FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission(reuters.com)
reuters.com
FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/faa-warns-spacex-it-has-not-approved-new-texas-launch-site-tower-2021-07-14/
81 comments
Without knowing the height it is hard to tell. As an amateur radio operator I can put up a tower that is just under 200 feet tall without any real approval. Past that I would need FAA approval. It gets expensive, mostly because you need to keep the tower illuminated at night.
Perhaps FCC?
There are rules about towers within some distance of an airport. Perhaps it runs afoul of those.
There are rules about towers within some distance of an airport. Perhaps it runs afoul of those.
How much testing can you do with a launch tower without actually launching anything? Surely any launch would have to be cleared by the FAA right?
(I could totally be wrong and there's good reasons to build this, but my initial assumption is that the only real reason to build a launch tower would be to launch stuff with it)
(I could totally be wrong and there's good reasons to build this, but my initial assumption is that the only real reason to build a launch tower would be to launch stuff with it)
At the very least it's good for show.
"integration" means putting it together/assembling it. At Cape Canaveral, they have the Vehicle Assembly Building for this.
I believe the goal is to have a launch tower catch falcon 9 rockets, then take a starship, rotate it around the tower 180 degrees and put it on top of the rocket that just landed to refuel and launch again.
edit: super heavy not falcon 9 here is the youtube video I was remembering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdU9RzlHm-o
edit: super heavy not falcon 9 here is the youtube video I was remembering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdU9RzlHm-o
In theory it could used for payload integration tests, dress rehearsal, or even static fires. But it seems odd to do those at a different pad than you'd actually launch from
Technically the tower may not be used for launches; it's only used for putting the stack on the launch pad. During the launch itself the stack may not be touching the tower at all.
[deleted]
One major problem with bureaucracy is that it will create issues to justify itself.
I'm sure there's no real problem, it's just the government getting some PR and potentially some money via some kind of license/permit fee.
Musk and SpaceX have no desire to hurt anyone, that would impact their plans.
At this point this country would greatly benefit from less government involvement in just about everything. /libertarian
I'm sure there's no real problem, it's just the government getting some PR and potentially some money via some kind of license/permit fee.
Musk and SpaceX have no desire to hurt anyone, that would impact their plans.
At this point this country would greatly benefit from less government involvement in just about everything. /libertarian
> I'm sure there's no real problem, it's just the government getting some PR and potentially some money via some kind of license/permit fee.
What makes you so sure? There's airports and heli pads nearby. It's the FAAs job to keep aviation safe.
What makes you so sure? There's airports and heli pads nearby. It's the FAAs job to keep aviation safe.
Tell that to the folks who were on the 737 Max....
The issue is the tower is intended to be as high as 480ft. This is significant as that means it will end up being listed on charts and factored into any nearby instrument approach procedures.
All that said, this is a case where the FAA probably shouldn't be dragging their heels. It's trivial (single digit minutes) to figure out what this impacts and shouldn't be more than a day to come to a conclusion and generate a report on necessary approach, chart, and notam updates among others. Unfortunately this isn't how these agencies operate.
EDIT: The FAA reviewed the site multiple times, including earlier this year and found no impact on aviation navigation so unclear what they're potentially upset about. The area is rather sparse and the closest airport is a small untowered field 15 miles away.
All that said, this is a case where the FAA probably shouldn't be dragging their heels. It's trivial (single digit minutes) to figure out what this impacts and shouldn't be more than a day to come to a conclusion and generate a report on necessary approach, chart, and notam updates among others. Unfortunately this isn't how these agencies operate.
EDIT: The FAA reviewed the site multiple times, including earlier this year and found no impact on aviation navigation so unclear what they're potentially upset about. The area is rather sparse and the closest airport is a small untowered field 15 miles away.
> Unfortunately this isn't how these agencies operate.
I have some state-run tennis courts nearby. In order to sign up you need to bypass the certificate warning, identify what kind of nonprofit you aren't, specifically ask for the "tennis" amenity at the tennis court location, and explain what you want to do there (tennis). Oh, and you need to sign up at least two days in advance so the bureaucrat can approve it.
Indeed, it is not how these agencies operate.
