4 ms·

SpaceX Threatened with Arrests

18 points by tiahura 5y ago

sschueller 5y ago
We need to crackdown harder on large powerful corporations braking the law thinking they can just get away with it. By not holding them accountable, others do the same thing and it will get out of control. Space X also launched without permission before and should be held accountable for all infractions. The fines also need to be much larger and/or set according to the size of the business. We can't have a country where the wealthy can just do what they want.
- slownews45 5y ago
  "Space X also launched without permission..." This is an extremely serious charge - but also goes to show how much false information folks on the internet put out. Based on my own review, at all times that SpaceX launched they have had a license to do so. Period. The license is LRLO 20-119. Could they have violated a condition of the license? Very possibly. But this claim that they launched without a license seems like a total lie. The other issue, looking at the condition they may have violated. 1) They had repeatedly complained about the software model being used as being inaccurate. The FAA has not as far as I known really defended their model. 2) This model reflected a view that the weather would "amplify" an explosion. The physics of this seem at first glance a bit out there. Some effect seems possible, but a major effect seems somewhat less likely. Anyone want to chime in. 3) SpaceX had offered to work with FAA on better modeling / more data collection, but that had not been accepted by FAA. SpaceX was shut down for something like 2 months as a result of this. My guess is there relationship between SpaceX and FAA also harmed here. Hopefully someone on FAA side can go through model so that there is increased confidence SpaceX side that it is kicking out real risks. My impression as there was a lot of engineering frustration about the FAA model.
  - zelon88 5y ago
    Let's see if I got this right... 1) SpaceX was unhappy with a regulation they are legally forced to comply with. 2) SpaceX blames the regulating authority for costing SpaceX time and money. 3) SpaceX offers to "help improve" the regulations. Gee, I can't see anywhere this could go wrong. Maybe ground based astrophysicists fighting to see through Starlink constellations could chime in here? It seems the problem is with SpaceX's understanding of the term "regulations."
    - slownews45 5y ago
      Someone is eventually going to get a clue that you either do the SLS model (which is all about milking the compliance / regulation space for every nickle), or you have an engineering first approach (which pushes back on bogus crap). SpaceX has CLEARLY chosen the latter. My guess is as in most cases like this, they will clean up, and eventually even the govt agencies they are fighting with will start to use them more and more. In terms of astronomy, again, you have a fight between a group of cant-do-ers and what will likely be a future group of can do ers who will launch a fleet of space based instruments that will absolutely crush ground based observations. They should track the complainers here and shut them off from that future funding for space based options. My one big hope is that the FAA actually have some real domain experts in space launch and risk management there - physics etc etc. They have that on flight side , not sure about space side.
      - zelon88 5y ago
        We have space based astronomy (Chandra, Hubble, ect...). There are more missions with expanded capabilities on the horizon. However they do not negate the value of a ground based system. You wouldn't use a hammer to drive in a screw in the same way you wouldn't use Hubble to look at the surface of the Moon. [1] Disclaimer: I work on the Chandra team but I am not an astrophysicist. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/03/22/5-reasons-why-astronomy-is-better-from-the-ground-than-in-space/?sh=37b8848f48f8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/03/22/5-re...
