from the must-protect-endangered-competitors dept.
FAA warns SpaceX that massive Starship launch tower in Texas is unapproved:
The Federal Aviation Administration warned Elon Musk's SpaceX in a letter two months ago that the company's work on a launch tower for future Starship rocket launches is yet unapproved, and will be included in the agency's ongoing environmental review of the facility in Boca Chica, Texas.
"The company is building the tower at its own risk," an FAA spokesperson told CNBC on Wednesday, noting that the environmental review could recommend taking down the launch tower.
[...] SpaceX has conducted multiple short test flights of Starship prototypes over the past year. However, the company needs the FAA to complete the environmental review and issue a license to take the next step in the rocket's testing.
[...] Starship prototypes stand at about 160 feet tall, or around the size of a 16-story building, and are built of stainless steel – representing the early version of the rocket that Musk unveiled in 2019. The rocket initially launches on a "Super Heavy" booster, which makes up the bottom half of the rocket and stands about 230 feet tall. Together, Starship a\ nd Super Heavy will be nearly 400 feet tall when stacked for the launch.
Elon Musk's SpaceX could be ordered to take down its huge Starship launch tower in Boca Chica, the FAA has warned:
[...] "It is possible that changes would have to be made at the launch site, including to the integration towers to mitigate significant impacts," the FAA letter said, per Reuters. The FAA added that it had only learned that the integration tower was being built "based on publicly available video footage."
[...] The FAA said SpaceX told it in May that it doesn't think the review is necessary because it plans to use the launch tower "for production, research, and development purposes and not for FAA-licensed or permitted launches," per Reuters' report.
But the FAA said that SpaceX documentation "indicates otherwise," including one document saying that the towers would be used to integrate the Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle, the report said.
[...] Musk blasted the agency in February for canceling SpaceX's Starship flight following a reported launch license violation, and claimed that "humanity will never get to Mars" under new FAA rules.
Maybe launch platforms in the ocean are more regulation friendly.
Also at Ars Technica.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @12:17AM
To protect a rare duck species. In Texas. That would be popcorn.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @12:18AM (11 children)
keeps Fremont facilities open during a pandemic
builds unapproved tower without approval
see a pattern here?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @12:22AM (2 children)
Yes... a go-getter who doesn't let useless paper pushers hold back progress. We need more billionaires like this.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anti-aristarchus on Saturday July 17 2021, @12:58AM
FTFY!
(Of course, it was already implied.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @06:19AM
Seems like we're getting rid of them, in a kind of Robin Hood way.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @01:19AM
Ooops, he did it again! #FreeBritney
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @02:04AM (5 children)
He's allowed to do what he wants because he is rich. He's selling this Martian fantasy and certain people here are creaming in their shorts. It is the irrational hero worship like the MAGA crowd has for Trump. It is the same level of rationality that goes into both, and they both get highly agitated if you point out that the emperor's clothes aren't quite as fine as he says they are.
They will also whine about how the "system is fixed" against them, even when they are integral parts of the "system."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @02:53PM (4 children)
It's the Great Man theory all over again. Rational brain switches off, all bow to the King, die in service to his majesty.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @05:44PM (3 children)
What are the great advances that The Holy Bureaucracy has given us since it got the absolute power?
They LOST THE TECH OF 1970s is what they have done.
The experiment of "let paper-pushers control all, and await a paradise on Earth" has totally failed. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @07:46PM (2 children)
Uh, space flight? The thing your boy is doing 50 years later.
BTW I'm not advocating for infinite management no more than the unerring word of 1 True billionaire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 18 2021, @03:40AM
Ha ha you mean only LOW EARTH ORBIT for **five fucking decades** after our last trip to the moon?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 18 2021, @11:52AM
Exactly. 50 years flushed down the toilet. SpaceX is doing the reboot right this time.