I have some state-run tennis courts nearby. In order to sign up you need to bypass the certificate warning, identify what kind of nonprofit you aren't, specifically ask for the "tennis" amenity at the tennis court location, and explain what you want to do there (tennis). Oh, and you need to sign up at least two days in advance so the bureaucrat can approve it.
Indeed, it is not how these agencies operate.
A small untowered airport seems like exactly the type of place where someone could fly into a nearby tower.
It’s 15 miles away. No instrument approach I’ve flown is that low that far away. Never would I ever fly below 500 feet AGL in IFR conditions and not on final approach.
"Seems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying"
They'd never do that, would they?
They'd never do that, would they?
without any further context, this seems like the system working as intended: the FAA gives warning as a courtesy, spaceX says "thanks, we know, we're not using it for anything that would break the rules".
nobody has issued any orders or fines. any drama about the FAA being "angry" seems to be invented by the internet.
nobody has issued any orders or fines. any drama about the FAA being "angry" seems to be invented by the internet.
I've been following Starship development closely, and I would be shocked if SpaceX was not planning to use this tower for the first orbital launch. Even as of the last few weeks, their aspirational goal was to launch this month, and the planned second tower would take months to build from this point - no evidence of progress on a second launch mount or tower foundation.
>Seems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying
Well, the article does sort of accuse them of that, right after the part you quote:
> But the agency said description in documents "indicates otherwise."
> The FAA cited a SpaceX document that the towers would be used to integrate the Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle. "Super Heavy would be mated to the launch mount, followed by Starship mated to Super Heavy," the FAA letter said quoting SpaceX's May 5 submission.
Well, the article does sort of accuse them of that, right after the part you quote:
> But the agency said description in documents "indicates otherwise."
> The FAA cited a SpaceX document that the towers would be used to integrate the Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle. "Super Heavy would be mated to the launch mount, followed by Starship mated to Super Heavy," the FAA letter said quoting SpaceX's May 5 submission.
FAA already granted permission to SpaceX to build the tower several months ago.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
Title is completely misleading.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
Title is completely misleading.
Why is the headline editorialized to include Elon's name? Reuter's title reads 'U.S. warns SpaceX its new Texas launch site tower not yet approved'.
It's even editorialized to be false given that FAA granted permission to build the tower.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
The FAA is in a pissing match with SpaceX. They are an organization that was setup to deal with 1 or 2 space launches a year. They don't know how to operate to accommodate the amount of launches SpaceX wants to have. So instead of changing or modernizing they flex. The old I'll show them who's in charge, will drive them out of business with paperwork and a bureaucracy. Who do they think they are wanting to expand Human civilization to Mars! Musk should just pay them off the way Boeing did.
This project appears to be on the critical path to making humanity a multi planetary species. That should be balanced against whatever impact the environmental review finds. Not that it should give SpaceX a blank check. But to the extent that the environment is fragile and needs protection, it's even more important to not have all of our eggs in it.
> This project appears to be on the critical path to making humanity a multi planetary species.
Inasmuch as "multi planetary" means multiple _self supporting_ planetary settlements (and otherwise, what's the point?), that seems to be an entirely unrealistic goal for the foreseeable future, so, by definition, there cannot really be a "critical path" to such a goal.
Inasmuch as "multi planetary" means multiple _self supporting_ planetary settlements (and otherwise, what's the point?), that seems to be an entirely unrealistic goal for the foreseeable future, so, by definition, there cannot really be a "critical path" to such a goal.
No other system currently built will get human to Mars even non-self supporting.
That may be so, but that's a different claim. If he had a plausible path to build a backstop against catastrophes threatening to wipe out humanity, a case could be made that this should outweigh everyday regulations & petty bureaucratic paperwork.
What he has is a plausible path to shipping canned apes for a brief sojourn to a far away locale fairly hostile to long term habitation. If that's what he wants, fine, but there's no reason the regular legal process needs to be waived for that.
What he has is a plausible path to shipping canned apes for a brief sojourn to a far away locale fairly hostile to long term habitation. If that's what he wants, fine, but there's no reason the regular legal process needs to be waived for that.
