SpaceX update regarding Starship FAA flight approval(spacex.com)
spacex.com
SpaceX update regarding Starship FAA flight approval
https://www.spacex.com/updates/#starships-fly
303 comments
It's absurd how these licenses are not fast-tracked by the government. This is one of the greatest technological assets the US have over other nations. It boggles my mind how the US government is shooting itself in the foot here if you compare it against other national security projects run by the government itself.
There are environmental concerns, I get it, but this feels a little bit like delaying the Manhattan project for a year because the test detonation would endanger some birds in the desert.
The environmental concerns are illegitimate though, the probability of hitting a sea creature is so vanishingly small.
Where's the outrage around the thousands of container ships that burn the dirtiest crude oil and dump their waste into the ocean? Or all the airliners killing birds?
Let's be real, this isn't environmental concerns, it's a way to punish Musk for his political stance.
Where's the outrage around the thousands of container ships that burn the dirtiest crude oil and dump their waste into the ocean? Or all the airliners killing birds?
Let's be real, this isn't environmental concerns, it's a way to punish Musk for his political stance.
Maybe it's not about birds if it's about nukes.
Nor was it about the people down wind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders
The Manhattan project was about winning a war. Is there any comparable pressing issue here?
Ukrainian Generals admitted they would have lost by now without starlink.
We're in a very small window in the battle against climate change where people are even allowed to spend money on space programs.
In a few decades at our current rate we're going to see so many natural disasters and mass migrations that the general populace will be far more concerned about food and water for the populace than wasting it on extravagances like space, and then we may end up all dying on this rock.
Once we're able to successfully mine minerals from space and have some hope for colonizing other planets the game changes, because people could see it as a lifeline rather than a waste.
In a few decades at our current rate we're going to see so many natural disasters and mass migrations that the general populace will be far more concerned about food and water for the populace than wasting it on extravagances like space, and then we may end up all dying on this rock.
Once we're able to successfully mine minerals from space and have some hope for colonizing other planets the game changes, because people could see it as a lifeline rather than a waste.
The most obvious pressure would be China's space exploration program. If it turns out that there's useful stuff outside our atmosphere, America doesn't want their economic rival in control of it.
Also - if our species doesn't make it off-planet before the current one is rendered uninhabitable, it's curtains for us all. So that's a pressure of a sort.
Also - if our species doesn't make it off-planet before the current one is rendered uninhabitable, it's curtains for us all. So that's a pressure of a sort.
There's nothing useful out there, except for the high ground and vantage point. All satellites that make money or have military value are pointed at Earth.
If you're right, we're all dead. Maybe within a few hundred years, probably under a thousand.
If you're wrong, but enough people believe you're right in the spirit of maximising quarterly returns, then we're all dead on the same timeline.
The only path to survival as a species is to work out how to do space exploration. I'm hoping to find water on the moon and mars as the next step, and to find it within the next few years.
If you're wrong, but enough people believe you're right in the spirit of maximising quarterly returns, then we're all dead on the same timeline.
The only path to survival as a species is to work out how to do space exploration. I'm hoping to find water on the moon and mars as the next step, and to find it within the next few years.
All the rarest minerals on Earth, including the ones which gravitated toward Earth's core while the planet was molten, are present in asteroids.
That's what they told Columbus.
No, they didn't.
Columbus thought he could find a fast route to Asia because he grossly underestimated the circumference of the Earth. Spain was advised of this (the more correct circumference derived by Eratosthenes was commonly known), and only funded Columbus on the off chance that if he might stumble across something of value, they would rather that belong to Spain than a rival power. It was a cheap gamble for Spain at the time.
Columbus thought he could find a fast route to Asia because he grossly underestimated the circumference of the Earth. Spain was advised of this (the more correct circumference derived by Eratosthenes was commonly known), and only funded Columbus on the off chance that if he might stumble across something of value, they would rather that belong to Spain than a rival power. It was a cheap gamble for Spain at the time.
[deleted]
Absolutely. Being able to get mass to orbit at orders of magnitude less cost than competing nations (China, Russia, India, ...) is of paramount strategic importance. This touches communications, intelligence, space exploration, orbital resource extraction, moon bases and all sorts of other things that have tremendous economic, military and societal impact.
Sure, but we were on the clock against Germany. Are there similar pressures today?
Put differently: what's the strategic impact of a 2 month delay?
Put differently: what's the strategic impact of a 2 month delay?
China is second in mass to orbit after SpaceX. All others amount to a rounding error. There are currently a couple dozen Chinese startups working to build reusable orbital class rockets. Launches or test fires every week. No other country has an active program to build a reusable launch stage. It's not a hot war... yet. One might call it a cold war.
Isn't that the issue? We are not on the clock anymore, until China actually blows past us, we can just keep delaying everything.
It's not just a one time thing. These delays are recurring.
That's what you get when the Congress is too divided to pass laws, while the Supreme Court keeps telling the executive branch to stop inventing new interpretations of existing laws. If nobody is capable of setting national priorities, regulators just keep doing whatever they are doing.
What are the national priorities in the US right now?
In the last SOTU address, I gather to Biden one of them was healthcare/limiting pharma prices.
In the last SOTU address, I gather to Biden one of them was healthcare/limiting pharma prices.
I'm not convinced new legislation is even needed to fix this. All of these agencies are controlled by the executive branch of the government.
I'm not convinced it is a problem, more like regulators doing their job.
You don't see it as a problem that it takes five months to reaffirm that the equivalent of rain is in fact okay to leak into the ocean?
You could argue that their job is to get this approved ASAP if it's in the interest of the nation.
Regulators can't even keep doing what they're doing, because what they were doing was publishing rules to resolve ambiguities in legislation, and now the Court system has preempted that privilege. Loper-Bright has turned the existing body of regulations into a target-rich environment. Every agency rule can be challenged, possibly overturned, applying retroactively.
Libertarians may cheer at this, but not so fast. The edge cases and particulars of laws aren't abolished, they're just fuzzy. You can't be sure you're complying with the law, even if the regulatory body says you're in the clear. You're at the mercy of judges who know nothing about the field they're ruling over. The chaos of legal uncertainty will grind the permitting of new technologies to a halt, as the regulators wait for Congress or the Courts to clarify how old laws apply to new circumstances before issuing any licenses.
Remember Oracle v. Google? How octogenarian Justices struggled to understand what an API was, when they could barely open their email? Imagine that, applied to the entire US code.
Libertarians may cheer at this, but not so fast. The edge cases and particulars of laws aren't abolished, they're just fuzzy. You can't be sure you're complying with the law, even if the regulatory body says you're in the clear. You're at the mercy of judges who know nothing about the field they're ruling over. The chaos of legal uncertainty will grind the permitting of new technologies to a halt, as the regulators wait for Congress or the Courts to clarify how old laws apply to new circumstances before issuing any licenses.
Remember Oracle v. Google? How octogenarian Justices struggled to understand what an API was, when they could barely open their email? Imagine that, applied to the entire US code.
Remember Oracle v. Google? How octogenarian Justices struggled to understand what an API was, when they could barely open their email? Imagine that, applied to the entire US code.
It's basically this in a nutshell, except that far-right activists intend to use the same 3 justices in Texas to reinterpret all federal regulations.
It's basically this in a nutshell, except that far-right activists intend to use the same 3 justices in Texas to reinterpret all federal regulations.
You do realize this is a government funded project right? If the government wants to delay it by 2 months for environmental reasons, they can. It's not like Musk is paying for this himself and they are getting in the way.
They have had years to apply for the permits, no fast tracking was necessary, they just didn't feel like doing it.
> have had years to apply for the permits
In the way they have time to apply for licenses for an eventual Mars landing, yes. The practical timer started with IFT-4.
In the way they have time to apply for licenses for an eventual Mars landing, yes. The practical timer started with IFT-4.
What are you talking about? They knew or should have known they would need these permits for years. ESGHound pointed it out years ago. This isn't a surprise that was dropped on them. Every other launch facility somehow managed to do it without any significant problems.
> knew or should have known they would need these permits for years
Link to the ESGHound source?
Link to the ESGHound source?
Thank you. Not getting the NPDES permit does seem like something they had time to do. Still confused why this is an FAA issue. (Is there any indication these are what is causing the delay?)
As I said in another comment if it were otherwise everyone would ignore all the other laws to get a launch permit.
If you read esghound's Twitter/threads he argues that the violations are so serious/done-in-bad-faith/contrary-to-submitted-paperwork that they would require a significant redo of the environmental impact permitting. In particular the FAA initially ruled that there was a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and they did not require a (time-consuming) environmental impact statement (EIS). Esghound argues that they will legally need to complete an EIS which will take months. I wouldn't necessarily bet on that given how powerful Musk is.
https://x.com/ESGhound/status/1833544766019276923
If you read esghound's Twitter/threads he argues that the violations are so serious/done-in-bad-faith/contrary-to-submitted-paperwork that they would require a significant redo of the environmental impact permitting. In particular the FAA initially ruled that there was a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and they did not require a (time-consuming) environmental impact statement (EIS). Esghound argues that they will legally need to complete an EIS which will take months. I wouldn't necessarily bet on that given how powerful Musk is.
https://x.com/ESGhound/status/1833544766019276923
dotnet00(1)
> the world’s most visibly divorced man
What does this even mean?
Sounds like a really unbiased source.
What does this even mean?
Sounds like a really unbiased source.
ESGHound is notoriously deranged. He lost a bunch of money shorting Tesla years back and has been on the warpath ever since.
