6 ms·

FAA Proposes $633,009 in Civil Penalties Against SpaceX

29 points by ryzvonusef 2y ago

ryzvonusef 2y ago
> In May 2023, SpaceX submitted a request to revise its communications plan related to its license to launch from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. The proposed revisions included adding a new launch control room at Hangar X and removing the T-2 hour readiness poll from its procedures. On June 18, 2023, SpaceX used the unapproved launch control room for the PSN SATRIA mission and did not conduct the required T-2 hour poll. The FAA is proposing $350,000 in civil penalties ($175,000 for each alleged violation). > In July 2023, SpaceX submitted a request to revise its explosive site plan related to its license to launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The proposed revision reflected a newly constructed rocket propellant farm. On July 28, 2023, SpaceX used the unapproved rocket propellant farm for the EchoStar XXIV/Jupiter mission. The FAA is proposing a $283,009 civil penalty. > SpaceX has 30 days to respond to the FAA after receiving the agency’s enforcement letters. These are routine Falcon 9 launches, not starship.
- aeternum 2y ago
  Government agencies need SLAs. If FAA does not respond to the revision request within X days, it should be considered approved. Governments have a long history of using delay as a weapon. This is why the founders included right to a speedy trial. Obviously that doesn't apply here as it is not a criminal prosecution but it shows that this was a known mechanism for corrupt governments to abuse their power.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    > If FAA does not respond to the revision request within X days, it should be considered approved. I don't think that sort of process is good for anything involving safety. The safety of the general public should trump all here. Look at the Boeing situation and tell me with a straight face that less oversight plus automatic approval on deadline exhaustion would have helped there. If anything, it would have been worse. For things not involving safety it's not a terrible idea.
    - exabrial 2y ago
      > The safety of the general public should trump all here An SLA is not unreasonable nor counterproductive to that end. Courts do this all the time.
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
        It is both unreasonable and counterproductive here. We have to ask ourselves, "Why is the FAA doing what it's doing?". Despite most of the complaining I'm hearing, the role of the FAA isn't to be a startup destroying killjoy that just wants to entrench the existing players. There are legitimate concerns for safety here, especially in commercial aviation and space travel, and those safety issues ought to wait for a proper review. This is a clash between "growth every quarter" and "people not in graves because of pursuit of profit and damn the consequences", and I would rather have the latter than the former.
        nickff 2y ago
        The issue on the other side is that the FAA has no incentive to move quickly. There is no negative consequence to FAA officials if they sit at their desks, shuffle papers around (with minor revisions or changes in approvals in each draft), and complain about being understaffed. In fact, that is the best thing for them to do, as they’re likely to get a bigger budget and more staff if they complain a lot and delay approvals; then they can keep doing the same thing again.
        DrillShopper 2y ago
        Then don't work in a regulated industry. I don't know what to tell you. Is there any evidence of the FAA doing this - sitting on applications that they otherwise should process?
        ElonChrist 2y ago
        [dead]
  - gklitz 2y ago
    The only thing you would accomplish by that is an auto-reply rejection without content, or a last minute rejection with “couldn’t approve within deadline so rejecting”. Surprisingly to everyone the problem in this scenario is Elons Musks blatant disregard for the rules, not the fact that the rules don’t bend to his will fast enough.
