FAA Fines SpaceX for Launch Violations, Company Fires Back with Lawsuit (spacenews.com) 194
schwit1 shares a report from SpaceNews: The FAA announced Sept. 17 that it notified SpaceX of $633,009 in proposed fines for violating terms of its launch licenses during the June 2023 Falcon 9 launch of the Satria-1, or PSN Satria, broadband satellite and the July 2023 Falcon Heavy launch of Jupiter-3, or EchoStar-24, broadband satellite. Both launches were successful.
For the Satria-1 launch, the FAA said in its enforcement notice (PDF) to the company that SpaceX had requested in May 2023 changes to its communications plan to allow the use of a new launch control center at the company's "Hangar X" facility at the Kennedy Space Center and to skip a poll of launch controllers at two hours before liftoff. The FAA notified SpaceX shortly before the scheduled launch that it would not be able to approve those changes and modify the license in time, although the enforcement notice did not state why. SpaceX went ahead and used the Hangar X control center and skipped the "T-2 hours" poll for the launch. The agency concluded that violated two conditions of its launch license, which allowed for civil penalties of up to $283,009 each. The FAA said it planned to fine SpaceX a combined $350,000 for that launch.
A month later, SpaceX conducted the Falcon Heavy launch of Jupiter-3, but nine days before the launch the company requested a modification to its launch license to allow it to use a new tank farm for RP-1 fuel at KSC's Launch Complex 39A, according to a separate enforcement notice. The FAA notified SpaceX two days before the scheduled launch that the agency would not be able to modify the license in time, but SpaceX nonetheless used the new tank farm for the launch. The agency said it proposed to fine SpaceX the maximum $283,009 for that violation. Instead of participating in administrative procedures, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said it would take the FAA to court. "SpaceX will be filing suit against the FAA for regulatory overreach," he posted on X.
For the Satria-1 launch, the FAA said in its enforcement notice (PDF) to the company that SpaceX had requested in May 2023 changes to its communications plan to allow the use of a new launch control center at the company's "Hangar X" facility at the Kennedy Space Center and to skip a poll of launch controllers at two hours before liftoff. The FAA notified SpaceX shortly before the scheduled launch that it would not be able to approve those changes and modify the license in time, although the enforcement notice did not state why. SpaceX went ahead and used the Hangar X control center and skipped the "T-2 hours" poll for the launch. The agency concluded that violated two conditions of its launch license, which allowed for civil penalties of up to $283,009 each. The FAA said it planned to fine SpaceX a combined $350,000 for that launch.
A month later, SpaceX conducted the Falcon Heavy launch of Jupiter-3, but nine days before the launch the company requested a modification to its launch license to allow it to use a new tank farm for RP-1 fuel at KSC's Launch Complex 39A, according to a separate enforcement notice. The FAA notified SpaceX two days before the scheduled launch that the agency would not be able to modify the license in time, but SpaceX nonetheless used the new tank farm for the launch. The agency said it proposed to fine SpaceX the maximum $283,009 for that violation. Instead of participating in administrative procedures, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said it would take the FAA to court. "SpaceX will be filing suit against the FAA for regulatory overreach," he posted on X.
Can they afford more staff now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hopefully with these fine payments, the FAA will be able to actually hire more people and get these things processed in a more timely manner.
Re: Can they afford more staff now? (Score:2)
The same FAA that just rubber-stamped everything Boeing did with disastrous results deems it necessary to overregulate SpaceX in ways that are demonstrably unnecessary and seemingly arbitrary. Almost like playing favorites.
We need to have Elon Musk arrested. (Score:2)
Re:Can they afford more staff now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? I mostly like SpaceX, but think their timeline expectations in these cases are unreasonable at best. I'm sure they knew a long time before 9 days before the launch that they might want to use a separate tank farm. Similarly there is no way SpaceX didn't know more than 2 months in advance that they wanted to move their control center and do away with the 2-hour check (how many years have they been using the other procedures now?). These are really starting to look like SpaceX intentionally delaying application to the FAA in order to abuse the process by whining to the press that the FAA is too slow while hoping that people like you will not pay attention to the details.
