6 ms·
SpaceX violated its launch license in Starship test, triggering FAA probe
- maxharris 6y agoWhy does SpaceX need permission to launch? Why is the FAA concerned about anything other than SpaceX having the clear airspace needed to develop new spacecraft? If you want to get really good at something, you have to practice a lot. We need the FAA to get out of the way, or we will be stuck on this planet, with no backup for humanity in the event of an extinction event that affects the whole of Earth.
- eesmith 6y agoSince the news article (both from Reuters and Verge) doesn't explain what the FAA was concerned about, how do you know if the FAA's objection is appropriate or not? I mean, for all you know it's because they launched when there wasn't clear airspace, right?
- Schiendelman 6y agoWe know the FAA's existing approval system is terrible, and they've developed a new streamlined set of launch approvals - development is complete but the rollout is delayed until later this year. I think it's safe to assume that the regulatory body that's openly struggling to keep up is the party at fault until shown otherwise.
- icegreentea2 6y agoI think it's safer to assume nothing. There's literally no information available. But if we were going to guess... Let's use some logic. If the investigation was specifically triggered by SN8, then it's likely related to altitude/trajectory or landing. It's probably not altitude/trajectory since that seems like such a brain-dead thing to clear before hand. So it's probably the explosion-landing. Btw: this is SpaceX's current license for operations at Boca Chica: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/Final_%20License%20and%20Orders%20SpaceX%20Starship%20Prototype%20LRLO%2020-119)lliu1.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/as... Obvious areas of conflict would be if SpaceX did not amend their license or notify the FAA to indicate that they believed they would likely not be able to safely land, or if SpaceX had stated that they they expected to be able to safely land. These would be areas that the FAA have a legitimate interest in. Regulatory officials aren't idiots, especially with respect to high publicity subjects like SpaceX. If they KNOW that they are changing their own processes this year, they're not going to go trigger stupid shit over stuff that probably won't stick later, especially chasing against Elon. If they're bothering to do this, there's probably something worth looking into. Note that that's not the same thing as "SpaceX did something wrong".
- newsclues 6y ago“ Regulatory officials aren't idiots” Source or proof on that claim?
- Schiendelman 6y agoHours after that article, the FAA said they had no concerns and let SN9 go ahead as planned. I just want you to see that your assumptions were not correct.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y agoThat’s quite a stretch to blame the last part on the FAA haha.
- ojnabieoot 6y agoSeriously? It's a test flight of an enormous brand new rocket! It exploded! It doesn't matter what the flight plan is or what SpaceX claims is enough clear airspace. Launches of this sort endanger every flight in Texas and several surrounding states. It also endangers many civilians. While the danger can be monitored and controlled to acceptable levels, every single government in the world would want close oversight of this. It would be deeply irresponsible to let SpaceX proceed unhindered with an experimental rocket launch. As a US taxpayer with family in Texas I would be very pissed off if the FAA wasn't enforcing the terms of their test licenses. ... especially when the rocket EXPLODED. This "the government needs to get out of the way of our billionaire spaceship overlords" mentality would be insane even if the launch was an unqualified success.
- treeman79 6y agoGetting out of the way is what is leading to success. Now not dropping a huge exploding rocket on a major city is also a good argument.
- krisoft 6y agoThe article is devoid of engineering details. There is no way one can tell from this set of information if the FAA is right or wrong, or if SpaceX is right or wrong. That being said I have a problem with your comment. You are talking about that the rocket exploded as if it was of consequence. You even capitalise it. Why do you think it matters? Safety of a test is about the process, not the outcome. You might have a bonkers unsafe test and come out lucky. That doesn't mean that the test was a good idea or safe. Or you might have the worst of luck, a complete explosive failure, and still everyone remains safe because the processes were right. I don't know if the FAA is right or wrong. I don't know if the processes of SpaceX were safe or unsafe, but I know one thing. From the fact that it "EXPLODED" but hasn't hurt anyone or caused any 3rd party property damage you can't draw any conclusions about the safety.
