SpaceX 2024

[brovane]

This is a 4 page example of a Bureaucracy that is out of control. I would say unable or unwilling to do their job in a timely manner except that I don't know whose schedule they are on. The timing is suspect.
Trying to make SpaceX appear to be criminal, rogue scientists to punish Musk because of his political stand.
Or impeding SpaceX launches to give Boeing time to hard sell Starliner.

Paul

Keeping in mind that the letter is biased as hell, trying to put SpaceX in the best light possible. Which is, after all, the counsel's job. Instead of going through the actual appeals system, it also jumps straight to politicians, which goes into big company stompy boots and who's been getting the campaign donations territory.

The FAA doesn't have the resources to keep up with the SpaceX launch schedule, as Eric Berger has pointed out, and they're probably getting a lot of pressure from various directions to slow SpaceX down, or to push SpaceX stuff through. Not an easy place to be, and really where the procedures need to be overhauled to reflect some people launch more than 10 times a year.

I would love to know where Shotwell is in all of this. It seems that SpaceX has decided to go f$%k it and just lay all their cards out on the table instead of deciding to quietly discuss this with the FAA. The fines the FAA are imposing are low enough that for SpaceX it is just the cost of doing business. This in addition to the FAA issues at Boca Chica with Starship that it looks like Musk has decided that he is not going to be quiet about what he considers political baloney by the FAA. Whether that is true or not.

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” - Ronald Reagan

GX2AK8pbUAAvB0X.jpg

[Rocket J Squrriel]

The head of the FCC said that Starlink is a probable monopoly because it provides so much service. Umm...doesn't the 'monopoly' exist because no one else has gotten up there yet?

[brovane]

The head of the FCC said that Starlink is a probable monopoly because it provides so much service. Umm...doesn't the 'monopoly' exist because no one else has gotten up there yet?

What is even better is that FCC denied SpaceX subsidies for rural broadband coverage because the FCC decided that SpaceX didn't have good enough evidence that Starlink would be as good as SpaceX claimed it would be in 2025. Now we are in 2024 and the head of the FCC is now saying the service is too good?

[Belushi TD]

Here's how I see it.

Someone with virtually NO experience, fresh out of school, was handed this stuff to review as their first task by someone who was too swamped with stuff that actually NEEDED review and figured "Oh, the new guy can handle it. Good way for them to get their feet wet.".

The supervisor ended up either not reviewing it before it was sent out, or figured "Hell, I only have a week left. Lets see what happens!" and let the letter and the fines go out without comment.

The new guy didn't fully understand what the regulations are or what the purpose of all the various items are and is about to get slapped by the real world.

I have spent a lot of the last decade and a half dealing with regulatory oversight in the environmental industry. In the NJDEP, there's a LOT of people with a LOT of experience in the field and in the regulatory industry retiring now, and the people the state is hiring are young, fresh out of school, and have NO experience outside of reading the regulations, and therefore have NO idea what the regulations are actually supposed to be doing.

This tiff between SpaceX and the FAA seems very much like that sort of thing, and I think SpaceX is completely correct for sending a scathing letter back to the FAA. We'll see what happens down the line.

Belushi TD

[brovane]

I do wonder if Musk is going about this the wrong way.

Just announce that the FAA has brought up serious concerns for SpaceX and the overall Safety of launches. SpaceX thinks the best thing they can do, is do a safety standdown of all launches until the end of the year so SpaceX and the FAA can have full discussions on these safety violations and the best way that SpaceX can safely move forward in the future. SpaceX looks forward to safely resuming launches in early 2025 in partnership with the FAA.

Sometimes you need to lean into bureaucracy in order to get things fixed.

[Nightwatch2]

I do wonder if Musk is going about this the wrong way.

Just announce that the FAA has brought up serious concerns for SpaceX and the overall Safety of launches. SpaceX thinks the best thing they can do, is do a safety standdown of all launches until the end of the year so SpaceX and the FAA can have full discussions on these safety violations and the best way that SpaceX can safely move forward in the future. SpaceX looks forward to safely resuming launches in early 2025 in partnership with the FAA.

Sometimes you need to lean into bureaucracy in order to get things fixed.

That only works if it undermines the bigger picture in the view of the government agencies (plural).

Now, in this case not launching supplies and crews to the ISS fits that. Not launching Starlink satellites only hurts Musk

[gtg947h]

I have spent a lot of the last decade and a half dealing with regulatory oversight in the environmental industry. In the NJDEP, there's a LOT of people with a LOT of experience in the field and in the regulatory industry retiring now, and the people the state is hiring are young, fresh out of school, and have NO experience outside of reading the regulations, and therefore have NO idea what the regulations are actually supposed to be doing.

