Musk’s threat of litigation, in a post on social media platform X on Tuesday, came after the FAA announced it would levy fines amounting to $633,000 against SpaceX because the company had purportedly failed to comply with a variety of licensing and safety-related regulations during those launches.
The FAA said SpaceX used an “unapproved rocket propellant farm” for its EchoStar XXIV Jupiter mission in July 2023. For its launch a month earlier from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida, SpaceX had modified its communication plans and used a new and unapproved launch control room, the FAA said.
According to a “notice of proposed civil penalty,” the FAA clearly informed SpaceX on June 16, 2023, two days before the launch, that the agency “would not issue a modification” to the SpaceX license. SpaceX went ahead anyway.
Also: Some judge should just toss his ass in jail for a few weeks for repeatedly wasting court time. It would happen to any non multibillionaire who repeatedly filed frivolous suits and harassed...
Also:
As CNBC previously reported, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality found that SpaceX had repeatedly violated the Clean Water Act and failed to obtain proper permits for industrial wastewater discharges at its Starbase facility in Boca Chica, Texas.
In addition to taking on the FAA and environmental regulators, Musk has clashed with the National Labor Relations Board. He filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the NLRB is unconstitutional in its structure, and that its administrative processes violate the concept of the separation of powers.
Some judge should just toss his ass in jail for a few weeks for repeatedly wasting court time. It would happen to any non multibillionaire who repeatedly filed frivolous suits and harassed government agencies.
Also, rocket propellants are no joke. Considering the environmental claims are that their launchpad "water deluge system" is causing unsafe runoff, I suspect they deserve a far larger fine. What are the odds of them getting hydrazine in that water, do you think? Googling, the reports show at least 100x what Texas considers to be problematic levels of mercury in the soil.
I guess I never thought about the FAA having control over private space companies but it makes sense. I wonder if we'll see a space specific federal organization soon? Kinda like space force but...
I guess I never thought about the FAA having control over private space companies but it makes sense. I wonder if we'll see a space specific federal organization soon? Kinda like space force but for civilian enforcement
Everything past the troposphere. I kid! Basically, space would require a world government organization of some kind but, barring that, I expect space to act like international waters - as long as...
Everything past the troposphere.
I kid! Basically, space would require a world government organization of some kind but, barring that, I expect space to act like international waters - as long as your shit doesn't interact with or threaten my shit we leave each other alone.
The part I think he's talking about regulating is a specific agency for the bits above America but under the exosphere.
America: "Everything the light touches... is our kingdom." In practice, I imagine it would just regulate launches that take off from US territories. One of the bigger concerns would be launch...
America: "Everything the light touches... is our kingdom."
In practice, I imagine it would just regulate launches that take off from US territories. One of the bigger concerns would be launch failures and their potential to cause damage or harm. If that happened from another country, it would be more likely to be an act of war than a civil enforcement action.
Not sure that “regulatory overreach” is actually the issue, but I think it’s become clear that the FAA isn’t well equipped to move at the pace that younger aerospace companies want to or to handle...
Not sure that “regulatory overreach” is actually the issue, but I think it’s become clear that the FAA isn’t well equipped to move at the pace that younger aerospace companies want to or to handle rapid iterative development in the vein of the Apollo program. They’re instead built to handle the much more lethargic processes of Boeing, ULA, etc.
So I could see splitting space duties off into another agency (as suggested by OBLIVIATOR) or an initiative to revamp the FAA and better fund it, but I’m not sure about suing it for overreach.
Or: these newer aerospace companies are being irresponsible and need to be slowed down and have even more regulatory oversight. These latest fines are over their knowing defiance of licensing and...
Or: these newer aerospace companies are being irresponsible and need to be slowed down and have even more regulatory oversight.
These latest fines are over their knowing defiance of licensing and failing to disclose that Texas and federal environmental agencies have cited them for toxic runoff from their launchpad water deluge system, and that they've essentially refused to correct the problem.
