6 ms·
FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission
- hirundo 5y agoThis project appears to be on the critical path to making humanity a multi planetary species. That should be balanced against whatever impact the environmental review finds. Not that it should give SpaceX a blank check. But to the extent that the environment is fragile and needs protection, it's even more important to not have all of our eggs in it.
- microtherion 5y ago> This project appears to be on the critical path to making humanity a multi planetary species. Inasmuch as "multi planetary" means multiple _self supporting_ planetary settlements (and otherwise, what's the point?), that seems to be an entirely unrealistic goal for the foreseeable future, so, by definition, there cannot really be a "critical path" to such a goal.
- R0b0t1 5y agoNothing is self supporting on long enough timescales.
- nickik 5y agoNo other system currently built will get human to Mars even non-self supporting.
- microtherion 5y agoThat may be so, but that's a different claim. If he had a plausible path to build a backstop against catastrophes threatening to wipe out humanity, a case could be made that this should outweigh everyday regulations & petty bureaucratic paperwork. What he has is a plausible path to shipping canned apes for a brief sojourn to a far away locale fairly hostile to long term habitation. If that's what he wants, fine, but there's no reason the regular legal process needs to be waived for that.
- hirundo 5y ago> a plausible path to shipping canned apes for a brief sojourn The important part of that end is a much more economical tech for putting mass into orbit. I'd argue that is currently the single most effective thing that we can do toward becoming multiplanetary. Yes it still leaves a very long road ahead, but it's a bridge across an otherwise impassible chasm. A related Heinlein/Pournelle exchange: Unfortunately, in Blowups Happen a capability for orbiting large payloads had been developed. "Aha," I said. "I see your problem. If you can get a ship into orbit, you're halfway to the moon." "No," Bob said. "If you can get your ship into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." He was very nearly right. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35015/where-did-heinlein-say-once-you-get-to-earth-orbit-youre-halfway-to-anywhere https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35015/where-did-he...
- jimbob45 5y ago“Fine, I’ll take my knowledge and business to China” “Okay, okay we’re sorry, Mr. Musk”
- giarc 5y agoSpaceX biggest customer is the US government. You really think the US gov will ship satellites to China for launches?
- justapassenger 5y agoThis. Spacex, while private and agile company, exists purely because of USA government buying their services - that’s majority of their revenue. There’s nothing wrong with that, being government contractor is a huge part of an economy.
- deregulateMed 5y ago>There’s nothing wrong with that The military industrial complex, crony capitalism, and siphoning tax dollars to billionaires are definitely debatable topics.
- avmich 5y agoYeah, Elon's just dying to follow Jack Ma lead. /s
- mullingitover 5y agoSeems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying: > SpaceX told the FAA in May that it did not believe the review was necessary because it only intends to use the "integration tower for production, research, and development purposes and not for FAA-licensed or -permitted launches," the FAA said. Does the FAA have jurisdiction over this tower if they're not actually using it for launches?
- sidewndr46 5y agoWithout knowing the height it is hard to tell. As an amateur radio operator I can put up a tower that is just under 200 feet tall without any real approval. Past that I would need FAA approval. It gets expensive, mostly because you need to keep the tower illuminated at night.
- fooey 5y agoI agree, it's right next to an airport, so the FAA has jurisdiction over anything over 200 feet tall. What it's meant for is basically irrelevant, except the scenario where SpaceX lied to the FAA about what it is for.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nieve 5y ago> The FAA letter said the tower could be as high as 480 feet.
- dboreham 5y agoPerhaps FCC? There are rules about towers within some distance of an airport. Perhaps it runs afoul of those.
- p1necone 5y agoHow much testing can you do with a launch tower without actually launching anything? Surely any launch would have to be cleared by the FAA right? (I could totally be wrong and there's good reasons to build this, but my initial assumption is that the only real reason to build a launch tower would be to launch stuff with it)
- Covzire 5y agoSorry if this is too off topic, but that picture in the article really puts the scale of Starship in perspective. It's really huge.
- avmich 5y agoA little bigger than V-2 :) . Kinda similar shape, but size...
- staunch 5y ago> FAA Administrator Steve Dickson spoke with Musk on March 12 for 30 minutes to stress "the FAA’s role in protecting public safety by ensuring regulatory compliance.... If there are legit concerns that the FAA needs to be involved in, that's fine. But the fact that Dickson is personally involved is a sign he might be the kind of person that likes to flex on people. There's almost certainly no good reason for him to be personally involved. If Dickson is just out to engage in a public pissing contest with Elon Musk, it's not hard to predict the outcome. Musk, in 2021, is not easily bullied.
