4 ms·

"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

"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
      The issue is the harm being described in apocalyptic terms by the astro community is not being weighed properly against the benefits to 1) humanity 2) astronomy in longer run. It's become clear that at least the folks making the news are not going to be innovating. The cost reduction in space access represented by starlink should be a wake up a call to someone somewhere to think about could be done by embracing the SpaceX approach. I'm not an astronomer, but I am a photographer. The fact that astronomers shoot these ridiculous shots showing insane streaks across their photos makes no sense. I could eliminate those trivially with a multi-exposure process for the types of photos being shown. I get the some things with ultra long integration times may not be able to take that approach, but again, the apparent helplessness of astronomers to manage even basic steps is revealing. And then - why not consider what could be gained by looking at things in a new way from space? The physics is almost always better up there for looking at other stars and space.
      - zelon88 5y ago
        > The issue is the harm being described in apocalyptic terms by the astro community is not being weighed properly against the benefits to 1) humanity 2) astronomy in longer run. The same could be said of Starlink by astronomers. Or regulators. Just because Starlink is doing something noble does not make them above the law. There are firms developing advanced cancer treatments; that does not mean they can perform human trials at will. > I'm not an astronomer, but I am a photographer. The fact that astronomers shoot these ridiculous shots showing insane streaks across their photos makes no sense. I could eliminate those trivially with a multi-exposure process for the types of photos being shown. I get the some things with ultra long integration times may not be able to take that approach, but again, the apparent helplessness of astronomers to manage even basic steps is revealing. Your attitude is very dismissive. Astronomy is one of the oldest and most significant fields in science. When you look at a subject as topically as you are, of course nothing makes sense. I know how to drive a car. Does that make me qualified to fly an airplane, too? You claim to respect subject matter experts yet you are quick to question astronomers as experts of their field. > And then - why not consider what could be gained by looking at things in a new way from space? The physics is almost always better up there for looking at other stars and space. Again, I am, not an astronomer, but casual thought reveals a few potential reasons. 1) tracking fast moving objects with a spacecraft is extremely difficult. 2) cost 3) reliability 4) communication contention (many missions use leased satellite time for communications), ect. The interesting part is you are very mindful when it comes to how SpaceX should behave, but very dismissive about anything else.
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.

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
    The issue is the harm being described in apocalyptic terms by the astro community is not being weighed properly against the benefits to 1) humanity 2) astronomy in longer run. It's become clear that at least the folks making the news are not going to be innovating. The cost reduction in space access represented by starlink should be a wake up a call to someone somewhere to think about could be done by embracing the SpaceX approach. I'm not an astronomer, but I am a photographer. The fact that astronomers shoot these ridiculous shots showing insane streaks across their photos makes no sense. I could eliminate those trivially with a multi-exposure process for the types of photos being shown. I get the some things with ultra long integration times may not be able to take that approach, but again, the apparent helplessness of astronomers to manage even basic steps is revealing. And then - why not consider what could be gained by looking at things in a new way from space? The physics is almost always better up there for looking at other stars and space.
    - zelon88 5y ago
      > The issue is the harm being described in apocalyptic terms by the astro community is not being weighed properly against the benefits to 1) humanity 2) astronomy in longer run. The same could be said of Starlink by astronomers. Or regulators. Just because Starlink is doing something noble does not make them above the law. There are firms developing advanced cancer treatments; that does not mean they can perform human trials at will. > I'm not an astronomer, but I am a photographer. The fact that astronomers shoot these ridiculous shots showing insane streaks across their photos makes no sense. I could eliminate those trivially with a multi-exposure process for the types of photos being shown. I get the some things with ultra long integration times may not be able to take that approach, but again, the apparent helplessness of astronomers to manage even basic steps is revealing. Your attitude is very dismissive. Astronomy is one of the oldest and most significant fields in science. When you look at a subject as topically as you are, of course nothing makes sense. I know how to drive a car. Does that make me qualified to fly an airplane, too? You claim to respect subject matter experts yet you are quick to question astronomers as experts of their field. > And then - why not consider what could be gained by looking at things in a new way from space? The physics is almost always better up there for looking at other stars and space. Again, I am, not an astronomer, but casual thought reveals a few potential reasons. 1) tracking fast moving objects with a spacecraft is extremely difficult. 2) cost 3) reliability 4) communication contention (many missions use leased satellite time for communications), ect. The interesting part is you are very mindful when it comes to how SpaceX should behave, but very dismissive about anything else.

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.