I haven't dug into it but have seen some say that the Texas issue was misreported and has its roots in the wrong (more restrictive) form being filed, which if true is still a screwup on SpaceX's...
I haven't dug into it but have seen some say that the Texas issue was misreported and has its roots in the wrong (more restrictive) form being filed, which if true is still a screwup on SpaceX's part but not nearly as dire.
Either way, I think there's still room to improve things on the FAA's side. As it is, the system is very centered on one-off interactions which doesn't work well with ongoing projects — it's better suited for firing off the odd approval every now and then, but in R&D of cutting edge anything everything is constantly in flux, which in this system translates to an unending stream of approval requests which easily overwhelms the regulatory body and inflates the requestor's timelines many times beyond what they strictly need to be.
What's needed is a more agile process that moves in lockstep with projects and can make tweaks as needed without the massive overhead of separately filed requests. Instead of the regulatory agency spinning everything up and down per request, they keep an "open account" for the project that enables many requests to be resolved somewhere between a day and a week. Of course this is resource intensive, so this should probably cost the private company a significant sum, but it should at least be an option.
You know your arguement was pretty much Titan (the sub)’s company’s complaint (that regulations slow down progress). And look where that got them. There is a saying, regulations are written in...
You know your arguement was pretty much Titan (the sub)’s company’s complaint (that regulations slow down progress). And look where that got them.
There is a saying, regulations are written in blood. Yes they slow things down. But they are there to make sure the company pays attention to making sure to pay attention to known problems.
My argument isn't that there should be less regulation or for processes to be "cheated" somehow. That's not a reasonable argument to make, especially for rocket launches where the number of things...
My argument isn't that there should be less regulation or for processes to be "cheated" somehow. That's not a reasonable argument to make, especially for rocket launches where the number of things that can go catastrophically wrong is so high.
Instead, what I'm getting at is that the FAA simply isn't built to handle hardware-rich research and development, probably because it hasn't needed to be for so long — the last time the US did anything resembling what SpaceX is attempting with Starship was with the Apollo program. Since then, up until just a few years ago, development of spacecraft and launch vehicles had slowed to a crawl. For decades, the FAA only had to deal with a tiny handful of space-related requests per year.
My argument is that the FAA should get the funding required to be able to make its operations surrounding spacecraft and rocketry much more robust, well-supported, and efficient so that it can handle a constant stream of requests from companies like SpaceX without getting inundated. If there were for example teams dedicated to higher profile companies (potentially at the expense of the company), those teams would be able to start working on requests the moment they come in and process them much more quickly since they're not having to juggle unrelated requests from elsewhere and can move in lockstep with the company's R&D.
Additionally, slow isn't necessarily more safe, as we've seen with Boeing's beleaguered Starliner capsule. It was delivered late to begin with and has experienced many times the number of serious issues that SpaceX's Dragon has. At this point it's so bad that by the time everything is fixed, NASA might only get 1-2 crewed launches out of the Starliner contract before the International Space Station is decommissioned.
Seems like another typical Musk hissy fit to me. Combined with his tendency to try and skirt or stretch rules where he can get away with it.
From the article:
Also:
Some judge should just toss his ass in jail for a few weeks for repeatedly wasting court time. It would happen to any non multibillionaire who repeatedly filed frivolous suits and harassed government agencies.
Also, rocket propellants are no joke. Considering the environmental claims are that their launchpad "water deluge system" is causing unsafe runoff, I suspect they deserve a far larger fine. What are the odds of them getting hydrazine in that water, do you think? Googling, the reports show at least 100x what Texas considers to be problematic levels of mercury in the soil.
They don't use hydrazine, starship is powered by LOX and methane, both of which are relatively safe (definitely much safer than hydrazine)
I guess I never thought about the FAA having control over private space companies but it makes sense. I wonder if we'll see a space specific federal organization soon? Kinda like space force but for civilian enforcement
FAA is involved because you have to go through airspace to get to space. Space launches have to coordinate with aviation.