SpaceX seems to have put out a similar long screed about the FAA delaying the upcoming starship launch. But SpaceX only applied for the changes a few weeks ago, including expanded wetlands impact, and have clearly known about them for much longer. SpaceX knew that processing their initial wetlands impact was complicated and took time. They should have accounted for that and submitted it early. But they seem to have done the opposite and intentionally waited until the last minute to force it through with political pressure. SpaceX is complaining about the FAA being slow to approve while ignoring the fact that SpaceX itself was very slow to get the application in. This is starting to sound like Musk trying to abuse his influence at SpaceX to make political hay. If anything ends SpaceX's string of successes, that will be the thing. In many of these cases the primary motivation of the regulator is public safety. We can't both deride the Chinese for dropping boosters on people and then skip the safety procedures for our launches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, other than the starlink launches, most of their customers are government.
Think of all the governments they could launch for that we might not allow domestically, though. Don't tell me they haven't thought about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever looked at a launch facility? Where would you put all those fuel tanks, and how would you fill them?
Re: (Score:2)
MOAR BOATS!
Sigh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sue the industry regulator whose rules you break on a regular basis! That always works!
Another work of genius by Musk.
Consider the current supreme court (Score:4, Insightful)
With the latest supreme court, with things like the "Chevron Decision" eliminated, I'd argue that it's likely enough to work to be worth the attempt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point is that even if you win, you better dot the i's and cross the t's of EVERYTHING YOU EVER DO in perpetuity when dealing with anything that regulator regulates.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In this case though, there's nothing that was wrong, other than waiting three months for a bullshit, "approved" to be stamped on a minor piece of paperwork. If what was filed needed investigation before approval, that's one thing, but a, "ok, you need us to fill out this paperwork, then wait a few months for you to get off your ass and approve it" doesn't feel like a good reason for a fine. Oh, you changed the brand of toilet paper, that requires you to fill out this form and get government approval bef
Re: Consider the current supreme court (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeh, and I think this is what SpaceX is going after here. The regulation on how space launches are carried out seems to be unnecessarily onerous. Can you imagine if every time you flew a plane you needed to file paperwork telling the FAA which fuel tank you were going to use 3 months ahead of time? SpaceX are clearly more than a little pissed off that flight 5 of starship has so far been delayed by 5 months by the FAA, and are trying to force a relaxation of the rules.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you imagine if every time you flew a plane you needed to file paperwork telling the FAA which fuel tank you were going to use 3 months ahead of time?
You do. The difference is you don't get to change that decision on a whim with a plane. Regulations are written in blood. What one person finds onerous another person wrote pleading for in an obituary. Regulations get very strict when they have influence on a large number of public people at once.
Here's a pop quiz for you: Which of these industries has a safety system requirements an order of magnitude higher than the maximum considered by another:
a) A major hazard chemical facility producing explosives, or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is some level of sensible regulation needed.
Now - define "sensible regulation" an a universal fashion that everyone will agree with.
One of the best ways to illustrate this, is to ask a person if they are willing to live in Port Isabel, given Musks willingness to sue so that he is exempt from regulations. When a recent Falcon 9 crashed upon landing, they temporarily grounded the fleet, and you would have thought that the Haitians were coming for their pets the way some reacted. When all it took was a short investigation, some paperwork documenting
Re: Consider the current supreme court (Score:5, Informative)
They already had the approval to build and store the fuel. This was the approval to use the already built and filled fuel facility for launch, which had already been checked over and greenlit by both SpaceX and the Space Force.
Re: Consider the current supreme court (Score:3)
No. No inspection. The FAA was never sending anyone down to Canaveral for these things.
Re: Consider the current supreme court (Score:2, Insightful)
AmiMojo is a government shill, he believes that government should be in complete control of your and especially business life.
Re: Consider the current supreme court (Score:2)
I don't know about government in particular, but it does seem like shilling for something. The way he reaches conclusions on things seems almost too incredibly fucking stupid to be accidental. Think 9/11 -- first plane hits and you're dumbstruck, second hits and you immediately realize it just can't be accidental.
Re: Consider the current supreme court (Score:3)
Rocket fuel is no more volatile. Jet fuel and rocket fuel (in the case of falcon heavy at least) are both kerosene.
Re: (Score:2)
Rockets also use oxydizer, the whole point of which is to make stuff burn really fast. In the case of liquid oxygen, it also freezes things.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Consider the current supreme court (Score:5, Insightful)
The fine is because they went ahead without approval. Doesn't matter WHY that is whatsoever.
