The evidence strongly suggests FAA top management is working to sabotage SpaceX
FAA administrator Mike Whitaker to SpaceX:
“Nice company you have there. Shame if something
happened to it.”
After SpaceX’s incredibly successful fifth test flight of Starship/Superheavy on October 13, 2024, I began to wonder about the complex bureaucratic history leading up to that flight. I was most puzzled by the repeated claims by FAA officials that it would issue no launch license before late November, yet ended up approving a license in mid-October in direct conflict with these claims. In that context I was also puzzled by the FAA’s own written approval of that launch, which in toto seemed to be a complete vindication of all of SpaceX’s actions while indirectly appearing to be a condemnation of the agency’s own upper management.
What caused the change at the FAA? Why was it claiming no approval until late November when it was clear by early October that SpaceX was preparing for a mid-October launch? And why claim late November when the FAA’s own bureaucracy has now made it clear in approving the launch that a mid-October date was always possible, and nothing SpaceX did prevented that.
I admit my biases: My immediate speculation is always to assume bad behavior by government officials. But was that speculation correct? Could it also be that SpaceX had not done its due diligence properly, causing the delays, as claimed by the FAA?
While doing my first review of the FAA’s written reevaluation [pdf] that approved the October 13th launch, I realized that a much closer review of the history and timeline of events might clarify these questions.
So, below is that timeline, as best as I can put together from the public record. The lesser known acronyms stand for the following:
TCEQ: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service (part of NOAA)
FWS: Fish & Wildlife Service (part of the Department of Interior)
My inserted comments periodically tell the story and provide some context.
- June 13, 2022: FAA approves environmental reassessmant, allowing launches from Boca Chica
- July 2023: Launch deluge system approved by TCEQ
- Feb 2024: FAA requests NMFS to review Indian Ocean impact of Starship landing
- March 7, 2024: NMFS approves Starship landing in Indian Ocean
- March 13, 2024: EPA says it must be involved in approving deluge system
- March 14, 2024: Third test flight of Starship/Superheavy
Superheavy/Starship lifting off on March 14, 2024
At this point SpaceX has successfully launched Starship into orbit, splashing it down in the Indian Ocean and meeting all requirements of the FAA and these other government agencies except for the sudden insertion of the EPA out of the blue. The company then proceeds to aggressively address the EPA’s concerns:
- March 14, 2024: SpaceX samples water discharges and finds they are within acceptable regulatory limits
- April 5, 2024: SpaceX samples water discharges and finds they are within acceptable regulatory limits
- May 8, 2024: SpaceX samples water discharges and finds they are within acceptable regulatory limits
- June 6, 2024: Fourth test flight of Starship/Superheavy
Once again SpaceX has successfully launched Starship into orbit, splashing down in the Indian Ocean. Once again it does so while meeting all the regulatory requirements imposed on it by these numerous government agencies.
- July 1, 2024 SpaceX submits new permit application for deluge system to TCEQ and EPA
- July 12, 2024: FAA initiates a new environmental reassessment of Boca Chica
- August 2, 2024: TECQ agrees w/EPA and says SpaceX must get different permits from the state and EPA
- August 9, 2024: SpaceX says it is ready to launch
- August 10, 2024: TCEQ advices FAA it will approve deluge system under different regulation
- August 12, 2024: FAA suspends approval process for new environmental reassessment
The FAA has since claimed it suspended the approval process on August 12th because of the new regulatory concerns of the EPA and TCEQ, but when it did so TCEQ had already said it had no regulatory concerns. Moreover, only three weeks later the EPA concurred with TCEQ (see below). Yet that reassessment remains suspended.
- August 13, 2024: TCEQ approves deluge system, pending public comment
- August 29, 2024: Texas Historical Commission said no damage from sonic boom
- Sept 5, 2024: EPA approves Starship launches under its regulations
Note that at this point there should be no reason to prevent the FAA from issuing a launch license. The objections raised in August by TCEQ and the EPA have all been cleared. Instead, the FAA responds as follows:
- Sept 10, 2024: FAA says approval of 5th flight impossible before late November
- Sept 10, 2024: SpaceX blasts FAA for all delays
- Sept 12, 2024: EPA officially informs FAA in writing of its Sept 5 approval
- Sept 12, 2024: FAA asks FWS to review whether a Superheavy return to Boca Chica is safe
- Sept 12, 2024: FAA blames SpaceX for all delays
September 12th is a key date. On that day the EPA officially informs the FAA that it approves the launch, meaning there remain no more obstacles to issuing the launch license. Instead, the FAA suddenly demands that FWS, which up to now had not been involved at all, look into the environmental consequences of the sonic boom from Superheavy as it lands at Boca Chica. Note too that SpaceX has been proposing this tower-chopstick landing at Boca Chica since July.