  - enragedcacti 2y ago
    They very much do have to respond within X days as determined by law. If the application takes more than 120 days they must inform the applicant what the issue preventing approval is and they must issue a determination by 180 days [1]. Crazy to think that the people writing this stuff might sometimes have already thought of that idea from HN commenter #3937408. > If FAA does not respond to the revision request within X days, it should be considered approved. this is obviously absurd and completely ripe for abuse. Regulations are intended to protect the public interest, the government failing its duty in one aspect (timeliness) doesn't void its duties to public health and safety, protection of property, national security, etc. [1] see section C and 413.15: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter-C/part-450/subpart-D/section-450.211 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter...
mathgeek 2y ago
Seems low enough to become a cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.
- justahuman74 2y ago
  It's a deterrent, as repeated violations can result in a lawsuit with court ordered restraints on activites
- throwaway48540 2y ago
  It's not meant to put them out of business, it's meant to show them that actions have consequences and to improve. FAA generally appreciates what SpaceX does.
- guywithahat 2y ago
  I was going to say the opposite, it seems like something that should be an email, but they're turning into a half million dollar fine. It's a totally reasonable change, they were in the process of having it approved, but the FAA is alleging it was used before it was officially approved
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    Anything in engineering that involves using parts or processes that are not officially approved (unless there is an exigent need to do so and the parties involved in the exigency accept the risk) should be severely punished. I don't care who you are. If anything, the fines should be percentage based on revenue (not profit, revenue) to deter deep pockets from fucking around (and hopefully for the safety of everybody involved) not finding out. Secondarily, if the FAA didn't do this they would be roasted for playing favorites with SpaceX.
    - guywithahat 2y ago
      So I haven't been fined or in trouble with the FAA so I don't know how harsh they do things. This could be normal. That said, my understanding of government fines is they are usually reserved for willful deceit or negligence. This sounds like there was 40 different forms to fill out, and the FAA doesn't have their T-2 poll because SpaceX thought it wasn't part of the launch procedure anymore. A T-2 poll is done 2 minutes before launch to check and make sure everything is in order, but there is also a T-2 and T-4 hours check, plus a T-60, T-10, and T-0 poll, in addition to unofficial checks. IMO what should have (or what usually would happen) is after the first launch, someone would have said "where's the T-2 minute poll?", then they would have realized the FAA didn't approve the T-2, and this would have been resolved. What instead happened was a number of launches occurred, and nobody cared because it wasn't important. Then someone in the FAA saw they didn't have the approval form, and decided to move to a fine. This could be normal, but it seems like this should have been an email.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
josefritzishere 2y ago
SpaceX is the new Boeing.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
IIRC SpaceX has gone on record asking for a massive increase in the FAA budget so that the FAA can process SpaceX submissions & requests in a timely fashion. If the fines go towards hiring a couple more FAA personnel, SpaceX probably would be thrilled to pay the fine. Other than the optics, of course.
rich_sasha 2y ago
Would be great to hear from someone actually in the space industry: is this reasonable? Given it's related to Elon Musk, everyone (including me) has a knee jerk opinion.