(Score: 1, Troll) by FatPhil on Saturday July 17 2021, @06:32AM
SpaceX ignored last-minute warnings from the FAA before December Starship launch
Elon Musk’s company was told SN8’s launch would violate its FAA license, but SpaceX launched anyway
-- https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/15/22352366/elon-musk-spacex-faa-warnings-starship-sn8-launch-violation-texas
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bmimatt on Saturday July 17 2021, @12:40AM (12 children)
He'll get it approved, by providing jobs and rudimentary adhesion to base ruleset. He gets shit done.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Saturday July 17 2021, @02:26AM (11 children)
The FAA, a federal agency, could not care less about jobs. Texas pretends to, but they have no say in the matter. In fact, to the federal government Texas is just an annoying welfare queen that keeps screaming out against socialism, while basing their whole economy on handouts paid by the blue states. If there's something to be said about the FAA, unlike some random CA county he can move out of, is that they don't look for rudimentary adhesion. They do look for every tiny detail to be unquestionably and fully complied with.
>He gets shit done
he does. he's one of the first people to get shit done, a few years ahead of when that shit is ready to be done by anyone, because the tech has arrived. He Bought Tesla, he did not create Tesla. And used lies, selling vaporware that was prepaid but never arrived, and government handouts, to get there a few years before others did. To this day, he has not made profit on a single car, even having people paying 10k in 2016 for full autonomous, which was supposed to be delivered in 2018, and was not refunded when people sold their cars and the future feature license didn't transfer to the new owners. He gets Shit done. Exactly correct.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Spamalope on Saturday July 17 2021, @06:26AM (10 children)
Hah! You mean the way they allowed Boeing to self regulate even after the Douglas management team took over and ended the engineering ethos of the company? As with the MAX? The one that's still not deemed airworthy, and where other 737 models have mandatory inspection directives?
The FAA is as political as any other agency, and has positively played favorites. The appearance of favoring ULA here is strong enough to raise eyebrows even if it's not conclusive.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Saturday July 17 2021, @10:58AM (8 children)
>You mean the way they allowed Boeing to self regulate
Boeing were not "allowed to self regulate" - they lied to the FAA. They got criminally prosecuted for that. This is common knowledge.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/7/22219370/boeing-737-max-fraud-conspiracy-criminal-charges-fine-crashes [theverge.com]
No amount of being strict about regulation prevents someone from criminally lying. You should google things you don't know before you talk about them.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Spamalope on Saturday July 17 2021, @12:48PM
The FAA themselves reported that Boeing had been allowed a substantial self regulatory role. A role based on the strong engineering strength of the company... which no longer existed via the Douglas management team. (the arguably criminal behavior at Boeing surrounding the MAX certification is another matter, as well as what was done to avoid pilot retraining that compromised safety)
Those two things were discussed at length by aviation vloggers and insiders. Also mentioned was the policy change to making previously standard safety equipment expensive upgrades, like redundant sensors.
Why get salty about this? The coverage I've watched has been apolitical and there doesn't seem to be a dispute over what happened. The two year and counting grounding of the entire fleet to review the certification wasn't done lightly.
(as an aside: I'd argue the whole trim fakery system should be removed as it compromises safety by adding the critical failure modes directly leading to the fatal crashes. The plane's flight characteristics without it are fine, they just aren't exactly the same as the NG model so pilots would require training for the difference - basically a pitch up with increased throttle due to the forward engine position. Trying to avoid that expense to sell upgrades to airlines, then skimping on the execution is what lead to the whole MAX fiasco)
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Sunday July 18 2021, @12:24PM (6 children)
If you're allowed to lie to the regulators, then you are self-regulating.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Sunday July 18 2021, @01:49PM (5 children)
lol they were not allowed to lie to regulators. they were prosecuted for it in criminal court.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Sunday July 18 2021, @05:10PM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Sunday July 18 2021, @11:02PM (3 children)
which to you means 'they are allowed to lie.' gotcha. autism.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Monday July 19 2021, @02:19AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @06:30AM (1 child)
you're very dense. you see white, your brain says 'black.'
you made up that the faa knew about the lying, made up that they were fine with it, and are calling this scenario existing only in your head bad.
me: when a felin gets caught with an unregistered gun they get arrested.
your conclusion from this: 'the court and cops are fine with felons illegally obtaining guns till they kill someone'
me: the drunk driver got arrested when he killed a pedestrian
you: this means it's legal to drive drunk
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 20 2021, @04:51AM
Sorry, you got that wrong. I didn't say that the FAA knew about the lying. I said that they didn't bother to check and verify those false claims. That makes them quite fine with it until people started dying.
