3 ms·

To prevent ignoring other agencies/laws the FAA does not issue a launch permit unless the other agencies/laws are satisfied. Otherwise people would just do what

To prevent ignoring other agencies/laws the FAA does not issue a launch permit unless the other agencies/laws are satisfied. Otherwise people would just do what the FAA directly regulates and ignore the rest and get a launch permit.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> prevent ignoring other agencies/laws the FAA does not issue a launch permit unless the other agencies/laws are satisfied Which is wild. This isn’t how regulation, including with the FAA, works in other contexts. (If an airline mucks up a securities filing, that isn’t the FAA’s jurisdiction.) The legislative fix may be in separating launch permits from environmental clearances.
- foobarqux 2y ago
  No, you want to prevent contamination of the water supply. Being able to ignore that rule is not an improvement.
  - abigail95 2y ago
    Are they alleging launching the rocket will contaminate the water supply? Or that they do not have a permit to do what the launch will result in? Is there a discussion about what the actual harms are?
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      They don't know because SpaceX hasn't gone through the procedure to show that they aren't/won't.
- pavon 2y ago
  Having a Lead Federal Agency (FAA's role here) during permitting is a very common and positive thing. It helps avoid the left hand not talking to the right hand when permits from multiple agencies are required for a single activity. If they were separate SpaceX couldn't just ignore the lack of EPA permit and launch anyway just because they have an FAA permit, and by having them coordinated it decreases run-around from different agencies giving conflicting demands. SpaceX would likely face more delays not fewer if the FAA wasn't acting as a Lead Federal Agency here. https://www.achp.gov/digital-library-section-106-landing/frequently-asked-questions-about-lead-federal-agencies https://www.achp.gov/digital-library-section-106-landing/fre... https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> prevent ignoring other agencies/laws the FAA does not issue a launch permit unless the other agencies/laws are satisfied Which is wild. This isn’t how regulation, including with the FAA, works in other contexts. (If an airline mucks up a securities filing, that isn’t the FAA’s jurisdiction.) The legislative fix may be in separating launch permits from environmental clearances.

foobarqux 2y ago
No, you want to prevent contamination of the water supply. Being able to ignore that rule is not an improvement.
- abigail95 2y ago
  Are they alleging launching the rocket will contaminate the water supply? Or that they do not have a permit to do what the launch will result in? Is there a discussion about what the actual harms are?
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    They don't know because SpaceX hasn't gone through the procedure to show that they aren't/won't.
pavon 2y ago
Having a Lead Federal Agency (FAA's role here) during permitting is a very common and positive thing. It helps avoid the left hand not talking to the right hand when permits from multiple agencies are required for a single activity. If they were separate SpaceX couldn't just ignore the lack of EPA permit and launch anyway just because they have an FAA permit, and by having them coordinated it decreases run-around from different agencies giving conflicting demands. SpaceX would likely face more delays not fewer if the FAA wasn't acting as a Lead Federal Agency here. https://www.achp.gov/digital-library-section-106-landing/frequently-asked-questions-about-lead-federal-agencies https://www.achp.gov/digital-library-section-106-landing/fre... https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-...