29 points by ryzvonusef 2y ago

> In May 2023, SpaceX submitted a request to revise its communications plan related to its license to launch from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. The proposed revisions included adding a new launch control room at Hangar X and removing the T-2 hour readiness poll from its procedures. On June 18, 2023, SpaceX used the unapproved launch control room for the PSN SATRIA mission and did not conduct the required T-2 hour poll. The FAA is proposing $350,000 in civil penalties ($175,000 for each alleged violation). > In July 2023, SpaceX submitted a request to revise its explosive site plan related to its license to launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The proposed revision reflected a newly constructed rocket propellant farm. On July 28, 2023, SpaceX used the unapproved rocket propellant farm for the EchoStar XXIV/Jupiter mission. The FAA is proposing a $283,009 civil penalty. > SpaceX has 30 days to respond to the FAA after receiving the agency’s enforcement letters. These are routine Falcon 9 launches, not starship.

aeternum 2y ago
Government agencies need SLAs. If FAA does not respond to the revision request within X days, it should be considered approved. Governments have a long history of using delay as a weapon. This is why the founders included right to a speedy trial. Obviously that doesn't apply here as it is not a criminal prosecution but it shows that this was a known mechanism for corrupt governments to abuse their power.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  > If FAA does not respond to the revision request within X days, it should be considered approved. I don't think that sort of process is good for anything involving safety. The safety of the general public should trump all here. Look at the Boeing situation and tell me with a straight face that less oversight plus automatic approval on deadline exhaustion would have helped there. If anything, it would have been worse. For things not involving safety it's not a terrible idea.
  - exabrial 2y ago
    > The safety of the general public should trump all here An SLA is not unreasonable nor counterproductive to that end. Courts do this all the time.
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      It is both unreasonable and counterproductive here. We have to ask ourselves, "Why is the FAA doing what it's doing?". Despite most of the complaining I'm hearing, the role of the FAA isn't to be a startup destroying killjoy that just wants to entrench the existing players. There are legitimate concerns for safety here, especially in commercial aviation and space travel, and those safety issues ought to wait for a proper review. This is a clash between "growth every quarter" and "people not in graves because of pursuit of profit and damn the consequences", and I would rather have the latter than the former.
      - nickff 2y ago
        The issue on the other side is that the FAA has no incentive to move quickly. There is no negative consequence to FAA officials if they sit at their desks, shuffle papers around (with minor revisions or changes in approvals in each draft), and complain about being understaffed. In fact, that is the best thing for them to do, as they’re likely to get a bigger budget and more staff if they complain a lot and delay approvals; then they can keep doing the same thing again.
        DrillShopper 2y ago
        Then don't work in a regulated industry. I don't know what to tell you. Is there any evidence of the FAA doing this - sitting on applications that they otherwise should process?
        ElonChrist 2y ago
        [dead]
- gklitz 2y ago
  The only thing you would accomplish by that is an auto-reply rejection without content, or a last minute rejection with “couldn’t approve within deadline so rejecting”. Surprisingly to everyone the problem in this scenario is Elons Musks blatant disregard for the rules, not the fact that the rules don’t bend to his will fast enough.
- enragedcacti 2y ago
  They very much do have to respond within X days as determined by law. If the application takes more than 120 days they must inform the applicant what the issue preventing approval is and they must issue a determination by 180 days [1]. Crazy to think that the people writing this stuff might sometimes have already thought of that idea from HN commenter #3937408. > If FAA does not respond to the revision request within X days, it should be considered approved. this is obviously absurd and completely ripe for abuse. Regulations are intended to protect the public interest, the government failing its duty in one aspect (timeliness) doesn't void its duties to public health and safety, protection of property, national security, etc. [1] see section C and 413.15: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter-C/part-450/subpart-D/section-450.211 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter...

mathgeek 2y ago

Seems low enough to become a cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.

justahuman74 2y ago
It's a deterrent, as repeated violations can result in a lawsuit with court ordered restraints on activites
throwaway48540 2y ago
It's not meant to put them out of business, it's meant to show them that actions have consequences and to improve. FAA generally appreciates what SpaceX does.
guywithahat 2y ago
I was going to say the opposite, it seems like something that should be an email, but they're turning into a half million dollar fine. It's a totally reasonable change, they were in the process of having it approved, but the FAA is alleging it was used before it was officially approved
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  Anything in engineering that involves using parts or processes that are not officially approved (unless there is an exigent need to do so and the parties involved in the exigency accept the risk) should be severely punished. I don't care who you are. If anything, the fines should be percentage based on revenue (not profit, revenue) to deter deep pockets from fucking around (and hopefully for the safety of everybody involved) not finding out. Secondarily, if the FAA didn't do this they would be roasted for playing favorites with SpaceX.
  - guywithahat 2y ago
    So I haven't been fined or in trouble with the FAA so I don't know how harsh they do things. This could be normal. That said, my understanding of government fines is they are usually reserved for willful deceit or negligence. This sounds like there was 40 different forms to fill out, and the FAA doesn't have their T-2 poll because SpaceX thought it wasn't part of the launch procedure anymore. A T-2 poll is done 2 minutes before launch to check and make sure everything is in order, but there is also a T-2 and T-4 hours check, plus a T-60, T-10, and T-0 poll, in addition to unofficial checks. IMO what should have (or what usually would happen) is after the first launch, someone would have said "where's the T-2 minute poll?", then they would have realized the FAA didn't approve the T-2, and this would have been resolved. What instead happened was a number of launches occurred, and nobody cared because it wasn't important. Then someone in the FAA saw they didn't have the approval form, and decided to move to a fine. This could be normal, but it seems like this should have been an email.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

josefritzishere 2y ago

SpaceX is the new Boeing.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

IIRC SpaceX has gone on record asking for a massive increase in the FAA budget so that the FAA can process SpaceX submissions & requests in a timely fashion. If the fines go towards hiring a couple more FAA personnel, SpaceX probably would be thrilled to pay the fine. Other than the optics, of course.

rich_sasha 2y ago

Would be great to hear from someone actually in the space industry: is this reasonable? Given it's related to Elon Musk, everyone (including me) has a knee jerk opinion.