        slownews45 5y ago
  - nitrix 5y ago
    To add to that: that particular site isn't a cute preschool sandbox for children to go and play in. We're talking about very active construction, large space rocket, launches, tanks, gasses, cranes, lifts and various other hazards. At least they are being responsible and have people's safety in mind by controlling accesses. I imagine the local residents are well aware of SpaceX's operations and keep their whereabouts safe. What is the alternative? No security guards? Yeah no. I'd rather have my legal department battle it out with the authorities. They made the right call until the babies can all agree.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > What is the alternative? No security guards? The alternative is whatever the process is under applicable law for setting, noticing, and enforcing closures on public roads, which pretty much everywhere isn’t “private actors seizing control of public roads and deploying guards on their own decision with no oversight, because the actor thinks that therr might be a safety risk but can’t be bothered following the legal process for dealing with that risk.” > Yeah no. I'd rather have my legal department battle it out with the authorities. I suspect if you talked to your legal department first, they could tell you how to deal with it without fighting with authorities and without exposing the firm and individual employees to potential criminal prosecution. Closing public roads for safety due to construction and other activities occurring on or near them is a regular occurrence for which well-developed processes exist in pretty much every jurisdiction, not some sui generis need that creates a legitimate need to ignore the law because it hasn’t anticipated the need and compliance would be disastrous.
      - nitrix 5y ago
        Police officers will often happily close roads for church or impromptu protests for the public's safety. The bickering that's going on means someone has a hidden agenda, got their ego bruised or maybe the laws are just outdated and needs corrections. Either way, people aren't great with change. Changes to the law takes a lot of time and often your request just gets ignored unless you literally force them to look at your issue. Well, that's what they're doing. I have no problem with it, no one gets harmed, people are safer, laws will improve, it's just wins everywhere.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ryzvonusef 5y ago
So SpaceX needs a place that's 1- as physically close to the equator they can get 2- while still being on American soil for legal / national security reasons 3- while being near a eastern seaboard beach, for both having viable rocket launch directions (no launching over land acc to US policy iirc), as well as for ease of access to transport 4- but also need a large empty unpopulated space where they can test rockets and blow up stuff without risking civilians where else other than Boca chica can they go? South Tip of Florida is good for launching but not enough empty space for testing, and inland America has loads of empty space for testing but unless govt changes policy, they can't launch from there I think Texas needs to realize that Boca chica will become the next Cape Canaveral / Area 51 combo thingy, and the Texas public Road/ Public Beach laws won't mean much. So, either totally shut down the project NOW before it balloons to become the airport to mars, or accept that it has the same significance as say, a govt weapons testing site and effectively lock access to the entire area. (i am not American, but surely private companies testing for your DoD can get some security restrictions, I presume since DoD is interested in Starship, that might not be far behind.)