I think you are right to ignore the ad-hominems and stick to the facts he presented.
The pure vitriol and ad hominems ensure that facts against their narrative will not be presented.
I'm sure you are intelligent enough to read his arguments and then go search out contradicting arguments and figure out for yourself which make more sense.
His arguments like this?
https://x.com/esghound/status/1511730625333665799
He's worthless as a source and not worth paying attention to.
https://x.com/esghound/status/1511730625333665799
He's worthless as a source and not worth paying attention to.
That's funny because he predicted that they were in violation of the Clean Water Act a year ago, while people like you kept saying it was bullshit. It seems like there is definitely someone not worth listening to but it isn't him.
They need to apply for a license for each launch.
People really love SpaceX and Tesla on HN. It is generally difficult to present a counter-opinion. Even with good evidence.
I’m not sure why that is. Techno-optimism perhaps.
I’m not sure why that is. Techno-optimism perhaps.
The arguments seem to be that SpaceX ought to have used their time machines to go back several years to request a permit for something they've only just now started doing, something new and unique never before done by the entire human race.
"Why did you not know the results of your tests and the outcome of your multi-year R&D project a decade ago!? Are you incompetent?" -- said by someone unable read a few dozen pages of text faster than 60 days.
"Why did you not know the results of your tests and the outcome of your multi-year R&D project a decade ago!? Are you incompetent?" -- said by someone unable read a few dozen pages of text faster than 60 days.
They did not have years to apply for anything. You can't apply for something you don't know you were planning to do. Also the FAA is overloaded and can't handle applications for all possible plans. So they need to pick and choose and if plans change because of new developments then they need to apply again.
The first Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 2014.
> At times, these roadblocks have been driven by false and misleading reporting, built on bad-faith hysterics from online detractors or special interest groups who have presented poorly constructed science as fact.
People reading this should remember that Flight 1 was preceded by hysterics from online detractors who predicted, correctly, that the launch would make a giant mess. The FAA ignored them and allowed the launch anyway. The Wikipedia article would like to remind us that it wasn’t a toxic mess, but it was still a mess.
Given the lack of any acknowledgement of that incident in this PR piece, I’m a bit disinclined to fully trust it. And I can certainly see why regulators would like to give stakeholders 60 days to comment on what might go wrong, since SpaceX’s history of predicting what will go wrong with Starship launches is a bit tarnished.
People reading this should remember that Flight 1 was preceded by hysterics from online detractors who predicted, correctly, that the launch would make a giant mess. The FAA ignored them and allowed the launch anyway. The Wikipedia article would like to remind us that it wasn’t a toxic mess, but it was still a mess.
Given the lack of any acknowledgement of that incident in this PR piece, I’m a bit disinclined to fully trust it. And I can certainly see why regulators would like to give stakeholders 60 days to comment on what might go wrong, since SpaceX’s history of predicting what will go wrong with Starship launches is a bit tarnished.
Flight 1 made a mess of their own launch pad. Why is that the concern of anyone besides SpaceX? They refurbished and reinforced it for flight 2.
It's not clear to me exactly how far the mess extended, but this seems well past "their own launch pad":
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/12v7qsp/view_of_the...
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/12v7qsp/view_of_the...
The video is of cars parked next to the launch pad area, taken by remotely operated cameras. No one was endangered.
Also, as dramatic as it looks, it is hardly an environmental disaster. I daresay paving over the land with asphalt and concrete had a larger impact.
And there have already been several launches since then. Those went more smoothly and were not delayed. The reasons for the delay this time have nothing to do with this.
Also, as dramatic as it looks, it is hardly an environmental disaster. I daresay paving over the land with asphalt and concrete had a larger impact.
And there have already been several launches since then. Those went more smoothly and were not delayed. The reasons for the delay this time have nothing to do with this.
How quick your argument went from "what are you talking about, the only damage was to the launch pad" to "yeah, so it flung chunks of concrete into the ocean miles away, hit cars parked at the facility and stuff, but so what?"
I am not the previous commenter, and your description of the video is inaccurate.
The point that the launch did not cause major environmental issues remains true.
The fact that subsequent launches were approved demonstrates as such.
I would also point out that other rocket launches routinely dump their boosters containing solid or liquid fuel in the ocean.
The point that the launch did not cause major environmental issues remains true.
The fact that subsequent launches were approved demonstrates as such.
I would also point out that other rocket launches routinely dump their boosters containing solid or liquid fuel in the ocean.
> I am not the previous commenter
My apologies - that was an oversight on my part.
> The fact that subsequent launches were approved demonstrates as such.
No it doesn't. SpaceX made several changes to the launchpad and supporting structures. Implying that there were zero changes between that launch and the subsequent is not accurate.
My apologies - that was an oversight on my part.
> The fact that subsequent launches were approved demonstrates as such.
No it doesn't. SpaceX made several changes to the launchpad and supporting structures. Implying that there were zero changes between that launch and the subsequent is not accurate.
SpaceX did make changes to prevent damage to the launch pad in the future, true. I did not mean to suggest otherwise.
My point is that the "mess" the original comment complained about was not a major environmental issue, as they implied, and that it did not prevent subsequent launches from being approved.
My point is that the "mess" the original comment complained about was not a major environmental issue, as they implied, and that it did not prevent subsequent launches from being approved.
Because the damage to the launch pad could have damaged the rocket in a way which could have made it damage other people's property.
This is not true. The path of the rocket is carefully chosen so that an abort/explosion does not intersect with other people's property. It launches over the ocean.
Unless the guidance/steering systems are damaged, of course. Like by chunks of concrete hitting them that might otherwise have enough energy behind them to land a mile or two away in the ocean? Might that potentially affect the path of a rocket? If not, why not?
Are you forgetting about the abort system which self-destructs the rocket if/when that happens?
Didn't the abort system fail on the rocket that we're talking about? Or was that the one after?
Trajectory is planned such that the ballistic trajectory minimizes the probability it will hit land. So it is relatively safe even if the engines and abort system fails.
You can see the trajectory here and how they thread it through the Caribbean islands & Cuba.
https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2023/11/new-starship-launch...
You can see the trajectory here and how they thread it through the Caribbean islands & Cuba.
https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2023/11/new-starship-launch...
That is impossible. That's exactly why they built the launch site where they did, so that such an event is impossible.
Detractors have been at every step of the way, how do we know when to trust the detractors?
> People reading this should remember that Flight 1 was preceded by hysterics from online detractors who predicted, correctly, that the launch would make a giant mess.
People need to stop repeating this bad faith argument without providing facts.
No educated people were predicting disaster as a result of the launch. In fact NASA scientists said the damage was way worse than expected because of an unexpected ground water steam explosion.
People need to stop repeating this bad faith argument without providing facts.
No educated people were predicting disaster as a result of the launch. In fact NASA scientists said the damage was way worse than expected because of an unexpected ground water steam explosion.
> People reading this should remember that Flight 1 was preceded by hysterics from online detractors who predicted, correctly, that the launch would make a giant mess.
Does this "giant mess" matter in any practical way?
Does this "giant mess" matter in any practical way?
A bit tarnished with verified remediation is the regulatory framework we need to be aiming at precisely because a 60 day delay for a regulatory review process is an enormous cost on an operation of this scale.
Not at all. Elon wastes much more money on his "fuck around and find out" method of engineering^H^H^H accretion. A million monkeys could do it better and more cheaply.
R&D looks like wasted money, doesn’t it?
> give stakeholders 60 days to comment
I want to point out that while giving people time to comment sounds harmless, it's actually a systemic problem that's at the root of many issues.
Allowing special interest groups to delay development is a major reason why it's nearly impossible to build anything on time and on budget in the US.
If they don't cancel the project outright, or prevent it from starting in the first place via chilling effects, then the delays increase the price tag enormously.
Jerusalem Demsas at The Atlantic often writes about this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/local-gove...
> Development projects in the United States are subject to a process I like to call “whoever yells the loudest and longest wins.” Some refer to this as participatory democracy.
> Across the country, angry residents and neighborhood associations have the power to delay, reshape, and even halt entirely the construction of vital infrastructure. To put a fine point on it: Deference to community input is a big part of why the U.S. is suffering from a nearly 3.8-million-home shortage and has failed to build sufficient mass transit, and why renewable energy is lacking in even the most progressive states.
> . . .
> Every new development has so-called negative externalities: Construction is always annoying, trains can be loud and unsightly, wind farms may obstruct ocean views, and for some the simple knowledge that a nearby home is actually a duplex is enough to ruin the neighborhood character. Regardless of how valid you find any of these complaints, they should not by themselves be sufficient to block new projects, or else no mass transit, no new housing, no wind or solar farms could ever be installed.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/national-e...
> Signed into law in 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act and its state and local equivalents require federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of major projects before they sign off on them. Supporters argue that NEPA “empowers local communities to protect themselves and their environment.”
> But NEPA is more burdensome than it may sound. As the economist Eli Dourado has documented, environmental-impact statements were initially very short—just 10 pages, in some instances. But now they average more than 600 pages, include more than 1,000 pages of appendices, and take four and a half years on average to complete.
> How did this happen? Lawyers—the answer is always lawyers. Over time, the courts have embraced more and more expansive definitions of what these statements should cover. And lawyers—terrified of getting their clients caught up in lengthy court proceedings where a judge tells them they should have thought through the fourth- or fifth-order impacts of an apartment building—spend eons fleshing them out. The goal is not to mitigate environmental ill effects but to get an A+ for thoroughness.
> . . .
