SpaceX's Starship won't be licensed to fly again until late November, FAA says

[Admin]

SpaceX's Starship likely won't be able to fly again until late November at the earliest, because the FAA and partner agencies need more time for licensing reviews.

SpaceX's Starship won't be licensed to fly again until late November, FAA says : Read more

 

[VladOk]

all this is great but we still need to stop the sabotage, otherwise we won't get to Mars or even the Moon)...
China doesn't suffer from this nonsense and bureaucracy. They will be the first on the moon with a copy of Starship)

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This is the kind of obstructionism that occurs under our regulatory framework and has convinced so many manufacturers to take their production processes outside the U.S. It is costing the country money and jobs, both impacting the quality of life in the U.S.

The aggravating thing is that residential and commercial development is doing far more damage to ecosystems than actual manufacturing.

Sure, we need regulations to prevent unscrupulous people from dumping poisons in our environment, but even that is not guaranteed by legal review processes. Corruption has allowed hazardous wastes to be secretly dumped near my home by criminals who contracted to dispose of it properly and legally, elsewhere. That is where government needs to put its resources to protect the public and the ecosystem. But, having a process that can be administratively abused to interminably delay efforts that are eventually found to be OK is hurting us, too.

 

[m4n8tpr8b]

This is neither obstructionism nor sabotage, this is a private company riding roughshod over environmental protection, changing its plans ad-hoc, and then blaming authorities for doing their job, which they should have considered in their planning.

Meanwhile, Elon is again talking about Mars, rather than about meeting benchmarks for his HLS contract (which, paid in advance of the actual Artemis missions to the most part, pays for most of his development effort, which now includes a complete redesign of the rocket due to unmet payload expectations). And the technical issue I see as most critical, reflight from the lunar surface (after potential damage to the engines from a powered landing), isn't even a NASA benchmark.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This is neither obstructionism nor sabotage, this is a private company riding roughshod over environmental protection, changing its plans ad-hoc, and then blaming authorities for doing their job, which they should have considered in their planning.

That is not correct. The FAA has known about SpaceX plans for years and should have some strategy already in-mind for addressing the steps that they know are coming. And, maybe they do and are just slow.

The real obstruction is on the "environmental impact" assessment, and is being driven by people who want to damage if not destroy the whole project. Musk has made direct criticisms about the inappropriateness of the specific objections that have been raised by "citizens" who oppose his project. But he has been met with the type of generalized response statements from the FAA that are designed to not reveal any real issues while insinuating that there are real issues. Having worked for a regulatory agency that did that sort of thing, I know the "smell".

Please explain how the discharge of water from the launch flame suppression system is an environmental problem. Please describe how much "more area" is "impacted" by what types of impacts on what types of areas. Are we talking about louder sonic booms over marshlands, or errant superheavy boosters landing in downtown Boca Chica and bursting into flames?

If the FAA wants some credibility, it needs to describe a real issue that needs some real analysis that takes some real additional time. So far, their responses have been looking like they are just dodging the criticisms for being the slowest part of the development process.

 

[trailrider]

That is not correct. The FAA has known about SpaceX plans for years and should have some strategy already in-mind for addressing the steps that they know are coming. And, maybe they do and are just slow.

The real obstruction is on the "environmental impact" assessment, and is being driven by people who want to damage if not destroy the whole project. Musk has made direct criticisms about the inappropriateness of the specific objections that have been raised by "citizens" who oppose his project. But he has been met with the type of generalized response statements from the FAA that are designed to not reveal any real issues while insinuating that there are real issues. Having worked for a regulatory agency that did that sort of thing, I know the "smell".

Please explain how the discharge of water from the launch flame suppression system is an environmental problem. Please describe how much "more area" is "impacted" by what types of impacts on what types of areas. Are we talking about louder sonic booms over marshlands, or errant superheavy boosters landing in downtown Boca Chica and bursting into flames?

If the FAA wants some credibility, it needs to describe a real issue that needs some real analysis that takes some real additional time. So far, their responses have been looking like they are just dodging the criticisms for being the slowest part of the development process.

The FAA needs to concentrate on the "Aviation" portion of their charter, like insuring ground control conflicts do not result in worse incidents than one commercial airliner knocking the tail off another on the ground. And near misses by one airliner taking off with another near or on the runway.

Certainly such delays must make some prospective competitors smile, since they don't seem to be catching up to Musk & company anytime soon. Not naming any names, of course. Just saying...

 

[Charlie Taylor]

That is not correct. The FAA has known about SpaceX plans for years and should have some strategy already in-mind for addressing the steps that they know are coming. And, maybe they do and are just slow.

The real obstruction is on the "environmental impact" assessment, and is being driven by people who want to damage if not destroy the whole project. Musk has made direct criticisms about the inappropriateness of the specific objections that have been raised by "citizens" who oppose his project. But he has been met with the type of generalized response statements from the FAA that are designed to not reveal any real issues while insinuating that there are real issues. Having worked for a regulatory agency that did that sort of thing, I know the "smell".

Please explain how the discharge of water from the launch flame suppression system is an environmental problem. Please describe how much "more area" is "impacted" by what types of impacts on what types of areas. Are we talking about louder sonic booms over marshlands, or errant superheavy boosters landing in downtown Boca Chica and bursting into flames?

If the FAA wants some credibility, it needs to describe a real issue that needs some real analysis that takes some real additional time. So far, their responses have been looking like they are just dodging the criticisms for being the slowest part of the development process.

>be me, FAA guy
>some rando asks you for a permit to fly his rocket
>approved 4 of them before
>75% of them have exploded
>rando has reputation for moving fast and breaking things
>doesn't do best practices like water deluge until seeing something break/explode without it
>wants to dramatically change vehicle configuration and trajectory rather than demonstrate repeatability of not exploding
>new trajectory calls for booster return to pad
>pad is surrounded by massive tank farm of methane and oxygen
>unclear how much propellant will be in tank farm at launch
>over 10k people live within five miles of pad
>thousands of spectators will come to see launch
>pad is located in wildlife refuge
>nonzero likelihood of mass casualty event
>nearest hospital is over 20 miles away
>must protect uninvolved public

 

[Unclear Engineer]

All of that is not new information. SpaceX launch system development plans have been known for a long time. And the actual safety review is apparently not what is holding up the license.

The "environmental" impact assessment is the apparent holdup.

But, discharging some of the drinking water quality water used for protecting the pad from heat and blast is not "industrial waste water" in the normal toxic contaminant sense of the words. Show me the impacts on the environment that are so damaging that this must be stopped.

Plus, hearing sonic booms "over a wider area" is not an issue for the environment. Show we what damaging effects they will create for the ecosystem.

Show me real environmental issues if you want some credibility.

So far, I have not heard of any.

The discharges and ecosystem encroachments by all of those local people you mentioned are far more deleterious to the natural environment than what SpaceX is doing. Even the ecosystem around Chernobyl seems to have actually benefited from that major nuclear accident, because the human inhabitants were removed from the contaminated areas. So, humans are more "toxic" to the natural ecosystem than the radioactivity. And, humans want the area around Boca Chica for their playground, not for a do-not-enter biological preserve of the natural ecosystem. When they water their grass, with the fertilizer and weed killer chemicals they have applied to it, they are likely "releasing" more deleterious chemicals into the environment than what is in the water that SpaceX releasing from the pad cooling system.

 

[Philly]

There is a simple solution. Announce that he had to Layoff all Texas workers for 2+ months, because he is spilling drinking water on the ground and disturbing bird nests during non-matting season. Do this before a big election and watch the politicians all freak out. He will have his license in a day or 2.