And there's a clear reason not to do so, when the alternative is "don't do things without the official approval".
It's like saying that if the government don't get you your new driver's licence quick enough, you should be able to just drive around illegally anyway.
We're not dealing with a couple of speeding tickets, we're dealing with tons of highly explosive fuel flying over the top of people with tons of metal wrapped around it.
Imagine just flying your plane after the FAA have already said it doesn't have permission to fly yet. What do you think would happen?
Aircraft are a highly regulated industry the world over, even for private users, and SPACE aircraft are an order of magnitude again. There are reasons for that.
They're lucky it's only a fine and not a revocation of their entire ability to fly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like saying that if the government don't get you your new driver's licence quick enough, you should be able to just drive around illegally anyway.
And? Why is that not a reasonable response?
"Oh the government said we shouldn't do it so we can't"
No, that's nonsense. This is why much of the world, and increasingly large parts of the US, are a shithole of decline and decay: too much regulation (aka too many palms need to be greased to be able to do anything).
If you own a car and need to drive, and a govern
Re: Consider the current supreme court (Score:2)
It's like saying that if the government don't get you your new driver's licence quick enough, you should be able to just drive around illegally anyway.
Welcome to Washington State. Not drivers licenses but plates for new cars. Evidently we don't have enough prisoners to stamp them out fast enough. So you can drive around with an expired temporary tag and not get a ticket.
Re:Consider the current supreme court (Score:5, Informative)
The right to drive is a natural right
[Citation needed]
For example, this is a direct quote from my local jurisdiction: "The privilege of operating a motor vehicle carries multiple responsibilities. Driving is a privilege,
not a right. Therefore you can lose your privilege to drive."
You'll find similar language In _every_ jurisdiction.
Re:Consider the current supreme court (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to drive is a natural right
[Citation needed]
For example, this is a direct quote from my local jurisdiction: "The privilege of operating a motor vehicle carries multiple responsibilities. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Therefore you can lose your privilege to drive."
You'll find similar language In _every_ jurisdiction.
The person you replied to is a sovereign citizen. Look that up on Youtube. They call it the right to travel. much entertainment as they try to practice their insanity and lose every time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The right to drive is a natural right
Show me where this right is enumerate (since rights are enumerated). Feel free to use any document from any jurisdiction anywhere in the world when you fail to find one in the USA. You may even consult treaties to help you make your case.
Driving is a privilege not a right. You have a right to free movement, not a right to drive an automobile. Use your feet or ask someone to carry you to exercise your rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Show me where this right is enumerate (since rights are enumerated).
While I agree that driving is a privilege your assertion here is not entirely true. The tenth amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Rights do not have to be specifically enumerated. The US Constitution has specific powers and limits placed on the federal government. In the Bill of Rights some specific rights of the people are enshrined. But, that tenth amendment was intended as a final catch all telling the federal government that it has to live within the limits of its powers or ask the states via amendments for additional
Re: (Score:2)
The right to drive is a natural right,
Sure - and you don't even need a license to drive on your private property. Public roads aren't just public for your use, there are loads of other taxpayers who helped build it. They both don't want it to be destroyed by you and they also don't want to be injured by you in a crash.
Paperwork doesn't take 3 months to process. But the pile of work that came in front of it takes 3 months. And I don't think that government approvals should be pay to play - all calls are answered in the order they are receiv
Re:Consider the current supreme court (Score:5, Insightful)
it doesn't matter. The law might suck, but its still the law. And billionares are not above the law no matter how much they think they are.
If they don't like the law, they have an opportunity on November 11 to contribute 1/300,000,000th of an electoral victory to the matter , just like everyone else.
Imho, intentional breaching of civil laws, ought ramp the consequences up to criminal law if the breacher is wealthy enough to not give a fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations are not legal law. They're distinctly unconstitutional when outside the domain of the granted scope of regulation.
That's the case here, and why regulatory overreach is being claimed. FAA has a very specific charter, and this is clearly an abuse of the powers of that charter.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations vs laws are primarily the result of legislators not being subject matter experts in [every|any]thing. They are the result of congressional failure and not disregard of the constitution.
That said, with the limited information in the summary I do agree that it is likely regulatory abuse of power in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Three months == "sometime in May" to June 18th to approve switching to an entirely new control centre, and nine days to approve switching to major new ground equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean..Jack Daniels got the SCOTUS to effectively rule that parody and satire aren't protected under the face of trademark law...and that any parody or satire of trademark is illegal under law.