- fooey 5y agoMusk is already muzzled by a federal agency. Going head to head with the agency controlling airspace on top of that is a pretty terrible idea.
- staunch 5y agoThe difference is that the SEC was legally in the right. It wasn't the SEC Chairman choosing to flex his authority on a high profile private company. If Musk is in the right here, the FAA will not have any luck bullying him.
- edrxty 5y agoI've actually dealt with the FAA on a rocket launch. They're an INCREDIBLY bureaucratic agency. We were inside a continually restricted airspace volume (R-xxxx) as well as a TFR that was miles wide, but at the last minute we were restricted from flying a remotely controlled aircraft released at an apogee of around 2000ft AGL. We'd already received prior approval but then someone at the regional office decided they wanted to flex on the other agency we were working with. There were absolutely no safety concerns, real, procedural, or imagined. It was just someone settling a score with someone else.
- staunch 5y agoExactly my concern. And IF that's what's going on here then Dickson deserves to be fired.
- silexia 5y agoThis is a scene straight out of Ayn rand's "Atlas shrugged".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mlindner 5y agoFAA already granted permission to SpaceX to build the tower. https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=474570805&row=115 https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action... Title is completely misleading.
- bpodgursky 5y agoThe FAA, more than any technical reason, explains why SpaceX bought two oil rigs to perform oceanic launches.
- GoOnThenDoTell 5y agoLaunches from international waters from a US firm will still need FAA approval
- tymekpavel 5y agoIt is easy for SpaceX to create a shell company that circumvents this.
- ncallaway 5y agoI don't think that's true. Many aspects of SpaceX's rockets are covered by ITAR, which puts strict regulations and controls on the exports of many aspects of SpaceX's vehicles. I imagine exporting the rocket to a non-US based firm would be a much larger bureaucratic hurdle than getting FAA approvals.
- R0b0t1 5y agoITAR is largely voluntary. I say this having looked at the regulations because at one time I wanted to produce/was producing things that fell under ITAR. In a lot of situations if you say it is not restricted by ITAR then it is not. This leaves me (and hopefully you) wondering what ITAR actually still accomplishes. I guess federal contracts dictate the use of the ensuing technology? I still see issues with that depending on how IP rights are assigned. I guess we're waiting on the next PGP-style test of export control laws.
- wyqydsyq 5y agoWhat requires them to get approval from the FAA for something outside the FAA's jurisdiction?
- ctoth 5y agoAnybody else get flashbacks to Manifold: Time? Eccentric entrepreneur building awesome rockets in the desert while the government tries to prevent him from launching?
- anaganisk 5y agoGovt in not preventing him here tho. SpaceX is an active partner of Nasa.
- kart23 5y agoWhy is the headline editorialized to include Elon's name? Reuter's title reads 'U.S. warns SpaceX its new Texas launch site tower not yet approved'.
- eitland 5y agoI heard years ago that titles are heavily A/B tested. I.e. the title you see might not be the one the poster saw.
- mlindner 5y agoIt's even editorialized to be false given that FAA granted permission to build the tower. https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=474570805&row=115 https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
- gnarbarian 5y agobetter to say sorry than ask permission. I know an awful lot about the FAA. Progress demands risk and the FAA is a pathologically risk averse agency. Many people in the agency understand this but outwardly must tow the party line. therefore when the FAA is being unreasonable I believe SpaceX should ignore them and push the envelope.
- hourislate 5y agoThe FAA is in a pissing match with SpaceX. They are an organization that was setup to deal with 1 or 2 space launches a year. They don't know how to operate to accommodate the amount of launches SpaceX wants to have. So instead of changing or modernizing they flex. The old I'll show them who's in charge, will drive them out of business with paperwork and a bureaucracy. Who do they think they are wanting to expand Human civilization to Mars! Musk should just pay them off the way Boeing did.
- perryizgr8 5y agoSlightly relevant video: https://youtu.be/gNFyLGlR-0w https://youtu.be/gNFyLGlR-0w
- mlindner 5y agoThe title is a bit FUD, SpaceX already received permission to build the tower from the FAA. https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=474570805&row=115 https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action... There's the document.