3 ms·

So, does this mean the FAA letter is the weakest it could possibly have been? Or was it plausible they could have said "we know you identified 63 corrective act

So, does this mean the FAA letter is the weakest it could possibly have been? Or was it plausible they could have said "we know you identified 63 corrective actions, but don't worry about that - so long as you do #3, #18, #31 and make a start on #40 you're good to go on the next launch"?

tonyhb 3y ago
To be fair this is the same as most regulatory bodies. You have specific things you must do for SOC2. There can also be known issues that you must document and, as long as they fall within acceptable risk tolerances and you have a plan to fix them within some defined time period, it can be acceptable (obvs, again, depending on the risks). It's not perfect, but then again... nothing is. Personally I think that being honest about all risks, documenting them, and having a plan in place to fix things is a good place to be. Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk, so you'd expect that the portion of these that can be ignored should be very low risk.
- skissane 3y ago
  > Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk For space, FAA is primarily concerned with risks to public safety (launch vehicle goes off course and crashes into populated area); and also risk to third party space assets. It also cares about environmental risks, but to a lesser degree (risks of short-term environmental harms can be tolerated, especially if there is a plan being seriously pursued to mitigate them). Very different from FAA for commercial aviation where passenger safety is paramount (or at least that’s what it is supposed to be.) From what I understand, FAA considers all human spaceflight to be experimental, and passengers/crew need to sign a waiver acknowledging there is a significant risk of dying-nobody is asked to sign such a waiver before boarding a commercial flight, which is why the FAA’s commercial aviation division has enormously tougher passenger safety standards than their space division.
mlindner 3y ago
I'm not sure characterizing it as "weak" would be accurate. Well functioning government bureaucracy acts in kind of a mechanical fashion with very strictly used language. It's more accurate to say that it contains neither positive language toward SpaceX nor negative language toward SpaceX. It simply _is_.
RecycledEle 3y ago
Look at the big concerns: 1. Inadequate launch pad let debris fly. - Fixed as proven by SpaceX's static fires. 2. Leaky fuel tank caused all kinds of problems. - Fixed by fixing the launch pad. 3. Faulty FTS - Obviously a huge priority at SpaceX, so probably fixed.

tonyhb 3y ago

To be fair this is the same as most regulatory bodies. You have specific things you must do for SOC2. There can also be known issues that you must document and, as long as they fall within acceptable risk tolerances and you have a plan to fix them within some defined time period, it can be acceptable (obvs, again, depending on the risks). It's not perfect, but then again... nothing is. Personally I think that being honest about all risks, documenting them, and having a plan in place to fix things is a good place to be. Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk, so you'd expect that the portion of these that can be ignored should be very low risk.

skissane 3y ago
> Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk For space, FAA is primarily concerned with risks to public safety (launch vehicle goes off course and crashes into populated area); and also risk to third party space assets. It also cares about environmental risks, but to a lesser degree (risks of short-term environmental harms can be tolerated, especially if there is a plan being seriously pursued to mitigate them). Very different from FAA for commercial aviation where passenger safety is paramount (or at least that’s what it is supposed to be.) From what I understand, FAA considers all human spaceflight to be experimental, and passengers/crew need to sign a waiver acknowledging there is a significant risk of dying-nobody is asked to sign such a waiver before boarding a commercial flight, which is why the FAA’s commercial aviation division has enormously tougher passenger safety standards than their space division.

mlindner 3y ago

I'm not sure characterizing it as "weak" would be accurate. Well functioning government bureaucracy acts in kind of a mechanical fashion with very strictly used language. It's more accurate to say that it contains neither positive language toward SpaceX nor negative language toward SpaceX. It simply _is_.

RecycledEle 3y ago

Look at the big concerns: 1. Inadequate launch pad let debris fly. - Fixed as proven by SpaceX's static fires. 2. Leaky fuel tank caused all kinds of problems. - Fixed by fixing the launch pad. 3. Faulty FTS - Obviously a huge priority at SpaceX, so probably fixed.