Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SpaceX’s Shotwell Says US Regulators Must ‘Go Faster’

posted by janrinok on Friday November 22, @12:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the all-boxes-on-all-forms-must-be-checked dept.

DannyB writes:

SpaceX's Shotwell Says US Regulators Must 'Go Faster'

SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell fired off fresh criticism at US regulators on Friday, saying rocket launch approvals need to catch up with the pace her company is innovating.

[....] Elon Musk's rocket and satellite company plans to launch the sixth major test of its new Starship vehicle on Tuesday, and sees as many as 400 launches of the moon and Mars craft over the next four years, Shotwell said. That compares with a record 148 missions that US regulators authorized for the entire commercial space industry in the government's most recent fiscal year.

[....] In September, Musk, SpaceX's founder and Chief Executive Officer, called on the head of the FAA to resign and claimed that government paperwork to license a launch takes longer than building the actual rocket.

On Thursday, the FAA said it plans to update its launch and reentry licensing rule, as the number of space operations could more than double by 2028, it said.

What did FAA do back when aircraft were new and novel, and could be dangerous?

Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
SpaceX’s Shotwell Says US Regulators Must ‘Go Faster’ | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 49 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 26, @11:43PM (9 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 26, @11:43PM (#1383494) Journal

    But a launch provider with hundreds of launches under their belt and many of these vehicles having flown before?

    Depends on the reason why. Since it's being applied to everyone across the board you've really got nothing to whine about.

    "Everyone" is solely SpaceX.

    It's about what we, the people living underneath these rockets, give up to shorten it. Can you actually address that or are we going around the block again performing exactly the same fallacy I pointed out in my opening remark?

    What did you give up for present streamlined FAA regulation of airflight? These are all silly arguments when we have a working example by the FAA of how to do it better.

  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 26, @11:47PM (8 children)

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 26, @11:47PM (#1383495)

    "Everyone" is solely SpaceX.

    Is SpaceX getting delays others aren't?

    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 27, @04:57AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 27, @04:57AM (#1383518) Journal

      Is SpaceX getting delays others aren't?

      Sure. Because they launch more, they get more of those delays.

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday November 27, @05:06AM (3 children)

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 27, @05:06AM (#1383520)
        🤣 I got my answer.
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 27, @05:33AM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 27, @05:33AM (#1383526) Journal
          Indeed. So why are you laughing rather than taking a serious answer seriously?

          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday November 27, @05:45AM (1 child)

            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 27, @05:45AM (#1383528)
            Because it was a serious dodge. Also because if you had something prudent you would have shut my ass up with it a few posts back.

            We're having this conversation because SpaceX wants profit. 🖖
            --
            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 27, @07:01AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 27, @07:01AM (#1383536) Journal
              Sorry, I disagree. Here's the situation: the FAA uses a process that was already terrible (for example, requiring environmental review for every launch, even though the great majority don't do anything that hasn't been done before), slow, and with plenty of opportunity for rivals to screw with you. SpaceX now operates in a high frequency regime where that makes even less sense than it did before. As I noted SpaceX gets delays others don't because of their high launch frequency.

              And we already have an alternative that works much better - regular aviation safety. This is a problem solved a half century ago.

              We're having this conversation because SpaceX wants profit.

              Should we do dumb things because someone might make a profit? What's missed here is that nobody was interested in fixing these problems because FAA regulation was part of a greater barrier to entry that preserved their profits (other examples: NASA-enforced orbital launch cartel and the thicket of regulation surrounding government contracts). The people with standing to contest the regulations were fine with the regulations. Now that this has become a significant obstruction to SpaceX launch frequency, SpaceX's rivals are even more fine with it now.

              Incidentally, this is part of why so much bad regulation survives decade after decade. The people with standing to contest the regulation in court, profit from it instead. It's only when things transition from profitable to not, that they wake up and contest it.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 27, @05:08AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 27, @05:08AM (#1383521) Journal
      Since you asked for examples of why per launch licenses were such a problem, here's another example: requiring [x.com] an environmental "Finding of No Significant Impact" for each launch site and each launch.

      First, I recommend moving the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) out of the FAA. Give OCST back to the Secretary of Transportation, where it belongs by statute. Placed within FAA by an executive order by Clinton, it can be removed from FAA by executive order. Unfortunately, the Part 450 regulation of space launch and reentry was a step backward—the U.S. should return to a more performance-based regulatory structure. After decades in which every launch and launch site license has received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), we should either seek a categorical exclusion, like we have for aircraft, or change to a “shall issue” structure where the government may deny a license application for cause, but, if it takes no action, the license is approved by default.

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday November 27, @05:21AM (1 child)

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 27, @05:21AM (#1383523)
        Erm okay, so that's not a throw-people-at-it problem like you've pitched elsewhere. I don't know if we're far enough along with the rocket tests. They certainly don't have the safety record of commercial airlines. (Yet.) The tech is still changing, a lot. And before you argue, they compared the launches to aircraft as if they're apples-to-apples. We're still in a very primitive state.

        I don't hate the idea but "SpaceX wants moar money!" is not an appropriate context for that decision. Remember: We're all underneath them.
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 27, @05:33AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 27, @05:33AM (#1383525) Journal

          Erm okay, so that's not a throw-people-at-it problem like you've pitched elsewhere.

          I also pitched the "don't do licensing per launch". So don't act surprised that I brought this up.