FAA creating new committee to update launch regulations

[Admin]

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is creating a new committee to review and update its "Part 450" launch and reentry licensing rule.

FAA creating new committee to update launch regulations : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I read that the FAA has had this "in the works" since before the Presidential election.

But, it would have helped if they had at least announced it before the election.

Now, they have the prospect of being subjected to governmental direction by the person from industry with whom they have been arguing about their lack of timeliness and excessive bureaucracy.

Realistically, I don't thing an advisory board can complete the task before the Administration changes.

 

[fj.torres]

I read that the FAA has had this "in the works" since before the Presidential election.

But, it would have helped if they had at least announced it before the election.

Now, they have the prospect of being subjected to governmental direction by the person from industry with whom they have been arguing about their lack of timeliness and excessive bureaucracy.

Realistically, I don't thing an advisory board can complete the task before the Administration changes.

Even if they do, it won't do them any good. The FAA is in line to lose its space launch/reentry regulation authority.

Odds are that responsibility will be transferred to the Space National Guard.

Space National Guard - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Probably with co-located offices at launch sites and tasked with security as well as interfacing with Space Command, ATC , and Coast Guard if relevant. And doing Incident investigations themselves, instead of relying on the for profit companies. Despite the name, their duties should more closely parallel the Coast Guard.

It's pretty clear that FAA has neither the competence nor the inclination to be unbiased monitors of the nation's access to space. As proven by their wacky requests of SpaceX ("kidnapping" seals? Donating to environmental activist orgs?)

Might as well turn it over to the military, just like ports and coasts are the province of the coast guard. And with launches well on the way to hundreds a year from a half dozen companies and sites, the FAA culture is not a match.

 

[24launch]

Unfortunately the FAA has long been underfunded and understaffed and like anything, suddenly hiring more people isn't going to instantly fix it.

Part 450 was indeed intended to streamline the launch regulation process but there were numerous complaints by rocket companies other than SpaceX (ie: Rocket Lab) that even now, 3 years later, much of the process hadn't been fully documented yet. So when filling out a launch application it required continual back & forth emails and phone calls to get clarification on different parts of the application.

It also didn't help that the SAME information was required in different places and often in different units. This caused that big fiasco with the environmental analysis on the SpaceX deluge system where one part required the contaminants listed in PPM and another section in something like micrograms per Kiloliter and that's where SpaceX mucked up the numbers that got everyone in a tizzy, which then hit the anti-SpaceX media (yeah, you WSJ, Forbes & WaPO) and then along comes the EPA gestapo.

Whether they had been planning this new again process for a while or not, they need to get cracking or they will bypassed. I think they are an extremely important oversight organization. We all know for-profit companies can NOT self-regulate (just look at the Oil & Coal industries!) and as much as I love SpaceX and want to see Starship launches as often as Falcon launches, there has to be at least a modicum of rules and regulations.

Ad Astra!

 

[fj.torres]

Launch sites need to be monitored and regulated but by somebody competent, independent, and unbiased. The evidence says it is not the FAA or EPA or any bureaucratic responsive to lobbyists. (C.f. ULA/White House emails.)

A military branch would be preferable, one that doesn't exist solely to regulate but that regulates in response to a broader mission. Again, like the coast Guard.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Thinking about the military history of toxic chemical problems, for instance the burn pits in Afghanistan and the water supply in Camp Lejeune, I am not seeing the military as proper guardians of the environment or personnel safety.

And industry does not have a great track record, either.

As for being "responsive to lobbyists", nothing is completely immune. I worked in an agency that was specifically set up in a manner to minimize political interference - and it is not a very low "minimum" level.

I would not be adverse to seeing the mission stay within the FAA umbrella, but I think it needs its own head of operations, its own regulations, and its own budget, as well as separate personnel.

 

[fj.torres]

Thinking about the military history of toxic chemical problems, for instance the burn pits in Afghanistan and the water supply in Camp Lejeune, I am not seeing the military as proper guardians of the environment or personnel safety.

And industry does not have a great track record, either.

As for being "responsive to lobbyists", nothing is completely immune. I worked in an agency that was specifically set up in a manner to minimize political interference - and it is not a very low "minimum" level.