> Caution and deliberation are good in moderation, but waiting cannot relieve this uncertainty; it merely changes its form. Doing can cause harm, but not doing won’t preserve the world in amber. Neighborhoods in desirable communities that don’t build more housing see skyrocketing prices and demographic shifts toward high-income, white, and older residents. And nations that don’t build the necessary renewable-energy infrastructure will be subject to the very environmental degradation that 20th-century activists tried so hard to prevent.
> The unforeseen consequences of blocking change should weigh as heavily as the ones that come from allowing it. Those lost students, missing refugees, absent neighbors, and failed government projects may never intrude on our sight line or cause us frustration during our commutes, but they cost us all the same.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/environmen...
> Delays run up the cost of vital infrastructure and exert something like a chilling effect on new projects, as developers may not want to contend with the expensive legal battles that lie ahead. These laws have been used to stymie wind farms in Nantucket (residents dubiously claim that offshore wind kills whales), Martha’s Vineyard (the owner of the solar company that opposes the project lives near the proposed site part-time), and dozens of other purportedly progressive communities across the country.
> . . .
> Consider the way NEPA preemptively chills development or the fact that the delays themselves are costly. The economist Eli Dourado has studied NEPA’s failures for years, and he is skeptical that thoroughness and time spent should be read as a policy success: “If every review were done so thoroughly that it took 100 years to complete and the resulting lawsuit rate were zero, that would be a failure, not a success.” The problem is “the threat of litigation continuously increases the burden of NEPA review, rendering our agencies unable to make speedy decisions even in cases where it is obvious there is no significant environmental impact,” Dourado told me.
I want to point out that while giving people time to comment sounds harmless, it's actually a systemic problem that's at the root of many issues.
Allowing special interest groups to delay development is a major reason why it's nearly impossible to build anything on time and on budget in the US.
If they don't cancel the project outright, or prevent it from starting in the first place via chilling effects, then the delays increase the price tag enormously.
Jerusalem Demsas at The Atlantic often writes about this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/local-gove...
> Development projects in the United States are subject to a process I like to call “whoever yells the loudest and longest wins.” Some refer to this as participatory democracy.
> Across the country, angry residents and neighborhood associations have the power to delay, reshape, and even halt entirely the construction of vital infrastructure. To put a fine point on it: Deference to community input is a big part of why the U.S. is suffering from a nearly 3.8-million-home shortage and has failed to build sufficient mass transit, and why renewable energy is lacking in even the most progressive states.
> . . .
> Every new development has so-called negative externalities: Construction is always annoying, trains can be loud and unsightly, wind farms may obstruct ocean views, and for some the simple knowledge that a nearby home is actually a duplex is enough to ruin the neighborhood character. Regardless of how valid you find any of these complaints, they should not by themselves be sufficient to block new projects, or else no mass transit, no new housing, no wind or solar farms could ever be installed.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/national-e...
> Signed into law in 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act and its state and local equivalents require federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of major projects before they sign off on them. Supporters argue that NEPA “empowers local communities to protect themselves and their environment.”
> But NEPA is more burdensome than it may sound. As the economist Eli Dourado has documented, environmental-impact statements were initially very short—just 10 pages, in some instances. But now they average more than 600 pages, include more than 1,000 pages of appendices, and take four and a half years on average to complete.
> How did this happen? Lawyers—the answer is always lawyers. Over time, the courts have embraced more and more expansive definitions of what these statements should cover. And lawyers—terrified of getting their clients caught up in lengthy court proceedings where a judge tells them they should have thought through the fourth- or fifth-order impacts of an apartment building—spend eons fleshing them out. The goal is not to mitigate environmental ill effects but to get an A+ for thoroughness.
> . . .
> Caution and deliberation are good in moderation, but waiting cannot relieve this uncertainty; it merely changes its form. Doing can cause harm, but not doing won’t preserve the world in amber. Neighborhoods in desirable communities that don’t build more housing see skyrocketing prices and demographic shifts toward high-income, white, and older residents. And nations that don’t build the necessary renewable-energy infrastructure will be subject to the very environmental degradation that 20th-century activists tried so hard to prevent.
> The unforeseen consequences of blocking change should weigh as heavily as the ones that come from allowing it. Those lost students, missing refugees, absent neighbors, and failed government projects may never intrude on our sight line or cause us frustration during our commutes, but they cost us all the same.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/environmen...
> Delays run up the cost of vital infrastructure and exert something like a chilling effect on new projects, as developers may not want to contend with the expensive legal battles that lie ahead. These laws have been used to stymie wind farms in Nantucket (residents dubiously claim that offshore wind kills whales), Martha’s Vineyard (the owner of the solar company that opposes the project lives near the proposed site part-time), and dozens of other purportedly progressive communities across the country.
> . . .
> Consider the way NEPA preemptively chills development or the fact that the delays themselves are costly. The economist Eli Dourado has studied NEPA’s failures for years, and he is skeptical that thoroughness and time spent should be read as a policy success: “If every review were done so thoroughly that it took 100 years to complete and the resulting lawsuit rate were zero, that would be a failure, not a success.” The problem is “the threat of litigation continuously increases the burden of NEPA review, rendering our agencies unable to make speedy decisions even in cases where it is obvious there is no significant environmental impact,” Dourado told me.
Hilarious, we used to throw SRBs from the space shuttle in the ocean repeatedly.
I do agree, there seems to be a ton of extra scrutiny on SpaceX for no apparent reason. We can only speculate and I'm sure HNers have a ton of theories.
I do agree, there seems to be a ton of extra scrutiny on SpaceX for no apparent reason. We can only speculate and I'm sure HNers have a ton of theories.
People used to smoke on airplanes. Regulations (and the approach taken by regulators to enforcement) change over time.
There is a Space Race 2.0 with China on, though. The democratic world shouldn't lose that race just because of unbridled bureaucracy.
I don't think letting the richest man in the world do whatever he wants (especially if he's proven to be a bit reckless) is worth winning any race. And it isn't even "a race", there is no actual finish line. China and the US can both be in space and even both go to the moon separately, and both can have perceived wins from that.
Reasonable people can disagree on this, but I don't think that resentment towards the richest man in the world or a perceived need to "put him in his place" is worth self-sabotaging your civilization's position on something as important as space.
Americans may not feel it as keenly, but here in Central Europe, we have a visceral feeling that a new period of wars is upon us. Ukraine, the Near East, Taiwan: everything converging like back in 1938-9. Authoritarians all over the world feel emboldened. And, at the same time, the West is weaker than it was, not least because of loss of industrial capacity. Space is one of the few industries where we still command some advantage, and 2/3rds of that advantage is concentrated in SpaceX.
Yeah, I don't think that sacrificing that advantage to personal dislike of Musk is worth it. Even though I agree that he is obnoxious.
Americans may not feel it as keenly, but here in Central Europe, we have a visceral feeling that a new period of wars is upon us. Ukraine, the Near East, Taiwan: everything converging like back in 1938-9. Authoritarians all over the world feel emboldened. And, at the same time, the West is weaker than it was, not least because of loss of industrial capacity. Space is one of the few industries where we still command some advantage, and 2/3rds of that advantage is concentrated in SpaceX.
Yeah, I don't think that sacrificing that advantage to personal dislike of Musk is worth it. Even though I agree that he is obnoxious.
>is worth self-sabotaging your civilization's position on something as important as space.
And yet we can't really be sure that Musk has anything but self interest involved. He's gone all-in on right-wing climate denying politicians. I honestly don't really care what his aspirations are for life on Mars if he's willfully helping to destroy this planet just so he can save some money on his taxes, or whatever short-term goal he thinks supporting right-wing politicians will get him.
And yet we can't really be sure that Musk has anything but self interest involved. He's gone all-in on right-wing climate denying politicians. I honestly don't really care what his aspirations are for life on Mars if he's willfully helping to destroy this planet just so he can save some money on his taxes, or whatever short-term goal he thinks supporting right-wing politicians will get him.
Please go back and read the wealth of nations.
Please go read China's GDP and try to understand how it would completely crash if they went to war with the US. We're far too dependent on each other to go to war over anything.
Russia Ukraine and world wars
I stopped relying on rationality of humans when it comes to war.
Russia and Ukraine had terrible birth rates before the war and Russia had a clearly inadequate amount of soldiers for occupying a country of that size (only about 200 000, where a million or more would be realistically required). Not very good preconditions for a massive war. Putin went ahead anyway.
GWB's attack on Iraq wasn't a particularly smart action either.
Maybe China can learn from those mistakes. Or maybe Xi feels that his time is slowly coming to an end anyway, and a Heroic Feat is necessary to fix his position in the textbooks of tomorrow.
Russia and Ukraine had terrible birth rates before the war and Russia had a clearly inadequate amount of soldiers for occupying a country of that size (only about 200 000, where a million or more would be realistically required). Not very good preconditions for a massive war. Putin went ahead anyway.
GWB's attack on Iraq wasn't a particularly smart action either.
Maybe China can learn from those mistakes. Or maybe Xi feels that his time is slowly coming to an end anyway, and a Heroic Feat is necessary to fix his position in the textbooks of tomorrow.
We can’t be sure of anything can we?
There's a race. NASA, not the world's richest man is driving this.
I don't understand these takes that don't get the industry
I don't understand these takes that don't get the industry
Okay, if there's "a race", then what is the finish line? What needs to happen for someone to "win"? And what happens to the loser? Does the loser still get to pass the finish line? What award is given for "winning" this "race"? This is not a first-past-the-post game. Superiority in space isn't predicated on someone "getting there first", and if we're talking about military pursuits, then getting there first simply won't win if the competition puts up a weapon 100x more powerful even if it's "second" getting there by a week or a month. China and the US are not at war, and both sides know it would be extremely foolish for either side to engage in a war with each other, so I'm not sure what you really think is going on.