They did this to get a dog chew toy off the market. They also effectively made it so if you parody anything that remotely has a trademark logo; you'll lose in court. You can't claim free speech; that's only for copyright. Since most things are trademarked and copyrighted; it means we won't see another movie spoof. Wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt it will happen, but it would be nice to see the judge throw it out for barratry on the grounds that if SpaceX thought that the regulator was overreaching then it should have sued when the licences were granted with those restrictions, and since it didn't the suit is clearly in bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
When paperwork is required for something amazingly trivial, and no one can expect it to be denied, then delaying it just because people at the FAA just don't want to do any work, or will always take three weeks for bullshit paperwork that should be seen as useless by EVERYONE, that doesn't make much sense either. If you need an inspection by regulators for a change, then fine, but if it's ONLY because paperwork is required, the paperwork is filled out but the rubber stamp hasn't put the "approved" on it b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Standing? (Score:2)
Any lawyers in here?
Can you sue a regulatory agency for something you don't like that might hurt you?
Or do you have to wait for an actual injury to occur?
Common sense would suggest the courts would grind to a halt if the former were permitted...but common sense and the law are different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Or do you have to wait for an actual injury to occur?
That one, usually. If you haven't been injured yet, then the claim is not ripe - not ready to be litigated.
However, for some issues you may be able to say it is an Injury if you are being prevented from exercising rights under threat of prosecution and you could establish a certainty of that injury.
For example, Lawsuits have been made to successfully challenge laws that infringe upon 1st Amendment rights before the date that law actually was planned t
Re: (Score:2)
They would consider a fine to be an injury. Still, you can file a lawsuit no matter what. It might get thrown out before it ever sees a day in court because of no standing, but you can still file the paperwork. And filing the paperwork and making headlines is all they care about here. The fine didn't hurt their costs much at all.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't what 'bad faith' is.
Bad faith is granting a license without the intention of fulfilling the expected obligations of the license to the licensee. Sort of like how I can sue for damages if a license I've paid for is unable to be fulfilled due to some other regulatory thing that agency has done.
A license is a 2-way contract, not an explicit obligation on the part of the licensee.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, the way the regulatory environment is working now, China will have a reusable rocket, with settlements on the Moon and Mars while SpaceX and others US companies are still wrestling with red tape. China has already managed to beat SpaceX to orbit with a methane rocket.
Regulation and oversight is important, but it needs to be sufficiently funded and resourced so that it gets completed in a timely manner, and so if changes to a project for compliance or safety are needed they can be quickly mad
Re: (Score:2)
And if safety isn't something that would be affected, and they actually approved it after the launch because everything else was in order, then no fine should be seen as justified here. People who want to feel important require stupid things like, "we must sign off on EVERY LAST THING". We have a wannabe dictator trying to get back into the White House, but low level people with that same mindset seem to be in the FAA too.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you're point is here. Methalox rockets are new, but it's hardly the key enabler to a glorious new era in space.
China also drops stages with hypergolic fuel [google.com] on its own people. And they can't be bothered to sa [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sue the industry regulator whose rules you break on a regular basis! That always works!
Another work of genius by Musk.
You know, perhaps you’re right. After all, licenses are important. Perhaps Musk should remind the FAA and others of this with a guest passenger EULA change before giving a couple of stranded astronauts a ride home.
He will make sure to make those EULA changes last minute of course. We wouldn’t want anyone else to get any “lesser” treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are playing the long game, it makes sense. See my other comment: the FAA regulating these kinds of details is a leftover of "old space" and completely unsuitable for a company that is making rocket launches routine. Look: the government doesn't care which truck services your plane. It doesn't care which air traffic controller talks to the pilot. But they want to decide which tank is used to fuel a rocket, and which control center manages the launch? It's the same for the 60-day delay of the next Star
Re: Sigh. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. How dare government not be totalitarian, punishing people for daring to argue against them in government courts.
It's a good thing that places like PRC where this isn't a problem exist. We really should hurry up and vote in people who will make Western government system more like theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
Elon thinks he is above the law and can do anything he wants.
This is a common delusion of billionaires.
He may get away with it in our fascist leaning government.