I deal with the FAA on a personal and professional basis. What you describe seems to be the exact same I see with them. Lots of new folks who don't undertand how things work on the starship. They don't really understand the application of the regulation to the real world, they don't know why the regulations were written the way they were, and they don't know all the unwritten understandings between regulators and the regulated, about exactly how to interpret things and what is really expected of each party.

And I think what you wind up with, is some new inexperienced folks taking an extremely literal, absolutist, most conservative interpretation possible, because either they (a) don't know better, (b) don't want to have to go ask, or (c) get cocky and think they're going to come in and clean house and run a super tight ship and not cut anyone any slack whatsoever, unlike those old retired codgers who were really in bed with the nasty sneaky private companies.

I'm not really sure what can be done about this problem though. I think part of it may be that the government just has a hard time recruiting, especially once you move beyond fresh graduates. Looking at people I've known who work at the FAA and the positions they seem to post (which I actually happen to be doing ATM, I think it's time for us to move and they're one of the few viable employers for me where we want to live) it seems like most people there get in fairly early in their careers, and the older/experienced folks are the ones who have been there for a long time. I don't think you see many mid-career range engineers (where I am, 20 years in and about 20-25 ish to go) because the pay isn't generally competitive compared to the private sector, and the vaunted federal retirement benefits don't look to pay off nearly as well if you don't get in before about 40-ish. I understand concerns about regulatory capture and all... but how can you regulate something if you don't actually have experience with it?

I've also noticed the FAA does have tendencies towards overregulation. That is, they tend to concern themselves with overly-specific and/or irrelevant details, like where you put work tables on your production line or the actual forms you use within your quality management system. And that's not even getting into prescriptive vs. performance-based regulations, or only allowing things to be done a certain way because of 80 year old assumptions about the state of technology...

I do wonder if Musk is going about this the wrong way.
...
Sometimes you need to lean into bureaucracy in order to get things fixed.

From personal experience, EASA (basically the European FAA) is very strict, but is quite willing to listen to feedback and change with the times. The FAA is much looser in many ways (especially regarding private light airplanes etc), but once they make up their minds it might as well be carved in armor plate. Getting any kind of fix--medical certificate reform, flight instruction restrictions, light aircraft certification reform (see the MOSAIC effort), etc.--literally takes acts of Congress to drag them kicking and screaming into doing it if it involves any kind of loosening or relaxation of something, and they will stall and delay as long as possible (much like my eight year old trying to avoid showers, chores, or cleaning his room). An end-run around the bureaucracy and going straight to Congress is the fastest and most effective way to do it, if perhaps riskier in the court of public opinion.

[brovane]

I do wonder if Musk is going about this the wrong way.

Just announce that the FAA has brought up serious concerns for SpaceX and the overall Safety of launches. SpaceX thinks the best thing they can do, is do a safety standdown of all launches until the end of the year so SpaceX and the FAA can have full discussions on these safety violations and the best way that SpaceX can safely move forward in the future. SpaceX looks forward to safely resuming launches in early 2025 in partnership with the FAA.

Sometimes you need to lean into bureaucracy in order to get things fixed.

That only works if it undermines the bigger picture in the view of the government agencies (plural).

Now, in this case not launching supplies and crews to the ISS fits that. Not launching Starlink satellites only hurts Musk

In Q4-24, SpaceX has Crew-9 launch, commercial cargo mission to the ISS and Europe Clipper (Which is highly dependent on timing to make it to the outer planets).

[Kunkmiester]

It sounds like the end of Chevron deference at the FAA will be interesting.

[kdahm]

Starship launch #5 tomorrow morning, Sunday October 13, at 8am Eastern, 7AM Central time.

They'll try to catch the Booster on the chopsticks at the launch pad for recovery, either resulting in a great technical achievement or leading to a horrendous kablooie. Should be greatly entertaining either way.

[jemhouston]

Starship launch #5 tomorrow morning, Sunday October 13, at 8am Eastern, 7AM Central time.

They'll try to catch the Booster on the chopsticks at the launch pad for recovery, either resulting in a great technical achievement or leading to a horrendous kablooie. Should be greatly entertaining either way.

So Boom tomorrow, what kind TBD.

[Micael]

They caught the booster with Mechazilla on the first try. Amazing.

[gtg947h]

And an on target ocean landing for the ship

[kdahm]

And a small kablooie, to make everyone happy.

[jemhouston]

How many successful launches, but they try it with a crew?

[jemhouston]

California officials reject more SpaceX rocket launches, with some citing Musk's X posts

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ca ... r-AA1s6Zsb

Given some of the reasoning, the commission needs whammed upside the head.