I would not be adverse to seeing the mission stay within the FAA umbrella, but I think it needs its own head of operations, its own regulations, and its own budget, as well as separate personnel.

At which point it would not be FAA except in name.
And since the Space National Guard is going to be created anyway, giving them the responsibility for sites they will be detailed to *anyway*...

Do you have any issue with the coast guard?
Or the Army Corps of Engineers?
Or the state national guards?
All are mission driven orgs, which is not always the case with FAA in the space arena.

Even NASA has less than clean hands in the influence game; witness the SLS mess or the ongoing drama over the ORION heat shield which they admit to knowing but refuse to discuss to (by their own admission) avoid embarrassing somebody.
(Gee, could it be poor quality control in cooking the shield material?)

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Yes, there are issues with the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers and even various state-directed national guard units. I don't think you will be able to find a perfect agency, anywhere.

As for "At which point it would not be FAA except in name," that is my point. It really does need a break from the existing FAA structure. But, where to put it? None of the 3 groups you listed knows anything about the issues involved in space launches, other than clearing the areas that somebody has determined might get dangerous. How to prevent those dangerous things from happening is not in their areas of expertise.

So, I think the proper agency culture will need to be built from the ground up. But, that won't start with educating kindergarten children - it will begin with transfers and hiring. The important point is to get a good architect for building the program, so an appropriate culture and expertise assortment can be acquired and applied with an appropriate fresh mandate.

The regulatory agency that I once worked for had a lot of "rules of thumb" as well as archaic regulations that I was involved with updating and replacing to more realistically address risks and avoid pursuing trivia. I have had almost zero involvement with the FAA, but reading the news stories indicates to me that they have some similar problems with addressing the realities of space program and facility development.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

"The Part 450 rules went into effect in March 2021 after an accelerated rulemaking process prompted by the first Trump administration’s Space Policy Directive 2. The regulations were intended to streamline launch and reentry licensing, but many companies have reported problems applying for licenses under the new rules."

"Speaking at the 31st Annual Baron Investment Conference Nov. 15, Gwynne Shotwell, president and chief operating officer of SpaceX, revealed that the company has been unable to get a Part 450 reentry license for its Dragon spacecraft despite its extensive flight history."

I saw the same resistance to change where I once worked in a regulatory bureaucracy. Too many of the bureaucrats know the procedure they were indoctrinated with, and don't know how to approach the issues in any different manner.

 

[fj.torres]

Third time and I'll go away:

The Space Force by now should have enough institutional about space infrastructure and practice to spin-off a Space (National) Guard. And one will be created. Soon.

Space National Guard - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The incoming administration is in favor and so is a strong portion of congress.
The biggest objection is from governors jealous of protecting their perks over the state national guards. Few if any of which will be involved. Except for California, all the involved states are aligned to the incoming administration and anything that accelerates space business means jobs for those states. So the needs, the solution, and the politics align.

This isn't just an issue for SpaceX.
Blue Origin, Relativity, ULA, and pretty much anybody involved in commercial space wants it. It'll happen.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Why would it be a good idea to put approval of something like space flights, that necessarily crosses not only state lines, but national boundaries, into a bunch of state government controlled entities?

We need a streamlined national system that looks at the total effects of a launch on public safety inside and outside our country and makes a consolidated decision on approval or disapproval.

Getting the state governments involved is a recipe for paralysis due to political infighting between states and with the Federal government. We are seeing plenty of that type of politics already on other issues.

And there is no magic in the military decision making process. I have seen first hand how that plays out in civilian bureaucracy. It did not improve "efficiency".

A national civilian agency with a clear mandate to protect public safety and make decisions with a clear basis in a prompt manner is what makes sense. The question is how to achieve that, given the currently entrenched and politicized positions among the relevant players.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

From another source: https://spacenews.com/the-californi...t-spacex-launches-threatens-national-defense/ .

Putting decisions about launches from individual spaceports into the hands of the individual states where the spaceports are located is not a way to avoid political interference, and is the sure way to multiply the bureaucratic issues by the number of different state bureaucracies that can come up with their own rules, procedures and personnel ego conflicts.