Artemis is a program that has international meaning for the US and it's co-signing partners.
I'm sure you've heard of "here to stay" wrt to the moon.
I'm sure you remember the victory lap with the moon landing. Here it's China rather than Russia.
The US has won in commercial launch and LEO communications. The next step is the moon. All this has been in planning before SpaceX existed.
Someone else has answered you too.
I'm sure you've heard of "here to stay" wrt to the moon.
I'm sure you remember the victory lap with the moon landing. Here it's China rather than Russia.
The US has won in commercial launch and LEO communications. The next step is the moon. All this has been in planning before SpaceX existed.
Someone else has answered you too.
Wasn't SpaceX founded with Musk's goal of getting mankind to Mars ASAP? Hasn't he made several promises of timelines for unmanned and manned flights to Mars?
Where is NASA in that?
Where is NASA in that?
Artemis. The Moon. That's what's starship is running for wrt to NASA goals.
That's also what China wants to do
That's also what China wants to do
The Moon is just a vanity project for both countries. The real race is to be the country capable of putting the most mass into orbit before the war between the US and China starts. China was briefly in the lead a few years ago, until SpaceX singlehandedly squished them like a tiny bug. But the Chinese aren't laying down and accepting defeat, they're hard at work developing Falcon and Starship clones of their own. If America gets too cocky and retards SpaceX's development, China wills overtake America again. Probably in time for their promised invasion of Taiwan.
I think what you mean to say is that regulations GROW over time.
If you only add regulations but never remove them, eventually you end up with a society where most things are illegal and the only people who can get anything done are wealthy enough to afford to deal with years-long bureaucratic processes.
If you only add regulations but never remove them, eventually you end up with a society where most things are illegal and the only people who can get anything done are wealthy enough to afford to deal with years-long bureaucratic processes.
Corporate culture of "move fast and break things" probably gets regulator's panties in a bunch.
SpaceX is doing development the right way, planning for multiple failed launches and attempting to learn as much as possible from each one as it develops the final product. This sort of rapid prototyping is orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to perfectly engineer everything right from the start. Downside is increased risk of unintended consequences on the initial test launches.
SpaceX is doing development the right way, planning for multiple failed launches and attempting to learn as much as possible from each one as it develops the final product. This sort of rapid prototyping is orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to perfectly engineer everything right from the start. Downside is increased risk of unintended consequences on the initial test launches.
> Downside is increased risk of unintended consequences on the initial test launches.
And regulatory agencies are here to make sure these "unintended consequences" won't damage more than the company finances. Regulators don't care about rockets exploding, as long as the company can show that they have taken the necessary steps to make sure no one is hurt when it happens, it includes the environment.
"Move fast and break things" is fine if your things break. It is not fine if my things break.
And regulatory agencies are here to make sure these "unintended consequences" won't damage more than the company finances. Regulators don't care about rockets exploding, as long as the company can show that they have taken the necessary steps to make sure no one is hurt when it happens, it includes the environment.
"Move fast and break things" is fine if your things break. It is not fine if my things break.
So the FAA approved two separate 60-day reviews. Do they always take the full 60 days or could a verdict come earlier?
I agree with the poster's assessment that this is pretty stupid regardless.
I agree with the poster's assessment that this is pretty stupid regardless.
It's worse:
> Furthermore, the mechanics of these types of consultations outline that any new questions raised during that time can reset the 60-day counter, over and over again. This single issue, which was already exhaustively analyzed, could indefinitely delay launch without addressing any plausible impact to the environment.
> Furthermore, the mechanics of these types of consultations outline that any new questions raised during that time can reset the 60-day counter, over and over again. This single issue, which was already exhaustively analyzed, could indefinitely delay launch without addressing any plausible impact to the environment.
It's difficult for me to determine how far this deviates from the normal bureaucratic absurdity. Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it will. They "can" shut down the whole operation if they want, right?
It could come earlier. Usually does to some extent. But the FAA really does take much more time than they should.
> But the FAA really does take much more time than they should
What does that mean? Don't they take the amount of time they need in order to ensure safety, so that's the perfect amount of time? Or are you saying they're purposefully dragging their feet behind them just to make it slower for no good reason?
What does that mean? Don't they take the amount of time they need in order to ensure safety, so that's the perfect amount of time? Or are you saying they're purposefully dragging their feet behind them just to make it slower for no good reason?
> Don't they take the amount of time they need in order to ensure safety
I think the perception is that they spend all their time calling the meeting to order, identifying participants, itemizing the agenda, breaking for lunch, slowly reading a checklist of procedures, reconvening after a formal proposal for investigation takes place, etc. etc., eventually followed by about 48 hours of actual review activities. The typical bureaucratic process.
I think the perception is that they spend all their time calling the meeting to order, identifying participants, itemizing the agenda, breaking for lunch, slowly reading a checklist of procedures, reconvening after a formal proposal for investigation takes place, etc. etc., eventually followed by about 48 hours of actual review activities. The typical bureaucratic process.
Then the perception is wrong, but only because it's not even close to the reality. Regulatory work is not your typical bureaucratic process.
Endless review cycles, approvals, re-approvals, wordsmithing, legal, compliance, risk, re-re-re approvals. It really does take a lot of time.
Endless review cycles, approvals, re-approvals, wordsmithing, legal, compliance, risk, re-re-re approvals. It really does take a lot of time.
It sounds like you're arguing that the regulatory work is indeed very bureaucratic?
Define bureaucratic.
If by bureaucratic you mean the same typical tropes about lazy government employees sucking off the taxpayers tit that's probably not what the person you're referring to meant.
If by bureaucratic you mean laborious and involving a lot of people thoroughly dotting i's and crossing t's then yeah, that's probably what the person you're replying to meant.
If by bureaucratic you mean the same typical tropes about lazy government employees sucking off the taxpayers tit that's probably not what the person you're referring to meant.
If by bureaucratic you mean laborious and involving a lot of people thoroughly dotting i's and crossing t's then yeah, that's probably what the person you're replying to meant.
The thoroughness and attention to the i's and t's was indeed what I meant :)
Along with some measure of frustration, even though most of it is actually necessary.
Along with some measure of frustration, even though most of it is actually necessary.
> Don't they take the amount of time they need in order to ensure safety
According to SpaceX no safety concerns have been raised in quite some time.
It's also odd how much slower this approval process is compared to the previous and much more complex ones.
According to SpaceX no safety concerns have been raised in quite some time.
It's also odd how much slower this approval process is compared to the previous and much more complex ones.
> What does that mean? Don't they take the amount of time they need in order to ensure safety, so that's the perfect amount of time?
As the article makes clear, they do not. And this is not the first time this has happened.
As the article makes clear, they do not. And this is not the first time this has happened.
The delay here isn't about safety, it's about new environmental assessments. (For a site that's already been in use for years.)
Dropping the ring in the middle of the ocean is new though right
Rockets from every other organization on Earth drop whole stages into the ocean (except China, who drop them on villages instead). But EDS sufferers act like SpaceX dropping a fraction as much hardware in the ocean is a great crime against humanity.
Also very harmless (consider how many meteorites hit the Earth every year and consider how reactive the steel is compared to the random rocks) and very normal for rockets.
I listened to a podcast last year featuring a FAA employee saying that the best way to delay the FAA is to complain to congress, who will demand a review. Then they have to drop everything and work on the review for a month.
This spacex release and complaint is justifiable but I wish they didn’t use such strong language it just raises the rhetoric against itself
This spacex release and complaint is justifiable but I wish they didn’t use such strong language it just raises the rhetoric against itself
SpaceX seems a bit salty about it, justifiably so:
https://www.spacex.com/updates/#starships-fly
https://www.spacex.com/updates/#starships-fly
> Despite a small, but vocal, minority of detractors trying to game the regulatory system to obstruct and delay the development of Starship, SpaceX remains committed to the mission at hand.
Is the "small but vocal minority" the FAA here? They seem to go on the offensive instead of trying to work with the very people who can possibly decide their fate, seems a bit short-sighted.
Is the "small but vocal minority" the FAA here? They seem to go on the offensive instead of trying to work with the very people who can possibly decide their fate, seems a bit short-sighted.
It's the media they're talking about, like writing hit pieces without doing research about mercury pollution that was because of a misplaced decimal point and making a huge deal about a couple of bird nests.
The small vocal minority is the media, CNBC reported inaccurately about environmental issues, causing this FAA delay. More details here:
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823080774012481862
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823080774012481862
Are you claiming that the FAA delayed permitting on environmental issues because CNBC had an inaccurate article on them?
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
SpaceX works on the leading edge of today's aerospace capabilities, and it's reasonable to expect new problems during their work. So it could justifiably be terra incognita to regulating agencies, including environment protection organizations.
Yet it's unprofessional if they are showing up and demand delays at the last moment. It's the work of government agencies to watch companies like SpaceX closely and coordinate with them way ahead of large events.
Nobody's winning when the environment is ignored, or when the aspiring company has to stop and switch to something else while waiting for permissions for important actions in development. So far USA administrations demonstrated reasonable balance, hope they'll manage to improve the current situation.
Yet it's unprofessional if they are showing up and demand delays at the last moment. It's the work of government agencies to watch companies like SpaceX closely and coordinate with them way ahead of large events.
