3 ms·

>They did one test launch where the FAA inspector wasn't there. You are being deliberately misleading with this statement. You say that as if SpaceX accidental

>They did one test launch where the FAA inspector wasn't there. You are being deliberately misleading with this statement. You say that as if SpaceX accidentally launched while the inspector was in the bathroom. When in reality the FAA explicitly told SpaceX not to launch BEFORE the launch. And that doing so would be a violation of their launch license. The fact that the FAA reviewed the situation and then allowed to continue kind of proves the parents point.

panick21_ 5y ago
> You are being deliberately misleading with this statement. No, I wasn't. I simply stated he wasn't there, and he wasn't. I didn't imply anything beyond that he wasn't there. > proves the parents point. No it doesn't. People violate different things and are allowed to continue to operate. Virgin Orbit was just stopped from operating and had to go threw review. Doing a review of company and its safety culture is standard procedure. This is not a human launcher, those have far higher requirements. Can you actually show that if it wasn't SpaceX, the company would have somehow been stopped from continuing?
- vanattab 5y ago
  >No, I wasn't. I simply stated he wasn't there, and he wasn't. I didn't imply anything beyond that he wasn't there. Honest communication is about more then just making sure your statements a factually correct, context matters.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    I don't know what is not clear about what I said. The person wasn't there, for a rocket launch that clearly implies the facilities where the rocket is launch from. Not sure how one could interpret that any other way. And you continue to not provide that evidence for that SpaceX treatment was particularly unusually and gives them a massive advantage (not to mention that by that point SpaceX existed for almost 20 year).
Dylan16807 5y ago
> When in reality the FAA explicitly told SpaceX not to launch BEFORE the launch. And that doing so would be a violation of their launch license. I'm looking into this, the details I'm finding are not clear enough for my liking. The FAA said there was too much shockwave risk based on their weather models, and rejected a request to waive that threshold. SpaceX's own models said the risk was within limits. > Minutes before liftoff, an FAA safety inspector speaking on an open phone line warned SpaceX’s staff in the launch control room that a launch would violate the company’s launch license. SpaceX staff ignored the warning because they “assumed that the inspector did not have the latest information,” the SpaceX report said. So that leaves a very important question in my mind. Was that inspector using their authority to directly deny authorization to the flight, or were they advising spacex that their authorization was already gone because of the weather? The former is a very big issue, but I'd say the latter is only a moderate issue. Also depending on whose weather models were actually right, but it sounds like it must have been pretty borderline. > The fact that the FAA reviewed the situation and then allowed to continue kind of proves the parents point. > FAA investigators couldn’t determine whether the SN8 license violation was intentional, according to people involved in and briefed on the investigation, speaking on the condition of anonymity. That sure doesn't sound like it "proves" spacex got special leniency.

panick21_ 5y ago

> You are being deliberately misleading with this statement. No, I wasn't. I simply stated he wasn't there, and he wasn't. I didn't imply anything beyond that he wasn't there. > proves the parents point. No it doesn't. People violate different things and are allowed to continue to operate. Virgin Orbit was just stopped from operating and had to go threw review. Doing a review of company and its safety culture is standard procedure. This is not a human launcher, those have far higher requirements. Can you actually show that if it wasn't SpaceX, the company would have somehow been stopped from continuing?

vanattab 5y ago
>No, I wasn't. I simply stated he wasn't there, and he wasn't. I didn't imply anything beyond that he wasn't there. Honest communication is about more then just making sure your statements a factually correct, context matters.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  I don't know what is not clear about what I said. The person wasn't there, for a rocket launch that clearly implies the facilities where the rocket is launch from. Not sure how one could interpret that any other way. And you continue to not provide that evidence for that SpaceX treatment was particularly unusually and gives them a massive advantage (not to mention that by that point SpaceX existed for almost 20 year).

Dylan16807 5y ago

> When in reality the FAA explicitly told SpaceX not to launch BEFORE the launch. And that doing so would be a violation of their launch license. I'm looking into this, the details I'm finding are not clear enough for my liking. The FAA said there was too much shockwave risk based on their weather models, and rejected a request to waive that threshold. SpaceX's own models said the risk was within limits. > Minutes before liftoff, an FAA safety inspector speaking on an open phone line warned SpaceX’s staff in the launch control room that a launch would violate the company’s launch license. SpaceX staff ignored the warning because they “assumed that the inspector did not have the latest information,” the SpaceX report said. So that leaves a very important question in my mind. Was that inspector using their authority to directly deny authorization to the flight, or were they advising spacex that their authorization was already gone because of the weather? The former is a very big issue, but I'd say the latter is only a moderate issue. Also depending on whose weather models were actually right, but it sounds like it must have been pretty borderline. > The fact that the FAA reviewed the situation and then allowed to continue kind of proves the parents point. > FAA investigators couldn’t determine whether the SN8 license violation was intentional, according to people involved in and briefed on the investigation, speaking on the condition of anonymity. That sure doesn't sound like it "proves" spacex got special leniency.