This is the company who's been launching satellites that are likely to incompletely burn up on reentry in such numbers that statistically they'll likely start causing at least one fatality per...
This is the company who's been launching satellites that are likely to incompletely burn up on reentry in such numbers that statistically they'll likely start causing at least one fatality per year. And they need to move faster?
Practically speaking, I think there's little evidence that actual ground-strike fatalities are going to be much of a problem. I have, however, been starting to see concerns about the unprecedented...
Practically speaking, I think there's little evidence that actual ground-strike fatalities are going to be much of a problem.
I have, however, been starting to see concerns about the unprecedented amount of metals and other materials that will be getting vaporized in our upper atmosphere in the coming decades, with uncomfortably little idea of what kind of damage that might do to our climate, etc.
I'd be interested to see more info about whatever potential risks that might bring.
A small correction: the report actually suggests one fatality every two years. That said, SpaceX has refuted the claims and pointed out that the risk assessment is based on a two-decade-old study...
they'll likely start causing at least one fatality per year
A small correction: the report actually suggests one fatality every two years.
That said, SpaceX has refuted the claims and pointed out that the risk assessment is based on a two-decade-old study of an unrelated satellite type.
I don't personally really understand the full picture, so can't offer more clarity. But if FAA-commissioned reports can be fundamentally flawed in this way, it does sort of back SpaceX's argument that FAA might indeed need more funding as the industry that it is regulating is growing so quickly.
The report itself states that the calculation is based on the assumption of surviving debris, and not actual evidence:
The report itself states that the calculation is based on the assumption of surviving debris, and not actual evidence:
it would be worthwhile to definitively evaluate if any debris from random atmospheric reentry of
Starlink spacecraft survives reentry. If SpaceX is correct in reporting zero surviving debris, as
SpaceX reports in FCC filings, and Starlink is a fully-demisable spacecraft, the rise in reentry
risk is minimal over the current risk
SpaceX so far this year has launched its rockets more than 70 times, about one every four days, an unprecedented rate that has upended the industry. But as the company continues to dramatically increase that flight rate, and with its massive Starship rocket ready for another test flight, company officials say they are concerned that the government is not keeping up and is stifling NASA’s ability to return astronauts to the moon.
SpaceX executive William Gerstenmaier, the company’s vice president for build and reliability, told The Washington Post that he intends to press that point at a Senate hearing scheduled for Wednesday, where intends to urge Congress to streamline regulations and increase the number of Federal Aviation Administration staffers devoted to issuing space launch licenses.
...
SpaceX officials told The Post that they worked for two years to obtain the initial Starship launch license and have been waiting for months for the second.
“We’ve been ready to fly for a few weeks now,” said SpaceX senior vice president Tim Hughes, who oversees global business and government affairs for the company. “And we’d very much like the government to be able to move as quickly as we are. If you’re able to build a rocket faster than the government can regulate it, that’s upside down, and that needs to be addressed. So we think some regulatory reforms are needed.”
...
A senior FAA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of not being authorized to speak publicly said the agency’s space division “has been calling for more resources for several years, but with little luck.” That person said the agency has “had to shift all of the resources that we have allocated for [SpaceX’s] programs to Starship to support the next launch; meaning work on Falcon [another SpaceX program] is on hold for the moment. So they’re starting to feel it in a real way.”
The demands on the FAA are only going to grow. In 2015, the agency, which primarily is concerned with protecting people and property on the ground, licensed just 15 launches. The number is projected to grow to 288 by 2027.
There's so much wrong in this whole sentence that it hurts to read. But the FAA has been burnt before rushing through things and wound up with planes full of dead people on the ground when they...
If you’re able to build a rocket faster than the government can regulate it, that’s upside down, and that needs to be addressed
There's so much wrong in this whole sentence that it hurts to read. But the FAA has been burnt before rushing through things and wound up with planes full of dead people on the ground when they do. I'm fine making billionaires wait a bit longer.
I think the question is whether it’s worth the money to increase funding for this part of the FAA. (It’s, somewhat ironically, a request for more regulatory capacity.) What do we get from an...
I think the question is whether it’s worth the money to increase funding for this part of the FAA. (It’s, somewhat ironically, a request for more regulatory capacity.) What do we get from an increased pace of rocket launches in the US?
The article doesn’t really do a good job of explaining that. The main argument is that Congress funded an expensive mission to the moon, so it’s inconsistent and wasteful to delay it by not funding the FAA enough. (Unnecessary delays are inherently wasteful because time is money. Paying interest when you don’t have to is wasteful. Increased interest rates make all delays more expensive.)