California officials reject more SpaceX rocket launches, with some citing Musk's X posts
Story by Salvador Hernandez
• 1d • 6 min read

SpaceX's plans to launch more rockets from the California coast was rejected by a state commission this week, with some officials citing Elon Musk's political posts on X and raised concerns about the billionaire's labor record at his companies.

The plan to increase the number of rocket blasts into space up to 50 a year was rejected by the California Coastal Commission Thursday despite assurances from Space Force and Air Force officials that they would increase efforts to monitor the effects that rocket launches have on nearby wildlife.

The military also vowed to mitigate the reach of sonic booms that often span across 100 miles of coastline, an issue that has caused controversy.

Members of the California Coastal Commission commended Space Force and Air Force representatives for reaching an agreement, but some then cited their ongoing concerns about Musk, the owner of SpaceX, before rejecting the plan.

Among the issues raised by some commission members were Musk's decision to insert himself in the presidential race, his spreading of conspiracy theories the labor record of his companies, and derogatory comments he's made about the transgender community.

"We're dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race," said Commissioner Chair Caryl Hart.

Military officials argue that launches by SpaceX, a leading contractor, at Vandenberg Space Force base, should be considered a federal activity because all of its launches benefit military objectives, regardless of whether the payloads being carried by the rockets are for the government or for Musk's private satellite internet company, Starlink.

Related video: SpaceX sets plans to catch Starship booster in mid-air for reuse (TODAY)
TODAY
SpaceX sets plans to catch Starship booster in mid-air for reuse
0
View on Watch
View on Watch
As such, Space Force officials don't have to obtain a permit, or permission, from the California Coastal Commission for rocket launches, they only need to reach an agreement to mitigate the effects.

But commissioners in recent months have questioned whether SpaceX launches, which carry private Starlink equipment in up to 87% of their flights, should be considered private activity instead. That would mean that Musk's company would have to obtain permission from the California agency for launches carrying private equipment.

Military officials have gone before the commission repeatedly this year to try and significantly increase the number of SpaceX launches, and officials said they plan to once again ask for another increase — for up to 100 annually — by early next year. But Musk's recent social media posts, and his growing presence and influence in national and global affairs have become an ongoing concern by commission members considering whether or not to approve an agreement that would see SpaceX increase its activities in California.

"This company is owned by the richest person in the world with direct control of what could be the most expansive communications system in the planet," said Commissioner Mike Wilson. "Just last week that person was talking about political retribution."

Wilson asked how could members of the commission be assured that equipment being launched would benefit U.S. interests if most of it was for the benefit of a private company.

"Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet," said Commissioner Gretchen Newsom.

This is not the first time SpaceX and the state commission have clashed over the increase in rocket launches.

Earlier this year SpaceX sought to increase the number of launches from 6 to 36 a year, but commissioners noted the request came after the number of launches had already been exceeded.

During a meeting in April, commissioners once again pushed back at the argument from military officials that all SpaceX activities benefited the U.S. government and should therefore be considered federal activity. Commissioners pointed to reports that Starlink had refused to allow Ukraine, a U.S. ally, from using its satellite internet service to help carry out an attack against Russia in Sept. 2022.

In a post on X, Musk said there was a request from Ukraine to activate Starlink services with the intent to sink a Russian fleet, but that he did not agree to it because he Starlink would then be "explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation."

A spokesperson for SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment for this story. A spokesperson previously said in an email all launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base, including commercial ones, were considered federal activity.


Leadgen logo
LA Times
Discover the West Coast Perspective
$1 for 6 months
Subscribe Now
The commission rejected the agreement Thursday by a vote of 6 to 4.

Officials at Vandenberg Space Force Base said despite the vote, they were not deterred in working with the commission and finding a solution.

"Today's vote hasn't changed the DAF or Vandenberg's unwavering commitment to preserving the California coastline and the precious species that reside there," said Dr. Ravi Chaudhary, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment in a statement. "The Space Force's dedication to collaboration here is in may ways unprecedented—so is our commitment to ensuring dialogue continues."

Space Force officials in August had rejected commission demands to increase monitoring and mitigation efforts, frustrating commissioners tasked with preserving the California coast. But on Thursday, military officials had seemingly reversed their stance, agreeing to commission requests to increase monitoring and to set up an inter-agency working group that includes U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Federal Aviation Administration to address concerns as the number of launches increases.

"We hear you, and we're committed to working with you," said Chaudhary.

The plan would have allowed SpaceX to conduct up to 50 rocket launches a year from the military base in Santa Barbara County, but the company is expected to double that number by early 2025 as it continues to push its reach into space exploration as a leading Space Force contractor.