The actual scenario would be police not arresting a felon with an unregistered gun, because the felon told them otherwise and they took him at his word. And then the felon shoots 346 people [wikipedia.org].
What you should be taking home from this thread as a lesson is that regulation that depends so strongly on the honesty of the regulated is de facto self-regulation and hence, no more effective than any other self-regulation would be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @11:41AM
you have a point. the reason people murder people is because murderers are allowed to self regulate their murdering. we should not allow criminals to self regulate their crime. bring your plan for world peace to ted cruze.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @01:14AM (5 children)
So the FAA is obviously federal, what happens if Spacex simply gets Texan approval? Also, since when does the Federal Aviation Authority issue fucking building permits? Bit of power grab going on is there?
(Score: 3, Funny) by BK on Saturday July 17 2021, @01:20AM (4 children)
The tower might interfere with interstate bird migrations. Clearly a federal thing…
Also the fcc might get involved over rfc 1149 interference.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ChrisMaple on Saturday July 17 2021, @07:27AM (1 child)
This is a power grab by the FAA, and very likely a solicitation for bribes. If there are environmental concerns, the EPA should be handling the issue.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @02:59PM
This is a straw grasp, literally you've fallen back to the R playbook. Waaah about some kind of widespread conspiracy/fraud with no evidence required. Kiddie pizza for you +1
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @10:34AM (1 child)
That's the Federal Avian Authority. Totally different species.
(Score: 2) by BK on Saturday July 17 2021, @07:18PM
So one person got it.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Saturday July 17 2021, @01:20AM (9 children)
So.... exactly what applicable authority does the FAA have over space launch facilities?
A cursory invesitigation suggests they have authority over air traffic control, and rocket safety guidelines - but that's all in-the-air stuff. I didn't see anything whatsoever about authority over the details of the ground facilities at private launch facilities. And experimental ones at that.
I'm sure they have some authority over where such facilities can be built, as part of the whole air traffic control thing - but as they've already authorized launches from the facility it seems unlikely that the exact location of the launch pad is relevant
(Score: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Saturday July 17 2021, @01:54AM (2 children)
It's pretty obvious somebody isn't greasing enough palms at the FAA:
"You have to scrub a launch because we can't be bothered to get one of our bureaucrats there on time".
"Nice building you have there, be a shame if you had to tear it down"
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Kell on Saturday July 17 2021, @02:33AM
Precisely this - this is an attempt to assert authority and remind SpaceX that the air (and anything it touches) is their kingdom. If Musk doesn't toe the line and simply ignores them, they run the risk that other enterprising spacemongers will do the same and FAA's support for space regulation in Congress will slip. FAA's power can be rewritten at the stroke of a pen, and they want to nip that thinking in the bud.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @03:03PM
It's pretty obvious you're making it up as you go along.
Please try and build a rocket without any supporting buildings. If you can't and your rocket needs a building, then it needs to be suitable for purpose. Not to mention saving migrating birds that might be disturbed.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @04:52PM (3 children)
What authority? found this:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title51/subtitle5/chapter509&edition=prelim [house.gov]
§50905. License applications and requirements
My reading is that FAA is sort of a single point of contact with the federal government to promote commercial space but consistent with health and safety concerns. This includes a requirement to respond in a timely manner (180 days?) to applications. Single point of contact includes the ability to consult with other departments (EPA?) to waive some regs if it is judged to be a reasonable balancing between promoting space and health and safety. That could be quite a lot of authority to grease the wheels of government to shepherd commercial space through minefield of environmental and private land use concerns.
