforts to fight against ‘injustice, lies, [and] racism’. Thus, it is particularly offensive that these egregious acts against the Property have been committed by the company run by Elon Musk. As is widely known, Musk has been accused of tolerating racism and sexism at Tesla and of amplifying the antisemitic ‘Great Replacement Theory’. He has endorsed Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, promising to donate $45 million per month to a pro-Trump Super PAC, and has expressed public support for building Trump’s wall. These are just a few examples among many other acts overtly offensive to those who contributed money to CAH’s 2017 campaign. Allowing Musk’s company to abuse the Property that CAH’s supporters contributed money to purchase for the sole purpose of stopping such behavior is totally contrary to both the reason for the contribution and the tenets on which CAH is based. Whether one agrees with CAH’s political positions or not, the support generated by its business model is real and valuable—and greatly damaged by these acts.”
Cards against Humanity is suing for $15million and plans to split the award, should they win, with the people who purchased the 2017 cards, with each pack owner estimated to receive $100. If you are one of these purchasers, they ask that you visit ElonOwesYou100Dollars.com.
For full disclosure, I have purchased many cards from Cards Against Humanity in the past, however the 2017 Holiday pack is not one I have bought or owned.
We here at EVSN recognize that for NASA’s Artemis program, as planned, to succeed, SpaceX and StarShip need to succeed. Delays in the Starship program will cause cost overages with Artemis… and in the past this kind of cost overrun has led to cuts to science programs.
This is a future that would mean less science… the science we would rather focus on with our show. This is our bias: We want Artemis to succeed so science can succeed.