Nobody's winning when the environment is ignored, or when the aspiring company has to stop and switch to something else while waiting for permissions for important actions in development. So far USA administrations demonstrated reasonable balance, hope they'll manage to improve the current situation.
I think it's part of the uniqueness of the United States that different states can try different experiments.
If states like Texas and Florida governance want to run fast and are ok with potentially breaking things environmentally by easing regulation - we should let them.
Perhaps they are right that commercial/industrial interests should be prioritized over the state's local population if the United State's space ambitions are to be achieved.
Perhaps there's plenty of available land so not much is really being sacrificed and if something really bad happens? Elon, the leadership and engineering teams can probably move (back) to California.
If states like Texas and Florida governance want to run fast and are ok with potentially breaking things environmentally by easing regulation - we should let them.
Perhaps they are right that commercial/industrial interests should be prioritized over the state's local population if the United State's space ambitions are to be achieved.
Perhaps there's plenty of available land so not much is really being sacrificed and if something really bad happens? Elon, the leadership and engineering teams can probably move (back) to California.
As long as the environmental consequences fall entirely within the state borders, states should be allowed to decide independently.
However, when it comes to polluting rivers, sea and air, consequences of pollution are of often planet-wide. Thus, a global approach is required.
That said, the sooner Starship achieves full reusability, the sooner we'll stop burning rocket stages into the atmosphere and letting the incombustible parts fall into the ocean.
However, when it comes to polluting rivers, sea and air, consequences of pollution are of often planet-wide. Thus, a global approach is required.
That said, the sooner Starship achieves full reusability, the sooner we'll stop burning rocket stages into the atmosphere and letting the incombustible parts fall into the ocean.
From the outside looking in, the behaviour of the FAA looks corrupt. They’re being influenced by someone (Boeing?) to slow down SpaceX because they’re too hard to compete with fairly on a technological merit alone.
Disagree?
Okay, then explain why the FAA just sits there passively seemingly giggling to themselves every time SpaceX makes a typo? Any excuse to press the multi-month pause button is mercilessly exploited.
If you think that the government is working with industry to achieve supremacy in space, is this what you would expect to see?
Can you imagine if right after signing the CHIPS act the Whitehouse just stood by while some tiny agency just held up a many-billion-dollar fab construction that’s vital to national security!?
Someone in power is out to get Elon Musk and/or SpaceX. They’re most likely a competitor or in the pocket of one.
Everything I’ve seen in the news fits that theory.
The opposite theory of “SpaceX is the world’s best space tech company but also crazy incompetent and deserving endless punishment from every agency” doesn’t hold water. If the agencies cared about the environment or the water or whatever they would be working with SpaceX instead of harming their progress in a way that appears entirely punitive.
Hasn’t anyone here been held up by a paperwork troll in your work? Haven’t any of you had this conversation?
Secops: “Firewall requests take two months to implement.”
Me: “I’m a consultant and this is a one week project. I’m finishing up Friday.”
Secops: “That’s your fault for not submitting the request ahead of time.”
Me: “It’s Monday morning! I just got here. I haven’t even finished my coffee that I got at the airport on the way here.”
Secops: “Your lack of planning is your own fault.”
Me: “Auditors prohibit me from working on any projects until the official start date, which is today. My guess though is that the rules will be: x, y, and z.”
Secops: “You need to use our form 832b and use the specific IP source and destination addresses.”
Me: “Can I have a list of your subnets and their IP ranges?”
Secops: “No, that’s a secret. For security!”
— this is how a one week project blows out to six months.
Disagree?
Okay, then explain why the FAA just sits there passively seemingly giggling to themselves every time SpaceX makes a typo? Any excuse to press the multi-month pause button is mercilessly exploited.
If you think that the government is working with industry to achieve supremacy in space, is this what you would expect to see?
Can you imagine if right after signing the CHIPS act the Whitehouse just stood by while some tiny agency just held up a many-billion-dollar fab construction that’s vital to national security!?
Someone in power is out to get Elon Musk and/or SpaceX. They’re most likely a competitor or in the pocket of one.
Everything I’ve seen in the news fits that theory.
The opposite theory of “SpaceX is the world’s best space tech company but also crazy incompetent and deserving endless punishment from every agency” doesn’t hold water. If the agencies cared about the environment or the water or whatever they would be working with SpaceX instead of harming their progress in a way that appears entirely punitive.
Hasn’t anyone here been held up by a paperwork troll in your work? Haven’t any of you had this conversation?
Secops: “Firewall requests take two months to implement.”
Me: “I’m a consultant and this is a one week project. I’m finishing up Friday.”
Secops: “That’s your fault for not submitting the request ahead of time.”
Me: “It’s Monday morning! I just got here. I haven’t even finished my coffee that I got at the airport on the way here.”
Secops: “Your lack of planning is your own fault.”
Me: “Auditors prohibit me from working on any projects until the official start date, which is today. My guess though is that the rules will be: x, y, and z.”
Secops: “You need to use our form 832b and use the specific IP source and destination addresses.”
Me: “Can I have a list of your subnets and their IP ranges?”
Secops: “No, that’s a secret. For security!”
— this is how a one week project blows out to six months.
As a consultant I have experienced this exact scenario at a government contractor. My team sat in a hotel for a week because the security badges needed to go through some third agency before they could give them to us and we could be physically on the corporate campus.
As I noted in previous threads this is brazen lying: they are not dumping tap water into the ground they are dumping (boiling hot) water that has been processed by blasting it with rocket fuel, which their own third-party analysis contains contaminants that are not present in "tap water".
By SpaceX's logic any factory would be able to dump toxic water into the ground as long as they sourced the input water from the city's drinking water distribution system.
This is probably the most basic environmental and health and safety law, namely to prevent businesses from dumping toxins into the water; trying to frame this as government overreach and knick-knack regulations is seriously depraved and it would be banana-republic-esque if he actually succeeds in ignoring or removing these rules.
By SpaceX's logic any factory would be able to dump toxic water into the ground as long as they sourced the input water from the city's drinking water distribution system.
This is probably the most basic environmental and health and safety law, namely to prevent businesses from dumping toxins into the water; trying to frame this as government overreach and knick-knack regulations is seriously depraved and it would be banana-republic-esque if he actually succeeds in ignoring or removing these rules.
Hello. I just want to start by saying I appreciate this post as every other post on this article is: "this is politically motivated because I think it is".
That being said... on the linked page it says:
> Outflow water has been sampled after every use of the system and consistently shows negligible traces of any contaminants, and specifically, that all levels have remained below standards for all state permits that would authorize discharge. TCEQ, the FAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated the use of the system prior to its initial use, and during tests and launch, and determined it would not cause environmental harm.
Is this all lies?
That being said... on the linked page it says:
> Outflow water has been sampled after every use of the system and consistently shows negligible traces of any contaminants, and specifically, that all levels have remained below standards for all state permits that would authorize discharge. TCEQ, the FAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated the use of the system prior to its initial use, and during tests and launch, and determined it would not cause environmental harm.
Is this all lies?
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, but parent's comment that
> By SpaceX's logic any factory would be able to dump toxic water into the ground as long as they sourced the input water from the city's drinking water distribution system.
is patently wrong and unfortunately undermines their entire comment.
I believe SpaceX is stretching the truth and trying to sneak by with improper permits, but also people lying about what SpaceX is doing is not helping keep them in check and gives them ammunition.
Of course water in contact with the flamey end of a rocket has chemicals not found in drinking water, that's not really relevant. What's relevant are the actual levels in that water.
> By SpaceX's logic any factory would be able to dump toxic water into the ground as long as they sourced the input water from the city's drinking water distribution system.
is patently wrong and unfortunately undermines their entire comment.
I believe SpaceX is stretching the truth and trying to sneak by with improper permits, but also people lying about what SpaceX is doing is not helping keep them in check and gives them ammunition.
Of course water in contact with the flamey end of a rocket has chemicals not found in drinking water, that's not really relevant. What's relevant are the actual levels in that water.
This unprofessional release mentions "literal" tap water being used. It appears that this is "literally" not true - is this a lie, or are you just upset with the parent comment's conclusion?
Both sides can be wrong and lying. Does it matter if water is "tap water" or if it meets the regulations for tap water? Lying to call someone out for lying just undermines the point.
Edit: Sigh, on re-reading the SpaceX statement they say the input water is "potable" and then later say, "Again, it uses literal drinking water", they never say "tap water". While an exaggeration, that is the definition of potable. They are not saying the output water is drinking water! Only that "all levels have remained below standards for all state permits that would authorize discharge."
But again, I'm not claiming they aren't lying or stretching the truth, just that we should be contesting them on the facts.
Edit: Sigh, on re-reading the SpaceX statement they say the input water is "potable" and then later say, "Again, it uses literal drinking water", they never say "tap water". While an exaggeration, that is the definition of potable. They are not saying the output water is drinking water! Only that "all levels have remained below standards for all state permits that would authorize discharge."
But again, I'm not claiming they aren't lying or stretching the truth, just that we should be contesting them on the facts.
I wouldn't trust any analysis that SpaceX submits itself given Musk's long history of lying, including right now on this very subject. Others have pointed out problems in the way the water is being sampled (surface water vs ground water) but I'm not an expert. It is certainly possible that no serious contamination has already occurred.
But the way it works is not that you dump stuff out of your factory and then, after getting caught, try to run some tests to show it's okay. It's almost impossible to remove contaminants out of the water after the fact so the way it works is that you go through a process with the government where you show that you are not going to dump contaminants into the ground, then they issue a permit, then you can discharge the water. Otherwise you would have people doing what Musk is doing now, which is to dump the water first and if there is any irreversible contamination say "oops, my bad".