But all the other satellites getting launched are presumably doing useful things and it would be nice to have a better sense of what they are.
One argument might be that StarLink provides Internet in rural areas and the Ukraine military relies on it, so it’s in the national interest for it to have more capacity.
While regulatory processes shouldn't be rushed, I think this argument has a lot of truth to it. It seems like the FAA is understaffed/underfunded at the moment and it would behoove financially...
The main argument is that Congress funded an expensive mission to the moon, so it’s inconsistent and wasteful to delay it by not funding the FAA enough.
While regulatory processes shouldn't be rushed, I think this argument has a lot of truth to it. It seems like the FAA is understaffed/underfunded at the moment and it would behoove financially responsible legislators to amend that.
In all reality, if all parties involved with various US crewed space programs since the 70s had been honest, there would've been several times when the government would've been pressured to make the several parts of the process of getting missions off the launchpad more efficient and timely. Unfortunately that hasn't been in the best interest of legacy aerospace companies (Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, etc) and the fractal tree of subcontractors they employ and so things have instead leaned in the opposite direction where these companies can maximize profits from drawn-out cost-plus contracts.
Absolutely. And if the situation is going to only get exponentially worse, as alluded to in the article, then it's probably time for another governing body to be created to handle this and solely...
Absolutely. And if the situation is going to only get exponentially worse, as alluded to in the article, then it's probably time for another governing body to be created to handle this and solely this kind of matter.
What? No! You tax the bejesus out of SpaceX, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin... you know the three companies that put the most burden on the FAA. Something to the tune of 10% gross revenue. That alone...
What? No!
You tax the bejesus out of SpaceX, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin... you know the three companies that put the most burden on the FAA. Something to the tune of 10% gross revenue. That alone will raise, at a minimum, $11 billion dollars. The FAA's current entire budget is $18.3 billion.
That’s nuts. There’s nothing particularly wrong with government fees, but they should have some relationship to what it actually costs to provide the service.
That’s nuts. There’s nothing particularly wrong with government fees, but they should have some relationship to what it actually costs to provide the service.
It's circular money anyway. Most of the money would be coming from the defense departments. My main point is that it would be trivial to raise the amount of money needed. Even a 1% on these...
It's circular money anyway. Most of the money would be coming from the defense departments.
My main point is that it would be trivial to raise the amount of money needed. Even a 1% on these companies would be plenty.
I hate this quote. Like... why does that need to be addressed? What's the actual negative side effects of the fact that SpaceX needs to wait a few weeks for a permit? Their shareholders get .5%...
“We’ve been ready to fly for a few weeks now,” said SpaceX senior vice president Tim Hughes, who oversees global business and government affairs for the company. “And we’d very much like the government to be able to move as quickly as we are. If you’re able to build a rocket faster than the government can regulate it, that’s upside down, and that needs to be addressed. So we think some regulatory reforms are needed.”
I hate this quote.
Like... why does that need to be addressed? What's the actual negative side effects of the fact that SpaceX needs to wait a few weeks for a permit?
Their shareholders get .5% less of a return on their investment?
I don't hold SpaceX stock, so why would I, as an American citizen, prioritize streamlining an approval process so they can launch rockets faster?
I'd rather my kids have adequate housing and healthcare, personally. I don't understand how these companies are so incredibly out of touch, deluded, and audacious to publicly make the case that because their business model isn't working in the exact way they want it to, its not only all of our problem, but we need to pay for the solution.
The larger context in this case has to do with their ability to deliver the vehicle and services NASA has contracted from them, which I believe makes a difference. The way I'm reading it is that...
The larger context in this case has to do with their ability to deliver the vehicle and services NASA has contracted from them, which I believe makes a difference. The way I'm reading it is that they're concerned that the FAA being understaffed/underfunded is going to end up being the bottleneck that prevents government contract deadlines from being met, rather than anything they have control over.
Housing and healthcare are top priorities of my own too, but I think that perhaps a better place to carve some funding out from for those is probably the military budget, which has been allowed to balloon nearly uncontrolled for decades at this point.
This is the company who's been launching satellites that are likely to incompletely burn up on reentry in such numbers that statistically they'll likely start causing at least one fatality per year. And they need to move faster?
Practically speaking, I think there's little evidence that actual ground-strike fatalities are going to be much of a problem.
