Starship Launch 5 successfully caught by launch tower

For what it’s worth, here is how SpaceX describes it:

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.

Though, they neglected to say anything about what happens to the water after it comes into contact with rocket exhaust.

This is getting too deep in the weeds for me to have an informed opinion about. I just don’t know if a wastewater treatment plant is needed. The EPA doesn’t seem to think so, though?

The article states NASA has a similar process, they simply test the water to ensure it's safe before discharging it into a retention pond and eventually the environment. In fact the expert NPR quotes in the article simply says that SpaceX needs a wastewater permit if it wants to be doing this kind of discharge which is absolutely fair; but just goes to further show that calling it toxic waste is hyperbolic at best and the reason why I compared it to literally any of the other companies in America who are dumping millions of gallons of actual toxic waste into the environment without any public outcry.

I'm honestly just sick of every single thing SpaceX does being hyper-criticized because it's owner is a egotistical hypocritical toolbag. (Turns out most billionaires are, they just don't tweet about it.) SpaceX is legitimately almost single-handedly advancing space technology by decades.

You know what's also terrible for the environment? Sending up dozens of single use disposable rockets into the atmosphere to burn up in re-entry. If we're going to be doing Space stuff, this is certainly the lesser of the two evils.

I can't imagine significant amounts of hexavalent chromium is being emitted here on these launches.

Either way it's speculative at best. 'tens of thousands of gallons', yeah, of water coming in contact with the rocket exhaust.

It's not like a concentrated pipe of toxic chemicals being dumped in the ocean. Not much against the article, but I dislike the framing of the original comment.