Re: Sigh. (Score:2)
Make me agree with Musk (Score:2)
Sue the industry regulator whose rules you break on a regular basis! That always works!
Another work of genius by Musk.
Hopefully it does. We need to change how the regulators do things. My experience is with the electric grid. Many rules where made for safety reasons and most individually made sense. Collectively they could kill hundreds of millions. Nuclear was safer in the 60s and so cheap that coal mines were going bankrupt but the regulations brought coal back and now it is responsible for 40% of green house gas emissions. The regulations are what drove the price up. Not just the cost of meeting the regulations b
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not generally a fan of Musk's libertarian side, but most of these matters appear to be providing a reasonable notice period for a procedural change. Assuming all commissioning efforts had been completed and closed out on new facilities, and adequate reasoning made for an operational change such as the T-2:00 poll it sounds like the enforcement actions are excessive.
That said, I don't want SpaceX (or the next guy) to be able to do whatever the hell they want, failing fast and breaking things overhead. T
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when there isn't a spending plan (budget). This is what happens when politicians fixate on national security and war (defense) efforts. This is why more departments and more regulation doesn't work. This is why the government allows corporations to self-report with no punishment for dishonesty. (Technically, it's because no politician is going to bite the hand that holds a campaign donation.)
Re: (Score:2)
"you must wait for no reason because our ONE person can't handle the 3 documents per month they are expected to process"?
Whole department and all they do is wait for Elon to send papers because otherwise they're not doing anything.
Or, there was a backlog of work ahead of him. He doesn't get priority just because he filed at the last minute.
More malicious than overreach. (Score:4, Insightful)
The FAA is just NOW bitching about a launch well over a year old? The fuck were they saving that gripe for? Political points? If you’ve got a complaint over alleged violations, then speak up or shut the fuck up.
This isn’t mere overreach. This is targeted and malicious by the FAA, purposely waiting mere days before a requested launch to inform someone of non-accommodation. I can’t even see that this is about safety. License violations? Perhaps Musk should revise his guest passenger EULA before giving a couple astronauts a ride then. Last minute of course. See who else likes that shit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not "just now", it's "due process". The FAA needed to investigate what happened, give SpaceX an opportunity to respond, consider it all, and then decide on a level of fine that is appropriate. A year seems reasonable for this sort of thing.
If they rush it, SpaceX would just sue them for not considering it properly. Presumably SpaceX's lawyers looked at the decision, found it watertight, so had to find some other reason to sue.
Re:More malicious than overreach. (Score:4, Insightful)
The FAA is just NOW bitching about a launch well over a year old? The fuck were they saving that gripe for?
Who said saving. Do you understand the speed of government regulatory agencies? They were probably working on it as fast as they could.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA is just NOW bitching about a launch well over a year old? The fuck were they saving that gripe for?
Who said saving. Do you understand the speed of government regulatory agencies? They were probably working on it as fast as they could.
If you're an agency responsible for approvals where delays are potentially worth millions, then you have a responsibility to not be slow.
In reality this is probably because the FAA is in Boeing/ULA's pocket, and they're maliciously trying to sabotage SpaceX, in which case the lawsuit might be more to try to drag some of that out of the shadows than anything else.
Re:More malicious than overreach. (Score:4, Interesting)
purposely waiting mere days before a requested launch to inform someone of non-accommodation
Even if the FAA had immediately turned down the changes, it would have been "mere days before a requested launch", because SpaceTwitter requested the change mere 9 days before launch. It's in the story right here on Slashdot:
"nine days before the launch the company requested a modification to its launch license"
Then the FAA, after only six days, "nah" and SpaceTwitter, "we'll do it anyway".
Re: (Score:2)
purposely waiting mere days before a requested launch to inform someone of non-accommodation
Even if the FAA had immediately turned down the changes, it would have been "mere days before a requested launch", because SpaceTwitter requested the change mere 9 days before launch. It's in the story right here on Slashdot:
"nine days before the launch the company requested a modification to its launch license"
Then the FAA, after only six days, "nah" and SpaceTwitter, "we'll do it anyway".
In the actual legal filing, it clearly states SpaceX submitted for changes on May 2, 2023. The FAA did not respond until June 15, 2023.
Who the fuck, can’t math here. You, the FAA, or SpaceX.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the other launch. I can read, can you? Also, understand that regulatory bodies don't exist as rubberstamp facilities. They have to actually check these things, and SpaceTwitter isn't their only "customer".