I have, however, been starting to see concerns about the unprecedented amount of metals and other materials that will be getting vaporized in our upper atmosphere in the coming decades, with uncomfortably little idea of what kind of damage that might do to our climate, etc.
I'd be interested to see more info about whatever potential risks that might bring.
A small correction: the report actually suggests one fatality every two years.
That said, SpaceX has refuted the claims and pointed out that the risk assessment is based on a two-decade-old study of an unrelated satellite type.
I don't personally really understand the full picture, so can't offer more clarity. But if FAA-commissioned reports can be fundamentally flawed in this way, it does sort of back SpaceX's argument that FAA might indeed need more funding as the industry that it is regulating is growing so quickly.
The report itself states that the calculation is based on the assumption of surviving debris, and not actual evidence:
Can I get your source on this?
From the article:
...
...
There's so much wrong in this whole sentence that it hurts to read. But the FAA has been burnt before rushing through things and wound up with planes full of dead people on the ground when they do. I'm fine making billionaires wait a bit longer.
I think the question is whether it’s worth the money to increase funding for this part of the FAA. (It’s, somewhat ironically, a request for more regulatory capacity.) What do we get from an increased pace of rocket launches in the US?
The article doesn’t really do a good job of explaining that. The main argument is that Congress funded an expensive mission to the moon, so it’s inconsistent and wasteful to delay it by not funding the FAA enough. (Unnecessary delays are inherently wasteful because time is money. Paying interest when you don’t have to is wasteful. Increased interest rates make all delays more expensive.)
But all the other satellites getting launched are presumably doing useful things and it would be nice to have a better sense of what they are.
One argument might be that StarLink provides Internet in rural areas and the Ukraine military relies on it, so it’s in the national interest for it to have more capacity.
While regulatory processes shouldn't be rushed, I think this argument has a lot of truth to it. It seems like the FAA is understaffed/underfunded at the moment and it would behoove financially responsible legislators to amend that.
In all reality, if all parties involved with various US crewed space programs since the 70s had been honest, there would've been several times when the government would've been pressured to make the several parts of the process of getting missions off the launchpad more efficient and timely. Unfortunately that hasn't been in the best interest of legacy aerospace companies (Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, etc) and the fractal tree of subcontractors they employ and so things have instead leaned in the opposite direction where these companies can maximize profits from drawn-out cost-plus contracts.
Absolutely. And if the situation is going to only get exponentially worse, as alluded to in the article, then it's probably time for another governing body to be created to handle this and solely this kind of matter.
What? No!
You tax the bejesus out of SpaceX, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin... you know the three companies that put the most burden on the FAA. Something to the tune of 10% gross revenue. That alone will raise, at a minimum, $11 billion dollars. The FAA's current entire budget is $18.3 billion.
Pretty sure the FAA can outpace SpaceX then.
That’s nuts. There’s nothing particularly wrong with government fees, but they should have some relationship to what it actually costs to provide the service.
It's circular money anyway. Most of the money would be coming from the defense departments.
My main point is that it would be trivial to raise the amount of money needed. Even a 1% on these companies would be plenty.
I hate this quote.
Like... why does that need to be addressed? What's the actual negative side effects of the fact that SpaceX needs to wait a few weeks for a permit?
Their shareholders get .5% less of a return on their investment?
I don't hold SpaceX stock, so why would I, as an American citizen, prioritize streamlining an approval process so they can launch rockets faster?
I'd rather my kids have adequate housing and healthcare, personally. I don't understand how these companies are so incredibly out of touch, deluded, and audacious to publicly make the case that because their business model isn't working in the exact way they want it to, its not only all of our problem, but we need to pay for the solution.
The larger context in this case has to do with their ability to deliver the vehicle and services NASA has contracted from them, which I believe makes a difference. The way I'm reading it is that they're concerned that the FAA being understaffed/underfunded is going to end up being the bottleneck that prevents government contract deadlines from being met, rather than anything they have control over.
Housing and healthcare are top priorities of my own too, but I think that perhaps a better place to carve some funding out from for those is probably the military budget, which has been allowed to balloon nearly uncontrolled for decades at this point.
Just a side note - you can't buy SpaceX on stock exchanges. They must have investors looking for ROI, though.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.ph/mtlKq
Tax them more and dedicate that money to increasing the resources of the FAA, problem solved.
They’d probably be willing to pay, but there’s a conflict of interest. I expect Congress would have to approve the fee structure.