Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

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This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.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.
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 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.