At the same time the FAA publicly blames SpaceX for the delays.
- Sept 20, 2024: Musk: Starship is ready for 5th flight; again blasts the FAA bureaucracy
- Sept 24, 2024: FAA administrator Mike Whitaker testifies in front of Congress, blasting SpaceX
- Sept 26, 2024: FAA requests NMFS to review changes by SpaceX
The nature of Whitaker’s testimony before Congress on September 24th also tells us much. He claimed the delay was because there were “safety” questions with the sonic boom that Superheavy would cause when it returned to Boca Chica. Yet, no one had considered this an issue until the FAA raised it with FWS on September 12th. Whitaker also implied that SpaceX had not been following regulations, when the history above shows this to be completely false.
Two days after Whitaker’s testimony the FAA suddenly initiated another bureaucratic investigation, this time with NMFS, raising new questions about the spashdown of Starship in the Indian Ocean and asking this outside agency to reconsider its previous approval from March 7, 2024.
It appears that Whitaker realized he needed more reasons to delay SpaceX until November, and thus ordered his people to bring NMFS back in.
- Oct 2, 2024: Coast Guard issues notice for launch window Oct 12-19
- Oct 4, 2024: FAA once again insists no launch license until late November
- Oct 10, 2024: NMFS re-approves Starship landing in Indian Ocean
- Oct 11, 2024: FWS re-approves Superheavy landing at Boca Chica
- Oct 12, 2024: FAA issues license
- Oct 13, 2024: SpaceX launches Starship/Superheavy, with Superheavy successfully caught by tower chopsticks, and Starship landing on its precise target in the Indian Ocean
Overall, this history suggests strongly that FAA administrator Mike Whitaker, possibly under orders from the White House, was attempting to use whatever regulatory means he could to delay the launch until after the election in November. That the agency purposely delayed initiating the reviews by FWS and NMFS until as late as possible underlines this strategy. Get some agencies to approve, then bring in other agencies to start more reviews and cause more delays.
It also appears that though none of these agencies moved with great speed, they also did not cooperate entirely. After the Coast Guard, FWS, NMFS, and TCEQ had all cleared SpaceX for the launch, Whitaker had no other legal options, and was forced to allow his underlings at the FAA to issue the launch license.
A lot of house cleaning is necessary, far more than
any of us can imagine.
What this history also tells us is that we now have an administrative state that is quite willing to use the complex environmental regulations that now exist to manipulate those regulations in order to arbitrarily damage the efforts of one specific company, SpaceX, because its founder and head, Elon Musk, has publicly expressed political opinions that administrative state does not like. The main culprit appears to be FAA administrator Mike Whitaker, but I am sure he is not alone in this, but is working with many higher ups in the White House as well as many lower bureaucrats in his agency and others, all of whom are hostile to Musk.
And if you think I am being paranoid, I need only refer you to the testimony of two commissioners in the California Coastal Commission, who only last week said what Whitaker and many other federal bureaucrats believe but will not say out loud, admitting that they are using their regulatory power to stop SpaceX, merely because they disagree with Musk’s political opinions.
If America is to become great again, a major house cleaning and deregulation is in order, far in excess to what Elon Musk did when he took over Twitter. Not only do a lot of people need to be fired, but whole swathes of regulations need to be repealed, and fast. These rules aren’t protecting the envirornment, they are squelching freedom and the basic rights of American citizens.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in this year has the propaganda mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuse to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
As I recall from various coverage of the testimony of Mr. Whitaker before Congress, he appeared to be poorly informed about the history of FAA dealings with SpaceX, and the specific findings underlaying previous FAA decisions.
One cannot help but form the impression that Whitaker initially believed that he could bluster his way through the hearing, but soon demonstrated that he was out of his depth, and realized he would have to be more directly involved in the issue. It is soon after this point that I believe he began to realize that he had not further options to delay the launch.
When other agencies then began refusing to invent new requirements, Whitaker realized that he would have no cover from them for further delay, and allowed his staff to proceed with the licensing.
These are my impressions only, but they show me that Whitaker came to realize that he was becoming the sacrificial lamb, and decided he should not continue to play that role.
Ps. It would be interesting if someone interviewing Kamala Harris would ask her to comment on the SpaceX achievement of the past week.
One hopes that a cascade of miracles comes to pass, and Trump regains power, just for the sheer delight in seeing thousands and thousands of worthless DC bureaucrats and SES swine (like Whitaker) turfed out onto their ears. Though it is unlikely that the buildings will be razed and the grounds sown with salt, the mere exercise of clearing such a forest of dead wood would caution future bureaucrats about their fate should they overreach.