- ojnabieoot 6y agoI am not saying that SpaceX isn't allowed to do dangerous tests. I am saying that a test where a rocket might explode is the kind of thing that the FAA should 100% be involved in and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
- StavrosK 6y ago"Move fast and break rockets over populated areas"
- dogma1138 6y agoWhy can’t I build an ICBM in my backyard and launch it without permission?
- dredds 6y agoAn explainer movie. (1) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astronaut_Farmer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astronaut_Farmer
- harshreality 6y agoWouldn't you prefer a good game of chess?
- Jonnax 6y agoWhy should the lives of people living in the area be risked for some future of humanity philosophy? I'm sure the average person on earth doesn't care about the future of humanity after an extinction event.
- blkhawk 6y agoAFAIK there are only 3 houses still owned by private citizens in Boca Chika village. And those living there were/are evacuated for tests. So nobody was at risk at any point during the test.
- m4rtink 6y agoYou mean the surrounding brackish swamp or the declining village that Space X long bought out (mostly from friendly space flight fans who settled there after SpaceX started up to watch launches). Not to mention the whole test flight being setup so that even if everything went wrong no one could have possibly been hurt (eq. just enough fuel to reach inside the exclusion zone, self destruct system, etc.).
- cbozeman 6y agoHave you never seen Star Trek in all your life? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
- dredds 6y agoI don't think there's a recorded case of people going about their daily lives and getting struck dead by rocket or satellite debris. Eventually there'll be a first, but how many rockets are launched every year? Getting wiped out by people jet-setting around the planet on holiday is more likely. Planet-level extinction movies are a popular genre, so yes, we do care.
- ygra 6y agoOh, it has happened. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 Things are a lot easier to make safe when launching towards water, but some countries don't have that luxury.
- anotheryou 6y agotl;dr: "SpaceX’s refusal to stick to the terms of what the FAA authorized"; no details known.
- phkahler 6y agoNowhere did I see "refusal".
- anotheryou 6y agoI literally copy and pasted...
- baking 6y agohttps://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/whats-really-going-on-with-elon-musk-the-faa-and-starship/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/whats-really-going-o... Less inflammatory piece.
- monadic3 6y agoLess inflammatory than flagrantly violating the law?
- bryanlarsen 6y agoGreat article. But don't bother reading the comments. The comments on Ars, especially for Eric Berger articles, are usually top notch. This one not so much.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jiofih 6y agoNo mention of what was violated or the regulatory requirements, what a pointless article.
- animal_spirits 6y agoReading a linked Arstechnica article [0] it says "Nor has the FAA provided specifics on what transpired other than offering a generic statement: “We will continue working with SpaceX to resolve outstanding safety issues before we approve the next test flight.”" So unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't seem that the FAA has released any details on what was violated. [0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/whats-really-going-on-with-elon-musk-the-faa-and-starship/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/whats-really-going-o...
- TeMPOraL 6y agoMy cynical guess: this was a "Elon just Tweeted something angry/cryptic, lots of people will be trying to figure out what's going on, so let's quickly write something about it" kind of article.
- ethbr0 6y agoMusk + SpaceX = clicks = ad revenue
- JeremyNT 6y agoOriginal story from the verge referenced by reuters. https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/29/22256657/spacex-launch-violation-explosive-starship-faa-investigation-elon-musk https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/29/22256657/spacex-launch-vi...
- GizmoSwan 6y agoThe company not being available to respond to those who question them makes for a mystery as to what their objectives were. What were the expected results? Did they expect an explosive landing? Was it just an experiment with unpredictable result so they did not want to reveal that to FAA? Do they think that they are at par with NASA and that any poor outcome can be waved as national experiment! If I had to guess, I would say that it was an open ended experiment where they could not get approval for a launch so they avoided seeking approvals by playing it dumb and now they have the data that they wanted. I would be wary of this company because they will experiment with human life believing that they are just another NASA but with even less regulatory boundaries.