> you have to prove it is safe. I don't know that you can actually do that and I'm not sure there's any federal law which actually requires you to attempt this

> you have to prove it is safe. I don't know that you can actually do that and I'm not sure there's any federal law which actually requires you to attempt this. > your chance of killing someone on the ground is less than 1 in 10,000 That's merely a guideline and it's only meant to apply to "large debris" falling from orbit. > in SpaceX’s planning and licensing. The FAA has to give you a license unless it can find a defensible reason why you should not have one. They're also allowed to give experimental licenses and they're allowed to waive just about any requirement they feel like. The FAA is not there to give you permission they are there to make sure you aren't doing anything dangerous. This sounds tautological, but if you ever end up in court, you will find, it absolutely isn't. The difference matters quite a bit here. You have a _right_ to access space. The FAA does not have a right to control it. If they can't prove what your doing is dangerous they're not actually entitled to stop you. About the only thing you absolutely _can't_ do is advertise in space or send payloads meant for advertising. Everything else is just a waiver request. Which will almost certainly be granted. > probably a good reason too why the FAA is keeping quiet so far. It's not their show. Neither USC or any CFR gives them this kind of authority.