But the way it works is not that you dump stuff out of your factory and then, after getting caught, try to run some tests to show it's okay. It's almost impossible to remove contaminants out of the water after the fact so the way it works is that you go through a process with the government where you show that you are not going to dump contaminants into the ground, then they issue a permit, then you can discharge the water. Otherwise you would have people doing what Musk is doing now, which is to dump the water first and if there is any irreversible contamination say "oops, my bad".
You don't have to trust SpaceX. You have to trust " TCEQ, the FAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ". Some of those reports are public.
Contrary to what SpaceX has claimed USFWS does not regulate industrial waste water discharge (unsurprisingly). The TCEQ has said they are in violation. FAA has paused launches pending an investigation. Both should have done this many months ago.
In any case with respect to existing contamination the only thing I would trust is an independent third party testing lab testing the water with the data made public. I don't know why you would want anything else.
In any case with respect to existing contamination the only thing I would trust is an independent third party testing lab testing the water with the data made public. I don't know why you would want anything else.
Their violations are:
1. They misplaced a decimal point when transferring a value from the lab report to the summary
2. They filled in the wrong form. They paid a $2000 fine for this violation.
The lab reports are public.
1. They misplaced a decimal point when transferring a value from the lab report to the summary
2. They filled in the wrong form. They paid a $2000 fine for this violation.
The lab reports are public.
This is just false. They don't have a permit to discharge water.
The permit number is WQ0016342001.
That is not an industrial waster water permit.
https://www.threads.net/@esg.hound/post/CzvTxp-uZe8
"That is for a domestic wastewater permit (toilet water treatment)"
https://www.threads.net/@esg.hound/post/CzvTxp-uZe8
"That is for a domestic wastewater permit (toilet water treatment)"
As I said further up, they filled in the wrong form.
They have a permit that is more restrictive than the permit they need.
They have a permit that is more restrictive than the permit they need.
Industrial waste water permits are not less restrictive than domestic waste water. They could not have "filled in the wrong form" because they need a domestic waste water permit as well.
A permit for an average daily flow of 200,000 gallons.
Okay, right then, let’s cancel humanity’s ascendancy to the stars.
Someone filled out the wrong form.
Stop the whole thing. Abandon the cosmos. Just stay here.
Some bureaucrats weren’t satisfied.
Someone filled out the wrong form.
Stop the whole thing. Abandon the cosmos. Just stay here.
Some bureaucrats weren’t satisfied.
How is this different than launches at Canaveral or elsewhere? Don’t those pads also have water deluge systems and service a variety of liquid fueled rockets?
This was wonderfully hard to find out. ChatGPT tells me that NASA employees a detention pond to treat water after a deluge. Found this french post about the construction of it all: http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/ksc/S...
Interestingly, ~70% of the water is evaporated during a launch.
SLS's main engine is hydrolox fueled, so it's byproducts should be water and hydrogen. But the SRBs have a lot of nasty ingredients like perchlorates.
Interestingly, ~70% of the water is evaporated during a launch.
SLS's main engine is hydrolox fueled, so it's byproducts should be water and hydrogen. But the SRBs have a lot of nasty ingredients like perchlorates.
foobarqux(4)
You seem to be willfully misinterpretating SpaceX's post. They say that only potable water is used in the deluge process. That's all they are saying. They aren't saying that the post deluge water is potable.
No-one cares about the water before deluge, that's why. Worst case scenario, a leak there floods some wetlands with "drinking water".
People are only concerned about the post deluge water.
Why does SpaceX repeatedly, and condescendingly, keep saying "Again, this is drinking water!"
So no, I don't think he's willfully misinterpreting SpaceX's post. In fact, I think SpaceX's repeated references to drinking water, at a non-problematic stage of the complaints, is willfully misleading.
People are only concerned about the post deluge water.
Why does SpaceX repeatedly, and condescendingly, keep saying "Again, this is drinking water!"
So no, I don't think he's willfully misinterpreting SpaceX's post. In fact, I think SpaceX's repeated references to drinking water, at a non-problematic stage of the complaints, is willfully misleading.
It’s probably still drinkable if you let it cool down and wait for the sediment to settle out.
Given that Starship and Super Heavy are both methalox fueled, wouldn’t the combustion products in the exhaust be carbon dioxide and water?
Combustion is imperfect and it is occurring over metal which will erode into the mix of air and water. Then there is also whatever chemicals and material are on the ground prior to launch activities that get washed away with the deluge system
> Then there is also whatever chemicals and material are on the ground prior to launch activities that get washed away
Washed away after first being superheated by that water.
Washed away after first being superheated by that water.
I would imagine most of the wash away is not close to the exhaust, but down slope, mainly consisting of construction, maintenance, and vehicle activities.
Though the area does receive many orders of magnitude more water from natural rainfall than the deluge system, so anything present in that water would have been washed away anyway.
Not according to the tests SpaceX submitted themselves. But if it were you would first show that to the EPA and then they would give you a permit to go ahead.
I think your second paragraph is spot on.
I just don't understand why this seems to be an issue with this launch in particular, cause to me it just something that's done at every launch ever (throw water at a launching rocket). Isn't this a very well understood env impact anyway that Falcon 9 launches don't face those delays?
I just don't understand why this seems to be an issue with this launch in particular, cause to me it just something that's done at every launch ever (throw water at a launching rocket). Isn't this a very well understood env impact anyway that Falcon 9 launches don't face those delays?
The ecosystem that is business is so interesting. You have creatures like SpaceX that are watered by the government and grow into magnificent trees but the tree has parasites that want to extract some of the value for themselves.
It's like fertilizing the soil and finding that not only your crops but also weeds grow stronger.
Everyone wants their cut. Which is why for a certain sum of money, the desert iguana will turn out to not be a problem.
Great stuff. I understand how much fun it must be to be an agriculturist.
It's like fertilizing the soil and finding that not only your crops but also weeds grow stronger.
Everyone wants their cut. Which is why for a certain sum of money, the desert iguana will turn out to not be a problem.
Great stuff. I understand how much fun it must be to be an agriculturist.
You think government policymakers get a portion of the revenue from government licenses or what does this mean?
> Everyone wants their cut. Which is why for a certain sum of money, the desert iguana will turn out to not be a problem.
> Everyone wants their cut. Which is why for a certain sum of money, the desert iguana will turn out to not be a problem.
I think that people just have friends who like to take them on vacation - nothing untoward. Just nice friends who do nice things for them. Out of the kindness of their hearts.
And surely this belief is anchored on solid, relevant evidence?
Yes, my axiomatic belief in the goodness of man.
No no, I'm asking about your actual belief that regulators are typically corrupted by arrangements like the one you're sarcastically pointing to.
That's gonna take time. Contact info and rate in profile.
I mean hell, you oughta just take that evidence to a publication! You could save the country ;)
Or just keep shitposting lazy cynical memes I suppose.
Or just keep shitposting lazy cynical memes I suppose.
No doubt the FAA is under enormous pressure from Boeing, Blue Origin and ULA to slow things down for SpaceX.
What, if anything, prevents SpaceX from using offshore launch pads? What about launches from international waters?
As a US company they are required to get launch permits from the US regardless of where they launch from. Mixing jurisdictions would likely make things harder, not easier.
The FAA has control over them no matter where they are. They cannot escape.
Probably nothing, but that would surely be quite the feat. Just getting the necessary people there would be difficult, let alone the supply chain and the structures. Even operations like SpaceX need some degree of efficiency.
This launch is intended to test the ability to land on the original launching tower, which is a core ability to the intended economics of starship; launching offshore would defeat much of the purpose of the launch.
Itar
It’s surprising to me that a company so important to the success of many American aspirations is getting sandbagged by environmental regulations. For a rocket whose outputs are carbon dioxide and water, no less. It’s hard to ignore the possibility that Democrats are purposely slow walking SpaceX approvals due to Elon’s politics.
How large an area of ocean has to be cleared for the impact?
This sounds very much like an incomplete story. Knowing nothing else, I'd guess that SpaceX pissed off somebody or somebodies, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to evaluate how reasonable or unreasonable their reaction is without knowing what triggered it. It looks like somebody is using whatever tool they have at their disposal, and the question is why.
It could be a result of repeated violations of regulatory action, and this is a smackdown to show that yes, the government can fuck you up if it wants to. But that's pure speculation on my part.
Of course, Musk will try to make this look as bad as possible. If his handy tool Trump wins this fall, Musk will use this to motivate his "let's streamline government by creating a new government oversight committee!" plan, which is probably largely intended to cripple any regulatory oversight that could possibly get in his way.
It could be a result of repeated violations of regulatory action, and this is a smackdown to show that yes, the government can fuck you up if it wants to. But that's pure speculation on my part.
Of course, Musk will try to make this look as bad as possible. If his handy tool Trump wins this fall, Musk will use this to motivate his "let's streamline government by creating a new government oversight committee!" plan, which is probably largely intended to cripple any regulatory oversight that could possibly get in his way.
I bet this wouldn't be happening if Elon Musk wasn't shitposting on twitter, and particularly, doing it in a way that pisses off liberals/progressives.
On the plus side, every day the Biden administration delays SpaceX, IFT-5 becomes more likely to succeed, digging the pit of despair for EDS sufferers even deeper. Invest in salt futures.
On the plus side, every day the Biden administration delays SpaceX, IFT-5 becomes more likely to succeed, digging the pit of despair for EDS sufferers even deeper. Invest in salt futures.