> a plausible path to shipping canned apes for a brief sojourn
The important part of that end is a much more economical tech for putting mass into orbit. I'd argue that is currently the single most effective thing that we can do toward becoming multiplanetary. Yes it still leaves a very long road ahead, but it's a bridge across an otherwise impassible chasm. A related Heinlein/Pournelle exchange:
The important part of that end is a much more economical tech for putting mass into orbit. I'd argue that is currently the single most effective thing that we can do toward becoming multiplanetary. Yes it still leaves a very long road ahead, but it's a bridge across an otherwise impassible chasm. A related Heinlein/Pournelle exchange:
Unfortunately, in Blowups Happen a capability for orbiting large payloads had been developed. "Aha," I said. "I see your problem. If you can get a ship into orbit, you're halfway to the moon."
"No," Bob said. "If you can get your ship into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere."
He was very nearly right.
Nothing is self supporting on long enough timescales.
The title is a bit FUD, SpaceX already received permission to build the tower from the FAA.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
There's the document.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
There's the document.
Slightly relevant video: https://youtu.be/gNFyLGlR-0w
better to say sorry than ask permission. I know an awful lot about the FAA. Progress demands risk and the FAA is a pathologically risk averse agency. Many people in the agency understand this but outwardly must tow the party line. therefore when the FAA is being unreasonable I believe SpaceX should ignore them and push the envelope.
“Fine, I’ll take my knowledge and business to China”
“Okay, okay we’re sorry, Mr. Musk”
“Okay, okay we’re sorry, Mr. Musk”
LOL, pretty sure Musk is more scared of the Chinese government than the US government.
I've never seen Tesla/Musk apologize for anything, except when it comes to China. If Musk wants to be able to open his mouth with his opinions he'd be better to stay in the US.
"Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) came under increased pressure in China on Wednesday from regulators and state media after Monday's protest by a disgruntled customer at the Shanghai auto show went viral and forced the electric car maker into a rare apology."
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/china-...
And lets not forget when he was accused by the Chinese government on having his vehicles spy in China and how he had to grovel to not get shutdown.
I've never seen Tesla/Musk apologize for anything, except when it comes to China. If Musk wants to be able to open his mouth with his opinions he'd be better to stay in the US.
"Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) came under increased pressure in China on Wednesday from regulators and state media after Monday's protest by a disgruntled customer at the Shanghai auto show went viral and forced the electric car maker into a rare apology."
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/china-...
And lets not forget when he was accused by the Chinese government on having his vehicles spy in China and how he had to grovel to not get shutdown.
Mostly nonsense. First of all Tesla has no sued the people that made false claim and its mostly about social media not the government.
A few bureaucrats from specific regions made some comments but nothing series.
Also, about the 'spying thing' this was reasonably thing by the government not to allow Tesla in military bases in China, this is no different then things like IPhones not being allowed there.
There was never concern that they would 'shutdown' Tesla.
Tesla has great support from the city and location they are in and pretty good relationship with the central government.
If anything, Tesla has most problems with German environmental (anti progress) groups and the bureaucracy there.
A few bureaucrats from specific regions made some comments but nothing series.
Also, about the 'spying thing' this was reasonably thing by the government not to allow Tesla in military bases in China, this is no different then things like IPhones not being allowed there.
There was never concern that they would 'shutdown' Tesla.
Tesla has great support from the city and location they are in and pretty good relationship with the central government.
If anything, Tesla has most problems with German environmental (anti progress) groups and the bureaucracy there.
Rockets are considered munitions under ITAR. Following through on that threat would result in serious jail time.
Yeah, they're missiles. It's not even a particularly close call as export control regulations go.
SpaceX biggest customer is the US government. You really think the US gov will ship satellites to China for launches?
This. Spacex, while private and agile company, exists purely because of USA government buying their services - that’s majority of their revenue.
There’s nothing wrong with that, being government contractor is a huge part of an economy.
There’s nothing wrong with that, being government contractor is a huge part of an economy.
>There’s nothing wrong with that
The military industrial complex, crony capitalism, and siphoning tax dollars to billionaires are definitely debatable topics.
The military industrial complex, crony capitalism, and siphoning tax dollars to billionaires are definitely debatable topics.
Yeah, Elon's just dying to follow Jack Ma lead.
/s
/s
Jack Ma's only mistake was residing in China.