On Thursday, members of the commission lauded military officials for their work to reach an agreement, but plainly stated their main concern is that it should be SpaceX representatives who should be before the commission to obtain permits for the company's growing rocket program, not them.

"It is essential that SpaceX apply for a [Coastal Development Permit]," Hart said. "We're going to hit a wall here."

SpaceX's rapid expansion has pitted the company against state and federal agencies at times. Musk, who also owns the social platform X, has used the social media company to criticize the FAA after the agency proposed fining SpaceX over license requirements, and for delays over the licensing for the SpaceX Starship 5.

The California Coastal Commission also raised concerns this year over the launches after residents reported sonic booms were jolting and startling residents and wildlife across the coast. Initially, the Department of Air Force and Space force reported sonic booms from rocket blasts out of Vandenberg Space Force base were rare. But Air Force officials in June acknowledged sonic booms were regularly reaching across more than 100 miles of coastline from Santa Barbara County to as far as areas of Los Angeles County.

Residents from Lompoc to Camarillo reported feeling the impacts of the booms for months, and Space Force officials said changes in flight trajectories have made the sonic booms audible to people in Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles County.

Worries about the expanding reach and impact of the sonic booms prompted members of the commission to ask military officials to better monitor and mitigate the effects of the rocket launches.

The commission can't unilaterally impose restrictions or conditions on the military, which uses SpaceX as a military contractor, but it works to reach agreements with the military agency to mitigate impacts on the environment and the coast.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

[Kunkmiester]

Burning skyscraper! Should be a power metal song.

[kdahm]

California officials reject more SpaceX rocket launches, with some citing Musk's X posts

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ca ... r-AA1s6Zsb

Given some of the reasoning, the commission needs whammed upside the head.

Among the issues raised by some commission members were Musk's decision to insert himself in the presidential race, his spreading of conspiracy theories the labor record of his companies, and derogatory comments he's made about the transgender community.

"We're dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race," said Commissioner Chair Caryl Hart.

Well, they're just looking for SpaceX First Amendment lawsuit that has a very good chance of winning. In NRA of America v. Vullo (22-842), the Supreme Court said specifically that the use of coercion by public officials to punish entities for their advocacy was unacceptable. Remarkably, the vote was 9-0and the opinion by Sotomayor. Edit- Actually, the precedent should be Bantam Books vs Sullivan (372 US 58) from 1963 that is directly applicable.

While this one is slightly different, the commission is acting according to the company founder's words unrelated to SpaceX, without even a figleaf of saying that there are problems with the application.

[brovane]

California officials reject more SpaceX rocket launches, with some citing Musk's X posts

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ca ... r-AA1s6Zsb

Given some of the reasoning, the commission needs whammed upside the head.

Among the issues raised by some commission members were Musk's decision to insert himself in the presidential race, his spreading of conspiracy theories the labor record of his companies, and derogatory comments he's made about the transgender community.

"We're dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race," said Commissioner Chair Caryl Hart.

Well, they're just looking for SpaceX First Amendment lawsuit that has a very good chance of winning. In NRA of America v. Vullo (22-842), the Supreme Court said specifically that the use of coercion by public officials to punish entities for their advocacy was unacceptable. Remarkably, the vote was 9-0and the opinion by Sotomayor. Edit- Actually, the precedent should be Bantam Books vs Sullivan (372 US 58) from 1963 that is directly applicable.

While this one is slightly different, the commission is acting according to the company founder's words unrelated to SpaceX, without even a figleaf of saying that there are problems with the application.

Disney lost it's lawsuit against Florida for it's advocacy. Of course Florida wasn't stupid enough to come out so directly and announce it.

[Poohbah]

California officials reject more SpaceX rocket launches, with some citing Musk's X posts

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ca ... r-AA1s6Zsb

Given some of the reasoning, the commission needs whammed upside the head.

Well, they're just looking for SpaceX First Amendment lawsuit that has a very good chance of winning. In NRA of America v. Vullo (22-842), the Supreme Court said specifically that the use of coercion by public officials to punish entities for their advocacy was unacceptable. Remarkably, the vote was 9-0and the opinion by Sotomayor. Edit- Actually, the precedent should be Bantam Books vs Sullivan (372 US 58) from 1963 that is directly applicable.

While this one is slightly different, the commission is acting according to the company founder's words unrelated to SpaceX, without even a figleaf of saying that there are problems with the application.

Disney lost it's lawsuit against Florida for it's advocacy. Of course Florida wasn't stupid enough to come out so directly and announce it.

Disney was arguing that they had a fundamental right to establish a feudal fiefdom in Florida, and the courts all said, "Nobody does."