18 points by tiahura 5y ago

We need to crackdown harder on large powerful corporations braking the law thinking they can just get away with it. By not holding them accountable, others do the same thing and it will get out of control. Space X also launched without permission before and should be held accountable for all infractions. The fines also need to be much larger and/or set according to the size of the business. We can't have a country where the wealthy can just do what they want.

slownews45 5y ago
"Space X also launched without permission..." This is an extremely serious charge - but also goes to show how much false information folks on the internet put out. Based on my own review, at all times that SpaceX launched they have had a license to do so. Period. The license is LRLO 20-119. Could they have violated a condition of the license? Very possibly. But this claim that they launched without a license seems like a total lie. The other issue, looking at the condition they may have violated. 1) They had repeatedly complained about the software model being used as being inaccurate. The FAA has not as far as I known really defended their model. 2) This model reflected a view that the weather would "amplify" an explosion. The physics of this seem at first glance a bit out there. Some effect seems possible, but a major effect seems somewhat less likely. Anyone want to chime in. 3) SpaceX had offered to work with FAA on better modeling / more data collection, but that had not been accepted by FAA. SpaceX was shut down for something like 2 months as a result of this. My guess is there relationship between SpaceX and FAA also harmed here. Hopefully someone on FAA side can go through model so that there is increased confidence SpaceX side that it is kicking out real risks. My impression as there was a lot of engineering frustration about the FAA model.
- zelon88 5y ago
  Let's see if I got this right... 1) SpaceX was unhappy with a regulation they are legally forced to comply with. 2) SpaceX blames the regulating authority for costing SpaceX time and money. 3) SpaceX offers to "help improve" the regulations. Gee, I can't see anywhere this could go wrong. Maybe ground based astrophysicists fighting to see through Starlink constellations could chime in here? It seems the problem is with SpaceX's understanding of the term "regulations."
  - slownews45 5y ago
    Someone is eventually going to get a clue that you either do the SLS model (which is all about milking the compliance / regulation space for every nickle), or you have an engineering first approach (which pushes back on bogus crap). SpaceX has CLEARLY chosen the latter. My guess is as in most cases like this, they will clean up, and eventually even the govt agencies they are fighting with will start to use them more and more. In terms of astronomy, again, you have a fight between a group of cant-do-ers and what will likely be a future group of can do ers who will launch a fleet of space based instruments that will absolutely crush ground based observations. They should track the complainers here and shut them off from that future funding for space based options. My one big hope is that the FAA actually have some real domain experts in space launch and risk management there - physics etc etc. They have that on flight side , not sure about space side.
    - zelon88 5y ago
      We have space based astronomy (Chandra, Hubble, ect...). There are more missions with expanded capabilities on the horizon. However they do not negate the value of a ground based system. You wouldn't use a hammer to drive in a screw in the same way you wouldn't use Hubble to look at the surface of the Moon. [1] Disclaimer: I work on the Chandra team but I am not an astrophysicist. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/03/22/5-reasons-why-astronomy-is-better-from-the-ground-than-in-space/?sh=37b8848f48f8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/03/22/5-re...
      - slownews45 5y ago
- nitrix 5y ago
  To add to that: that particular site isn't a cute preschool sandbox for children to go and play in. We're talking about very active construction, large space rocket, launches, tanks, gasses, cranes, lifts and various other hazards. At least they are being responsible and have people's safety in mind by controlling accesses. I imagine the local residents are well aware of SpaceX's operations and keep their whereabouts safe. What is the alternative? No security guards? Yeah no. I'd rather have my legal department battle it out with the authorities. They made the right call until the babies can all agree.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > What is the alternative? No security guards? The alternative is whatever the process is under applicable law for setting, noticing, and enforcing closures on public roads, which pretty much everywhere isn’t “private actors seizing control of public roads and deploying guards on their own decision with no oversight, because the actor thinks that therr might be a safety risk but can’t be bothered following the legal process for dealing with that risk.” > Yeah no. I'd rather have my legal department battle it out with the authorities. I suspect if you talked to your legal department first, they could tell you how to deal with it without fighting with authorities and without exposing the firm and individual employees to potential criminal prosecution. Closing public roads for safety due to construction and other activities occurring on or near them is a regular occurrence for which well-developed processes exist in pretty much every jurisdiction, not some sui generis need that creates a legitimate need to ignore the law because it hasn’t anticipated the need and compliance would be disastrous.
    - nitrix 5y ago
      Police officers will often happily close roads for church or impromptu protests for the public's safety. The bickering that's going on means someone has a hidden agenda, got their ego bruised or maybe the laws are just outdated and needs corrections. Either way, people aren't great with change. Changes to the law takes a lot of time and often your request just gets ignored unless you literally force them to look at your issue. Well, that's what they're doing. I have no problem with it, no one gets harmed, people are safer, laws will improve, it's just wins everywhere.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ryzvonusef 5y ago

So SpaceX needs a place that's 1- as physically close to the equator they can get 2- while still being on American soil for legal / national security reasons 3- while being near a eastern seaboard beach, for both having viable rocket launch directions (no launching over land acc to US policy iirc), as well as for ease of access to transport 4- but also need a large empty unpopulated space where they can test rockets and blow up stuff without risking civilians where else other than Boca chica can they go? South Tip of Florida is good for launching but not enough empty space for testing, and inland America has loads of empty space for testing but unless govt changes policy, they can't launch from there I think Texas needs to realize that Boca chica will become the next Cape Canaveral / Area 51 combo thingy, and the Texas public Road/ Public Beach laws won't mean much. So, either totally shut down the project NOW before it balloons to become the airport to mars, or accept that it has the same significance as say, a govt weapons testing site and effectively lock access to the entire area. (i am not American, but surely private companies testing for your DoD can get some security restrictions, I presume since DoD is interested in Starship, that might not be far behind.)