FAA already granted permission to SpaceX to build the tower.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
Would probably just declare himself his own country. Just needs his own currency (wait, didn't he do that already?), own military (it's handy to own a fleet of ICBMs with better guidance systems than anything the U.S. has), and own energy infrastructure.
He'd still need to buy/steal/conquer some territory. Plenty of terra nullius on Mars though.
Maybe that's been his plan all along.
If only he had oil platforms.
Not currency, military and energy country constitute. People do.
Wouldn't be surprised if Musk would be happy ruling over a country with no people. Just robots who idolize him as their creator.
> FAA Administrator Steve Dickson spoke with Musk on March 12 for 30 minutes to stress "the FAA’s role in protecting public safety by ensuring regulatory compliance....
If there are legit concerns that the FAA needs to be involved in, that's fine. But the fact that Dickson is personally involved is a sign he might be the kind of person that likes to flex on people. There's almost certainly no good reason for him to be personally involved.
If Dickson is just out to engage in a public pissing contest with Elon Musk, it's not hard to predict the outcome. Musk, in 2021, is not easily bullied.
If there are legit concerns that the FAA needs to be involved in, that's fine. But the fact that Dickson is personally involved is a sign he might be the kind of person that likes to flex on people. There's almost certainly no good reason for him to be personally involved.
If Dickson is just out to engage in a public pissing contest with Elon Musk, it's not hard to predict the outcome. Musk, in 2021, is not easily bullied.
I've actually dealt with the FAA on a rocket launch. They're an INCREDIBLY bureaucratic agency. We were inside a continually restricted airspace volume (R-xxxx) as well as a TFR that was miles wide, but at the last minute we were restricted from flying a remotely controlled aircraft released at an apogee of around 2000ft AGL. We'd already received prior approval but then someone at the regional office decided they wanted to flex on the other agency we were working with. There were absolutely no safety concerns, real, procedural, or imagined. It was just someone settling a score with someone else.
Exactly my concern. And IF that's what's going on here then Dickson deserves to be fired.
Musk is already muzzled by a federal agency.
Going head to head with the agency controlling airspace on top of that is a pretty terrible idea.
Going head to head with the agency controlling airspace on top of that is a pretty terrible idea.
The difference is that the SEC was legally in the right. It wasn't the SEC Chairman choosing to flex his authority on a high profile private company.
If Musk is in the right here, the FAA will not have any luck bullying him.
If Musk is in the right here, the FAA will not have any luck bullying him.
silexia(2)
The FAA, more than any technical reason, explains why SpaceX bought two oil rigs to perform oceanic launches.
Launches from international waters from a US firm will still need FAA approval
What requires them to get approval from the FAA for something outside the FAA's jurisdiction?
It is easy for SpaceX to create a shell company that circumvents this.
I don't think that's true.
Many aspects of SpaceX's rockets are covered by ITAR, which puts strict regulations and controls on the exports of many aspects of SpaceX's vehicles.
I imagine exporting the rocket to a non-US based firm would be a much larger bureaucratic hurdle than getting FAA approvals.
Many aspects of SpaceX's rockets are covered by ITAR, which puts strict regulations and controls on the exports of many aspects of SpaceX's vehicles.
I imagine exporting the rocket to a non-US based firm would be a much larger bureaucratic hurdle than getting FAA approvals.
ITAR is largely voluntary. I say this having looked at the regulations because at one time I wanted to produce/was producing things that fell under ITAR. In a lot of situations if you say it is not restricted by ITAR then it is not.
This leaves me (and hopefully you) wondering what ITAR actually still accomplishes. I guess federal contracts dictate the use of the ensuing technology? I still see issues with that depending on how IP rights are assigned.
I guess we're waiting on the next PGP-style test of export control laws.
This leaves me (and hopefully you) wondering what ITAR actually still accomplishes. I guess federal contracts dictate the use of the ensuing technology? I still see issues with that depending on how IP rights are assigned.
I guess we're waiting on the next PGP-style test of export control laws.
No, people living like to live on the coast is the reason.
> SpaceX told the FAA in May that it did not believe the review was necessary because it only intends to use the "integration tower for production, research, and development purposes and not for FAA-licensed or -permitted launches," the FAA said.
Does the FAA have jurisdiction over this tower if they're not actually using it for launches?