Assuming this reading is anywhere close to the story, then in theory, by beltway standards, if you are interested in commercial space, the FAA should be your friend and working with them should be your first choice, the second option being politics to adjust the rules. This kind of puts X between a rock and a hard place. It better to ask for forgiveness than permission, but this turns out to be using the Falcon 9 test site approval to do something much bigger, which looks like bait and switch to your supposed friend. This seems dumb, but X has no choice. Even if the FAA in theory has the authority of fix the problem, it is unlikely to happen at their pay grade.
Eventually, there is going to be a reckoning deciding to use the area as a space base for the public good at the expense of the private, or not. This is a political decision.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @05:05PM
You know on second thought. Maybe not dumb.
The first step for getting a political decision is to have tried to work it out thru the channels provided and failed.
It would be hard to argue the X has not tried to use the FAA channel in creative ways.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Saturday July 17 2021, @07:05PM (1 child)
I read through the section you mentioned, and it appeared to refer only to the vehicle, flight plan, etc. Nothing about the ground facilities.
Then just in case I searched the entire page for "building" "facility" and "structure", and found nothing hinting at any authority over their particularsm - only a few mentions with respect to filing flight plans needing to specify the facility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 18 2021, @12:54AM
" Nothing about the ground facilities."
Kudos for taking the time to try to read this. I did the same, but not sure how well this old brain can do.
I wonder if it is possible to do anything big in the US without having to jump thru multiple hoops from multiple branches of the exec dept? (OMG think of the x, where X is snaildarters, bird watchers, tree huggers, beach walkers, private land owners, or just folks doing what they do without others taking over. ) Point is that X's actions in Boca step on many right to be left alone toes. Without some sort of helpt this could never fly.
While the FAA might not regulate ground facilities past how they affect the health and safety of those nearby, other agencies do. The EPA comes to mind. The reference appears to give the FAA the power to negotiate for X on this. My question is if this is an unreasonable expectation above the pay grade. If so, X is on the best path.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday July 18 2021, @02:48PM (1 child)
Hmm... Decided to look for FAA regulations on airports as a reference point, and found this: https://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/design_standards/ [faa.gov]
It's still not clear to me that the FAA was ever given authority over ground facilities... but they sure as %#!@ claimed it...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 19 2021, @12:37AM
I looked at about half a dozen of those, and they all have "provides guidance", "provides standards", or "information on ...", wording.
Looks like they are trying to set the standards without ever using "must" or "required", probably because that could be challenged in court by anyone who didn't want to comply.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @01:39AM (1 child)
Let it go. Texans love SpaceX. Don't interfere. If the Texans don't mind, who are you to object? :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @01:48AM
The residents of Starbase, Texas do not mind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @02:12AM (3 children)
Who invented Musk to launch from there https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/news-trends/article/3125044/indonesia-wants-elon-musk-build-space-island-biak-why [scmp.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @03:05PM (2 children)
Or Dubai. They built all these shitty islands in the shape of a palm tree. It looks absolutely perfect for a douchey billionaire to launch a private spaceship.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Socrastotle on Saturday July 17 2021, @07:33PM (1 child)
Not quite how it works. Indonesia is actually a phenomenal location for space operations. When you're launching a ship you generally like to be on the equator and launching with the rotation of the Earth, so eastward. This gives a massive boost to performance. And of course when you launch, you also generally prefer there to be nothing to your east because sometimes things go boom. This is why the main base in the US for launches is in Cape Canaveral. It's right on the coast and has nothing but the Atlantic to the east.
Indonesia is one a handful of absolutely perfect locations for a space launch base. It is square on the equator with nothing but the Pacific to the east.
Anyhow, now back to your regularly scheduled angsty class war stuff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @07:51PM
Can't we just put "poor launch site" on the list of hurdles overcome by our hero by the comically inept Randian villains.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Saturday July 17 2021, @05:11PM
Xi shows us the way. Jack Ma, Alibaba, Didi,Hong Kong and the Uyghurs feel the restraining hand of the State - for the People and Social Harmony!
Musk needs to be re-educated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17 2021, @08:39PM
arrest any fed in the state!