How would you decide which bits of space belong to America?
Everything past the troposphere.
I kid! Basically, space would require a world government organization of some kind but, barring that, I expect space to act like international waters - as long as your shit doesn't interact with or threaten my shit we leave each other alone.
The part I think he's talking about regulating is a specific agency for the bits above America but under the exosphere.
America: "Everything the light touches... is our kingdom."
In practice, I imagine it would just regulate launches that take off from US territories. One of the bigger concerns would be launch failures and their potential to cause damage or harm. If that happened from another country, it would be more likely to be an act of war than a civil enforcement action.
Not sure that “regulatory overreach” is actually the issue, but I think it’s become clear that the FAA isn’t well equipped to move at the pace that younger aerospace companies want to or to handle rapid iterative development in the vein of the Apollo program. They’re instead built to handle the much more lethargic processes of Boeing, ULA, etc.
So I could see splitting space duties off into another agency (as suggested by OBLIVIATOR) or an initiative to revamp the FAA and better fund it, but I’m not sure about suing it for overreach.
Or: these newer aerospace companies are being irresponsible and need to be slowed down and have even more regulatory oversight.
These latest fines are over their knowing defiance of licensing and failing to disclose that Texas and federal environmental agencies have cited them for toxic runoff from their launchpad water deluge system, and that they've essentially refused to correct the problem.
I haven't dug into it but have seen some say that the Texas issue was misreported and has its roots in the wrong (more restrictive) form being filed, which if true is still a screwup on SpaceX's part but not nearly as dire.
Either way, I think there's still room to improve things on the FAA's side. As it is, the system is very centered on one-off interactions which doesn't work well with ongoing projects — it's better suited for firing off the odd approval every now and then, but in R&D of cutting edge anything everything is constantly in flux, which in this system translates to an unending stream of approval requests which easily overwhelms the regulatory body and inflates the requestor's timelines many times beyond what they strictly need to be.
What's needed is a more agile process that moves in lockstep with projects and can make tweaks as needed without the massive overhead of separately filed requests. Instead of the regulatory agency spinning everything up and down per request, they keep an "open account" for the project that enables many requests to be resolved somewhere between a day and a week. Of course this is resource intensive, so this should probably cost the private company a significant sum, but it should at least be an option.
You know your arguement was pretty much Titan (the sub)’s company’s complaint (that regulations slow down progress). And look where that got them.
There is a saying, regulations are written in blood. Yes they slow things down. But they are there to make sure the company pays attention to making sure to pay attention to known problems.
My argument isn't that there should be less regulation or for processes to be "cheated" somehow. That's not a reasonable argument to make, especially for rocket launches where the number of things that can go catastrophically wrong is so high.
Instead, what I'm getting at is that the FAA simply isn't built to handle hardware-rich research and development, probably because it hasn't needed to be for so long — the last time the US did anything resembling what SpaceX is attempting with Starship was with the Apollo program. Since then, up until just a few years ago, development of spacecraft and launch vehicles had slowed to a crawl. For decades, the FAA only had to deal with a tiny handful of space-related requests per year.
My argument is that the FAA should get the funding required to be able to make its operations surrounding spacecraft and rocketry much more robust, well-supported, and efficient so that it can handle a constant stream of requests from companies like SpaceX without getting inundated. If there were for example teams dedicated to higher profile companies (potentially at the expense of the company), those teams would be able to start working on requests the moment they come in and process them much more quickly since they're not having to juggle unrelated requests from elsewhere and can move in lockstep with the company's R&D.
Additionally, slow isn't necessarily more safe, as we've seen with Boeing's beleaguered Starliner capsule. It was delivered late to begin with and has experienced many times the number of serious issues that SpaceX's Dragon has. At this point it's so bad that by the time everything is fixed, NASA might only get 1-2 crewed launches out of the Starliner contract before the International Space Station is decommissioned.
Can this guy relax for like one month