Re: (Score:2)
That's the other launch. I can read, can you? Also, understand that regulatory bodies don't exist as rubberstamp facilities. They have to actually check these things, and SpaceTwitter isn't their only "customer".
The FAA is claiming a license violation. Perhaps this is a good time for SpaceX to create the SAA organization and alleviate the FAA of that responsibility.
For those getting the work done and prefer to not placate to money grabs in order to feed Government pork fat.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceTwitter should use that argument in court. That will be hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about eliminating government waste by creating an entirely new agency to regulate maybe 2-3 companies. So they can jump to the front of the line, more or less.
no, SpaceX just has an idiot for a CEO. (Score:2, Insightful)
Government Agencies never move quickly. I feel like it's fairly common for actions to be taken a year or more after the inciting incident.
SpaceX notified the FAA on May 2nd, and launched on June 18th. that is a long window for a response, but in that time SpaceX perfomed twelve other launches, six of which were even from the same pad as they would use on the 18th (LC-40). presumably they used their old procedures and facilities for those launches, the last being six days before the incident. I can only gues
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA is just NOW bitching about a launch well over a year old? The fuck were they saving that gripe for? Political points? If you’ve got a complaint over alleged violations, then speak up or shut the fuck up.
This isn’t mere overreach. This is targeted and malicious by the FAA, purposely waiting mere days before a requested launch to inform someone of non-accommodation. I can’t even see that this is about safety. License violations? Perhaps Musk should revise his guest passenger EULA before giving a couple astronauts a ride then. Last minute of course. See who else likes that shit.
The FAA just doesn't have the resources to process much of anything speedily. I'm actually shocked they managed to get back to SpaceX at all before the launches, since they were notified so late in the game of the changes. It probably took them almost a year to get the shaking finger to travel from the desk of the regulators themselves to the "Send them an invoice for the fine" department. I mean, it's a long hallway, you know.
I'm not all up in arms about this one, but I do think it points to the disconnect
Bureaucracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, I am not intimately familiar with the launch business, but: If a change does not materially affect anything but paperwork, why should it take weeks to approve? You have multiple launch centers, and want to use center A instead of center B to manage a launch? That should not interest the government at all. You have two tanks, A and B, and want to pump fuel from tank A instead of tank B? That also should not interest the government at all.
Micromanagement designed to secure bureaucratic jobs? Or just leftovers from "old space" that are completely unsuitable for a company that is making launches routine? Either way, this kind of nonsense needs to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean the change in control center may have been fine, and they weren't happy about the skipping of the T-2 hour poll.
Re: (Score:3)
If a change does not materially affect anything but paperwork, why should it take weeks to approve?
The paperwork and process determines if there is a material affect to a change. That's why the paperwork and processes exist. A long history of fatal accidents is the reason change isn't taken on face value and why management of change and approval processes are in place and followed. Some changes are massive and affect nothing, some changes are minor and could result in death. Approval processes are in place to stop cowboys who have a vested interest in an outcome from dictating its importance.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. It's just silly paperwork right?
To use Slashdot's favourite punching bag as an example:
- the Boeing 737 MAX crashes were caused by someone or some process that didn't think it was necessary to review the critical/not critical status of a system that had a few little tweaks made to it.
- The door falling off seems to have been caused by some workers who had to make a repair but didn't want to bother with all the paperwork involved with using the official issue tracking system, so did it off the books.
Re: (Score:2)
why should it take weeks to approve?
Why should they get priority over all the other stuff that's ahead of them? It wasn't their turn yet.
Musk seems to forget... (Score:2, Interesting)
Musk seems to forget he's suing a gov't agency, not some company that is trying to minimize the cost and expense for profit. Goes to a trial, and into the public record. That then is public information for other lawsuits which costs money and time along with public image. And the FAA is doing its job, when companies sue, well lawless company--but what a surprise. The FAA, if it settles will send a message that the rules are just "guidelines" like the pirate code of legend. After the Boeing debacle and scand
Re: Musk seems to forget... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Point taken, and I agree. :) But experienced and know of unfortunately. My point though is Musk will experience "collateral damage" in this lawsuit...the law of unintended consequences. I have heard the expression a lawsuit is like a nuclear war. Perhaps a better balance can emerge out of this nonsense. ???