> bet this wouldn't be happening if Elon Musk wasn't shitposting on twitter, and particularly, doing it in a way that pisses off liberals/progressives
I mean, yes, though to imagine it’s just the left Elon has disappointed is naïve. Musk went from representing a paragon of American industry to something much less. Being a paragon is powerful, in part because it’s undefined.
Being a partisan political agitator has its own power, but it’s much easier to constrain and counter because there’s a playbook for that. (Witness, for example, how Musk was given a singular free pass on his relationship with China, but now isn’t able to push back on either party’s China policy.)
I mean, yes, though to imagine it’s just the left Elon has disappointed is naïve. Musk went from representing a paragon of American industry to something much less. Being a paragon is powerful, in part because it’s undefined.
Being a partisan political agitator has its own power, but it’s much easier to constrain and counter because there’s a playbook for that. (Witness, for example, how Musk was given a singular free pass on his relationship with China, but now isn’t able to push back on either party’s China policy.)
He is still a paragon of industry. Are there any comparably successful American companies outside of the software sector? it's just he's constantly creating distractions.
Which business leaders besides Musk should Americans look up to?
Let him go build his rockets in Russia or China. If he wants to support anti democratic folks he’ll be right at home somewhere else. Musk and his troll farm can piss right off imo.
The comments on the linked Twitter thread are entirely one-dimensional, and more than a little conspiratorial on average. Is there a neutral news source for this?
That twitter thread is brigaded by a blue-mark army of Elon fans who seem confident this was done by Biden administration.
Now something off topic: I wonder if blue checkmark ratio can be used to determine the political direction of a thread. Testing thia could be a fun data science weekend project.
Now something off topic: I wonder if blue checkmark ratio can be used to determine the political direction of a thread. Testing thia could be a fun data science weekend project.
Musk's right wing shift and naked conservative bias do not serve Spacex well when the opposition is in power. Most commercial enterprises with operations that fall under federal control play both sides of the street.
They were already biased against SpaceX because the government and the parasitical military contractors react violently against any competence that embarrasses them when people inevitably make the comparison. How do you think this makes NASA administrators or Boeing executives feel? The latter had a nice thing going before SpaceX came along, tens billions of dollars guaranteed from the government without having to work too hard.
It does serve SpaceX well if it reveals the boulder-esque bureaucracy and change occurs. The current federal system gave us Boeing rates of progress.
Thankfully they have shown us a new way.
Thankfully they have shown us a new way.
I've wondered about the long-term implications for the Mars goal as Elon keeps burning bridges within politics. Not that he was treated well by the current White House with regard to electric vehicles, so it's understandable that he would be upset. But turning around and endorsing the other candidate all while going on the attack against the current administration probably isn't winning anyone over.
Overall, I just don't understand why Elon has allowed the Twitter political brainrot to take hold. If he's playing strategically, then it's happening at a level which isn't legible to me. I really don't see how engaging so much in divisive political issues is going to help him advance his claimed primary goal of extending human life to Mars.
Overall, I just don't understand why Elon has allowed the Twitter political brainrot to take hold. If he's playing strategically, then it's happening at a level which isn't legible to me. I really don't see how engaging so much in divisive political issues is going to help him advance his claimed primary goal of extending human life to Mars.
It was never about Mars. Look into the Mars Society leadership, they were military / Strategic Defense Initiative people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career#:~:t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career#:~:t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin
How has the current White House mistreated Elon's ventures? For Tesla, the tax credit is still there, they pushed for and adopted the Tesla charger as the North American standard; heck they even levied a 100% tax against Chinese EVs (and batteries, and solar panels). SpaceX is still getting tons of federal money, it just got a billion dollar contract to deorbit ISS at the end of its life. It seems like policy is really working in Elon's favor right now to me.
The EV party where Tesla wasn’t invited because of union hardball.
It makes perfect sense when you realize those sorts of things aren't about helping American industry or promoting sustainable energy. They are strategic campaign events meant to appeal to union bosses who can help them maintain power.
From the WSJ recently:
> Then in August 2021, Biden organized an EV event, to be anchored by him signing an executive order with a target to make half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 zero-emissions vehicles.
> “In the auto industry, Detroit’s leading the world in electric vehicles,” Biden said at a November 2021 event while promoting the new infrastructure bill. He then turned to GM’s Mary Barra and praised the CEO. “You electrified the entire automobile industry. I’m serious. You led, and it matters,” Biden said.
> Tesla’s leaders, including Musk, were outraged. During the fourth quarter of 2021, when Biden made these remarks, Tesla delivered more than 115,000 EVs in the U.S. while GM produced just 26.
...
> The reason: Biden officials didn’t want to anger the powerful United Auto Workers union, which leaned on the White House to keep its distance from Musk, according to people familiar with the matter.
https://archive.md/856RL
> Then in August 2021, Biden organized an EV event, to be anchored by him signing an executive order with a target to make half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 zero-emissions vehicles.
> “In the auto industry, Detroit’s leading the world in electric vehicles,” Biden said at a November 2021 event while promoting the new infrastructure bill. He then turned to GM’s Mary Barra and praised the CEO. “You electrified the entire automobile industry. I’m serious. You led, and it matters,” Biden said.
> Tesla’s leaders, including Musk, were outraged. During the fourth quarter of 2021, when Biden made these remarks, Tesla delivered more than 115,000 EVs in the U.S. while GM produced just 26.
...
> The reason: Biden officials didn’t want to anger the powerful United Auto Workers union, which leaned on the White House to keep its distance from Musk, according to people familiar with the matter.
https://archive.md/856RL
So all the administration’s policies are actually favorable to Tesla, but the president said something in August 2021 that offended Musk and he holds a grudge.
Perfectly normal decision-making process for a CEO of a company with $700B market cap. You’d think he would have noticed by now that American politicians have to say things to please swing state voters.
Perfectly normal decision-making process for a CEO of a company with $700B market cap. You’d think he would have noticed by now that American politicians have to say things to please swing state voters.
> So all the administration’s policies are actually favorable to Tesla,
Not for lack of trying. They tried to make the subsidy exclusive to UAW companies and exclude Tesla.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/08/05/biden-wa...
Not for lack of trying. They tried to make the subsidy exclusive to UAW companies and exclude Tesla.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/08/05/biden-wa...
Another story on how the Democrats tried to exclude Tesla from EV subsidies.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/biden-bill-includes-boo...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/biden-bill-includes-boo...
Yeah, as much as I can understand where he's coming from in his frustrations I'm not sure it's the most productive route unless he wins in the end. As they say, if you take a swing at the king you'd best not miss.
“Starship and Super Heavy vehicles for Flight 5 have been ready to launch since the first week of August. The flight test will include our most ambitious objective yet: attempt to return the Super Heavy booster to the launch site and catch it in mid-air.
…
We recently received a launch license date estimate of late November from the FAA, the government agency responsible for licensing Starship flight tests. This is a more than two-month delay to the previously communicated date of mid-September. This delay was not based on a new safety concern, but instead driven by superfluous environmental analysis.”
…
We recently received a launch license date estimate of late November from the FAA, the government agency responsible for licensing Starship flight tests. This is a more than two-month delay to the previously communicated date of mid-September. This delay was not based on a new safety concern, but instead driven by superfluous environmental analysis.”
> superfluous environmental analysis.
Maybe they should have thought about that before building their launch site next to a wildlife refuge. Maybe they shouldn't have caused significant damage to that same reserve (requiring months of cleanup) when they ignored their own engineers and blew up their own launch pad. The fact that they repeatedly violated their permit isn't helping.
The reality is SpaceX can't be trusted when it comes to compliance with rules, laws, and permits. They've proven this repeatedly (even when their own engineers point out better ways). Of course that means oversight agencies have to provide more oversight.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-launch-site-boca-chica-t...
Maybe they should have thought about that before building their launch site next to a wildlife refuge. Maybe they shouldn't have caused significant damage to that same reserve (requiring months of cleanup) when they ignored their own engineers and blew up their own launch pad. The fact that they repeatedly violated their permit isn't helping.
The reality is SpaceX can't be trusted when it comes to compliance with rules, laws, and permits. They've proven this repeatedly (even when their own engineers point out better ways). Of course that means oversight agencies have to provide more oversight.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-launch-site-boca-chica-t...
Its almost funny how important environmentalism is to Musk when Tesla is the context, and how unimportant it is when SpaceX is the context. It's wild how his image has gone from forward thinking genius businessman to bipolar self-serving workaholic in less than four years.
Every US launch site is next to a de facto or a de jure wildlife refuge.
> requiring months of cleanup
no it didn't.
> requiring months of cleanup
no it didn't.
> Every US launch site is next to a de facto or a de jure wildlife refuge.
Yes, this is difficult to avoid for various reasons, perhaps the most pertinent being that all the safest places to launch things from are along coastlines where it's easy to divert wayward rockets into the ocean and away from populated areas. Coastlines have plenty of water and thus plenty of wildlife. Launching from e.g. an inland desert is much more risky and the environmental impact isn't necessarily all that much better to boot.
Yes, this is difficult to avoid for various reasons, perhaps the most pertinent being that all the safest places to launch things from are along coastlines where it's easy to divert wayward rockets into the ocean and away from populated areas. Coastlines have plenty of water and thus plenty of wildlife. Launching from e.g. an inland desert is much more risky and the environmental impact isn't necessarily all that much better to boot.