JoshK.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of bullying everyone like he's the only billionaire, a sane businessman would wait for the next launch contract: Then use government red tape against the government. The government pays an extra 25% for SpaceX services, or waits until SpaceX runs out of civilian customers. This requires Musk to pay for his principles, which he doesn't want to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Instead of a lawsuit (which can backfire, I remember one magazine in the 1990s gave a poor review to some company, they sued, it backfired because their software was vaporware...got the attention of the FTC turned out it was some obscure Windows configuration....)
First pay the fines, thank the FAA for holding SpaceX "to the highest standard" have an internal team assess and make recommendations (that you then release) and put out a PR release with the usual bleeding heart bullshit of "we want to be
How are these related to flight? (Score:3)
A launch control center and fueling tanks. How are these flight related and under the FAA?
The FAA should be regulating the skies on launch day. You know the could it hit anything sort of regulation that is implied in it's name. Flight path and could it hit anything if it explodes...
Sorry you can't fly! The logo on your spacecraft is blue and your only permitted to use yellow... it will take 6 months and a study to change it to blue.
Not the way it (should) work (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't break the rules then tell the government to fuck off, you lobby to have the rules changed. Until they're changed, you work under the existing rules.
While this does slow down development, it also reduces the chances of bad things happening. It's not like the rules were created for shits and giggles - the regulations exist because there were issues those regulations were meant to address.
And if Musk can just break whatever rules he wants... do we even have rules at all? At that point, HE is the regulatory agency. Trump hasn't appointed him just yet.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't break the rules then tell the government to fuck off, you lobby to have the rules changed. Until they're changed, you work under the existing rules.
While this does slow down development, it also reduces the chances of bad things happening. It's not like the rules were created for shits and giggles - the regulations exist because there were issues those regulations were meant to address.
And if Musk can just break whatever rules he wants... do we even have rules at all? At that point, HE is the regulatory agency. Trump hasn't appointed him just yet.
Reasonable people here aren't arguing against regulations, they're arguing over slow paperwork. I guess the best thing that can come out of this lawsuit is a clear understanding why paperwork takes longer than the FAA were given to complete it.
Also, we're pinning everything on Elon... are we sure others in SpaceX weren't part of the decisions to launch? I am curious what Gwynne Shotwell has to say about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, we're pinning everything on Elon... are we sure others in SpaceX weren't part of the decisions to launch?
Very much this. In addition, as these are commercial launches, I'm sure there are some sort of penalty clauses for missing a launch window absent force majeure.
Here is what EVERYONE is forgetting (Score:2)
SpaceX is a commercial space company. Arguably, the first legitimate one (yes, Bezos and a few others have their companies, but none of those are fully functioning delivering satellites, payloads, and passengers into space).
Until very recently, ALL space launches and programs were handled by NASA and the government. ALL of these rules, procedures, and policies are in fact new. Many are legacy procedures from the hey day of the Apollo space program. For commercial space ventures to thrive there is going to
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Not a good look (Score:4, Insightful)
Latency Issues (Score:3)
If it takes the FAA seven days to reply saying that nine days is not long enough to licence a change from using tank farm A to tank farm B, then clearly they're right.
However, just as clearly, the problem is that it took the FAA seven days to generate that response.
I'm sure back when it was only overseeing NASA, military and the occasional sounding rocket launch that the FAA processes were up to the task, but with SpaceX alone up to a cadence of six launches a month, perhaps they need to hire a second or third person for that department.
Re: (Score:2)
Latency is usually caused by congestion. Most government agencies are underfunded lately. If the FAA suddenly had a higher budget, I doubt that would be their first priority. None of that means Musk's requests take priority over earlier requests.
Solution (Score:2)
"It's the easiest way to be able to do anything you want."
Perhaps we should follow Brazil's example? (Score:2)
Better to ask for forgiveness than permission (Score:2)
SpaceX have done something like this before, Ship 8 launch was a bit outside the cycle, but they needed the data to move forward and they move forward.
Get Trump! (Score:2)
Oops, I mean Get Musk!
Re: (Score:2)
And they managed to do all of that within parameters except a couple incidents where they brazenly just ignored a lack of approval. It was no advancement they were being held back from - just routine operational changes.
Re: Lesson to be learnt (Score:2)