> SpaceX can't be trusted when it comes to compliance with rules, laws, and permits
I suppose I’m confused why this is the FAA’s remit.
I suppose I’m confused why this is the FAA’s remit.
To prevent ignoring other agencies/laws the FAA does not issue a launch permit unless the other agencies/laws are satisfied. Otherwise people would just do what the FAA directly regulates and ignore the rest and get a launch permit.
> prevent ignoring other agencies/laws the FAA does not issue a launch permit unless the other agencies/laws are satisfied
Which is wild. This isn’t how regulation, including with the FAA, works in other contexts. (If an airline mucks up a securities filing, that isn’t the FAA’s jurisdiction.)
The legislative fix may be in separating launch permits from environmental clearances.
Which is wild. This isn’t how regulation, including with the FAA, works in other contexts. (If an airline mucks up a securities filing, that isn’t the FAA’s jurisdiction.)
The legislative fix may be in separating launch permits from environmental clearances.
Having a Lead Federal Agency (FAA's role here) during permitting is a very common and positive thing. It helps avoid the left hand not talking to the right hand when permits from multiple agencies are required for a single activity.
If they were separate SpaceX couldn't just ignore the lack of EPA permit and launch anyway just because they have an FAA permit, and by having them coordinated it decreases run-around from different agencies giving conflicting demands. SpaceX would likely face more delays not fewer if the FAA wasn't acting as a Lead Federal Agency here.
https://www.achp.gov/digital-library-section-106-landing/fre...
https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-...
If they were separate SpaceX couldn't just ignore the lack of EPA permit and launch anyway just because they have an FAA permit, and by having them coordinated it decreases run-around from different agencies giving conflicting demands. SpaceX would likely face more delays not fewer if the FAA wasn't acting as a Lead Federal Agency here.
https://www.achp.gov/digital-library-section-106-landing/fre...
https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-...
No, you want to prevent contamination of the water supply. Being able to ignore that rule is not an improvement.
Are they alleging launching the rocket will contaminate the water supply? Or that they do not have a permit to do what the launch will result in?
Is there a discussion about what the actual harms are?
Is there a discussion about what the actual harms are?
They don't know because SpaceX hasn't gone through the procedure to show that they aren't/won't.
[deleted]
[flagged]
sadly him playing games with the nuclear balance leave us all underlings in his game.
The archive link that references Shotwell is dead. What was that pointing to?
The Heritage Foundation can say whatever they want about SpaceX-- just because they can say it, that doesn't mean that SpaceX as an entity is onboard with the position Project 2025 paints for them.
The Heritage Foundation can say whatever they want about SpaceX-- just because they can say it, that doesn't mean that SpaceX as an entity is onboard with the position Project 2025 paints for them.
There's a user on reddit with a bunch of alts that keeps spamming the conspiracy theory that SpaceX is a front by the military and intelligence agencies to funnel money into building a missile defense shield. They like to point to an AI chat with Twitter/X's Grok as proof.
It's true that some people connected to SpaceX were also interested in missile defense, but that's hardly unusual given that we're talking about the intersection between defense and the aerospace industry.
To the extent that SpaceX enables missile defense it's in the same way they enable any other space endeavor, as a natural consequence of lowering the cost of lifting payloads to orbit.
It's true that some people connected to SpaceX were also interested in missile defense, but that's hardly unusual given that we're talking about the intersection between defense and the aerospace industry.
To the extent that SpaceX enables missile defense it's in the same way they enable any other space endeavor, as a natural consequence of lowering the cost of lifting payloads to orbit.
Main points from the link:
Trump has been pitching a reboot of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative using Elon's Starlink. At least publically since his reelection campaign: "the United States will build a missile defense shield to intercept nuclear weapons" https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-pla... It's also in Project 2025 / Heritage Foundation docs.
SpaceX was founded in 2002 with help of a CIA agent named Mike Griffin ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career ) who funneled them funding (lots of citations at end of https://archive.ph/D2zIG ). Griffin worked for In-Q-Tel and also was the Deputy of Technology for the Strategic Defense Initiative, later started the Space Development Agency (SDA) which is to become Trump's SDI in 2025.
Trump has been pitching a reboot of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative using Elon's Starlink. At least publically since his reelection campaign: "the United States will build a missile defense shield to intercept nuclear weapons" https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-pla... It's also in Project 2025 / Heritage Foundation docs.
SpaceX was founded in 2002 with help of a CIA agent named Mike Griffin ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career ) who funneled them funding (lots of citations at end of https://archive.ph/D2zIG ). Griffin worked for In-Q-Tel and also was the Deputy of Technology for the Strategic Defense Initiative, later started the Space Development Agency (SDA) which is to become Trump's SDI in 2025.
I wouldn't be surprised is Project 2025 wasn't the Steele Dossier if 2024...
No matter, the FAA (and rest of bureaucracy) is supposed to be apolitical
No matter, the FAA (and rest of bureaucracy) is supposed to be apolitical
> the FAA (and rest of bureaucracy) is supposed to be apolitical
It won't be when they fire all the career civil servants and replace them with stooges as they've said over and over they want to do.
It won't be when they fire all the career civil servants and replace them with stooges as they've said over and over they want to do.
It's nothing like the Steele dossier, Heritage Foundation and others behind it have put their names all over Project 2025. Heritage is in the copyright block of the site footer!
It's completely different from the Steele Dossier. Project 2025 was written by dozens of former Trump administration officials and surrogates, by an organization he has previously outsourced policy to, and largely aligns with what he and his top advisors have said they want to do. He even praised the project before it became well known.
But now the name has become toxic so he's trying to distance himself from it, but he hasn't disavowed much of the content.
> No matter, the FAA (and rest of bureaucracy) is supposed to be apolitical.
Yes, and Trump has been vocal about wanting to change that. There's no conspiracy here, just listen to what he says.
But now the name has become toxic so he's trying to distance himself from it, but he hasn't disavowed much of the content.
> No matter, the FAA (and rest of bureaucracy) is supposed to be apolitical.
Yes, and Trump has been vocal about wanting to change that. There's no conspiracy here, just listen to what he says.
[deleted]
ravedave5(6)
Why must HN become a platform for unfiltered corporate propaganda? Brainwash somewhere else, please.
[flagged]
I do think we need to make the US a place where builders can build, but I disagree with this justification pretty strongly. This isn't a public organization working for the public good, it's a private company doing R&D to create a spacecraft that they will own and control.
We're also, at least in the legal sense, not at war.
We're also, at least in the legal sense, not at war.
It's a defense contractor with a track record of delivering things to USGov no one else is capable of (Starlink/Starshield). They're not a public service—but they do work for the US.
SpaceX is private, however this whole Starship program has NASA (public organization) funding parts of Starship's development for lunar exploration, as part of the Artemis program
[deleted]
Private companies can have strategic value, too. The capabilities of SpaceX is what puts the entire US on the top of the current space technology race.
Imagine having to beg the Russians to get the two stranded astronauts back to Earth.
Imagine having to beg the Russians to get the two stranded astronauts back to Earth.
I bet Elon tweeting AI generated videos of the VPOTUS in soviet garb helped a ton here.
SpaceX is not part of our national security. They are one launch platform.
They should be punished, they keep blowing up spaceships. Know what didn't blow up on it's first trip to space? The Saturn V rocket, from the 60s!
They should be punished, they keep blowing up spaceships. Know what didn't blow up on it's first trip to space? The Saturn V rocket, from the 60s!
Uh. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
Yes they are one launch platform, and the only launch platform capable of some of the things they do!
Yes they are one launch platform, and the only launch platform capable of some of the things they do!
Apollo 1 didn't explode during a launch. It was a rehearsal.
For me, it is a national security risk to allow an unelected, largely unaccountable, private individual to have this much control over crucial areas of national interest.
> We're at war
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
What War exactly?
I wonder if the idea was to delay it beyond the election in early November.
Hard to see what impact a Starship test would have on the election, for either candidate.
Depends where it crashes
Musk's company accomplishing a heroic feat could improve public opinion of his political endorsements. I mean, I don't think this way, but it seems like the sort of thing a petty bureaucrat might fear.
This press release seems very unprofessional. It's very negative and aggressive, both actively and passively.
I'm a huge fan of SpaceX, but this press release just screams "Musk ordered us to post a screed"
I'm a huge fan of SpaceX, but this press release just screams "Musk ordered us to post a screed"
[flagged]
Could you please stop posting tedious flamebait and ideological battle comments? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We've also asked you to stop in the past: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37182078.
You're probably already over the line at which we ban accounts for doing this, but I'm not going to ban you right now. We need you to fix this, though, so if you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
(And no, we don't care what ideological side you're on. We care about not having tedious flamewars from any side.)
You're probably already over the line at which we ban accounts for doing this, but I'm not going to ban you right now. We need you to fix this, though, so if you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
(And no, we don't care what ideological side you're on. We care about not having tedious flamewars from any side.)
No, go ahead and ban me. This topic is about politicians being butt-hurt and shitting on a company that has the most potential for humanity's progress. What I've described is NOT flamebating: it's the reality of what is happening.
People incapable of doing (or even understanding) something, interfering with other people who can do it, with no consequences if they are found to be wrong (or biased) in their basis for objecting to the activity.
Fundamentally, this is loathing and envy encoded into law.
Fundamentally, this is loathing and envy encoded into law.
Yeah, spaceX is an aerospace company, what business do they have saying the environmental scientists have no idea what they're doing? It's trivial for them to complain and get them crucified in the court of public opinion because spaceX is almost immune from the law since the US military relies on them so heavily.