Citing slow Starship reviews, SpaceX urges FAA to double licensing staff(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Citing slow Starship reviews, SpaceX urges FAA to double licensing staff
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/citing-slow-starship-reviews-spacex-urges-faa-to-double-licensing-staff/
108 comments
They are. It’s incredibly good PR with a left leaning base to attack Musk as he’s been built up over the last few years as one of the big bad guys.
> incredibly good PR with a left leaning base to attack Musk
The FAA?
The media had a field day with the pad damage. But there were chunks of concrete lofted for miles from the launch site. Nobody is targeting Musk from the FAA.
The FAA?
The media had a field day with the pad damage. But there were chunks of concrete lofted for miles from the launch site. Nobody is targeting Musk from the FAA.
People had a lot of reasons to dislike Elon Musk, much of it is self inflicted, but this has little to do with slowness of the FAA.
So the DOJ press release [1] states that SpaceX was discriminating against asylees and refugees which is in breach of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Not sure why you think it is unfair for the US government to be enforcing the law. Especially when these are people who are in the US legally and are more than likely on a pathway to US citizenship.
Would anyone here seriously want a situation where tech companies would only hire US citizens and not those on relevant work visas ? This would decimate the whole industry.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-space...
Not sure why you think it is unfair for the US government to be enforcing the law. Especially when these are people who are in the US legally and are more than likely on a pathway to US citizenship.
Would anyone here seriously want a situation where tech companies would only hire US citizens and not those on relevant work visas ? This would decimate the whole industry.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-space...
Giving technical details to a foreign citizen is considered an export of ITAR or other restricted information and can get you personally locked in federal prison.
ITAR is comolex, and a pain in the ass, sure. But it does not, by any means, make it illegal for non-US citizens to get ITAR equipment or information. Because US citizens outside the US also fall under ITAR restrictions. You over simplified that topic a lot.
Edit: Thinking of it, getting ITAR stuff to people and places ourside the US is the point of ITAR.
Edit: Thinking of it, getting ITAR stuff to people and places ourside the US is the point of ITAR.
I overly simplify it because I need to consult a lawyer any time I deal with it. I do not want to accidentally "export" anything. You need specialized lawyers to deal with this and be compliant, it's not cheap, and I personally default to not chancing it with prison.
One of the benefits of a large org, they take care of that. Including any fines for any violations!
Please read the link I posted.
"Moreover, asylees’ and refugees’ permission to live and work in the United States does not expire, and they stand on equal footing with U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents under export control laws"
"Moreover, asylees’ and refugees’ permission to live and work in the United States does not expire, and they stand on equal footing with U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents under export control laws"
There are pathways for it to happen. But you need a team of specialized lawyers, training for all employees, controls, etc.
None of this is free.
None of this is free.
ITAR refers to "us persons" not "us citizens". Which includes asylees and refuges in America.
I found one of SpaceX's job postings from 2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20190513175439/https://boards.gr...
The DOJ alleges that they excluded asylees and refugees in their job postings. But this doesn't exclude asylees or refugees. It says applicants have to be citizens, permanent resident, or protected individuals as defined in the law: > To conform to U.S. Government space technology export regulations, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) you must be a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident of the U.S., protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3), or eligible to obtain the required authorizations from the U.S. Department of State.
The referenced law is the one referenced by the DOJ that includes asylees and refugees.
This job posting that is for top-secret cleared individuals has the same language: https://web.archive.org/web/20190513175514/https://boards.gr...
The DOJ alleges that they excluded asylees and refugees in their job postings. But this doesn't exclude asylees or refugees. It says applicants have to be citizens, permanent resident, or protected individuals as defined in the law: > To conform to U.S. Government space technology export regulations, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) you must be a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident of the U.S., protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3), or eligible to obtain the required authorizations from the U.S. Department of State.
The referenced law is the one referenced by the DOJ that includes asylees and refugees.
This job posting that is for top-secret cleared individuals has the same language: https://web.archive.org/web/20190513175514/https://boards.gr...
I think the DoJ case is deep enough that a trivial search via the way back machine isn’t going to sink it.
If not then maybe they really do need money for more competent staff.
If not then maybe they really do need money for more competent staff.
Can refugees get security clearance?
Does Northrop Grumman hire refugees and asylees? Does Lockheed Martin?
Does Northrop Grumman hire refugees and asylees? Does Lockheed Martin?
What sort of security clearance is necessary to work at below average wages on a non-union assembly line? Or moderating what little hate speech still warrants attention on Ex-Twitter? Or digging tunnels under Las Vegas? Or installing solar batteries? Or servicing Teslas or charging stations? Or cleaning debris under mandate in the Boca Chica nature preserves bordering SpaceX’s “definitely not a launch pad” launch pad? Or working directly on Falcon rockets for that matter, since they aren’t exactly secret or weaponized?
> security clearance is necessary to work at below average wages on a non-union assembly line
SpaceX employees are very well compensated.
> working directly on Falcon rockets for that matter, since they aren’t exactly secret or weaponized
There is a long list of adversaries trying to develop technologies that approach SpaceX's. (Every missile program, for starters.)
SpaceX employees are very well compensated.
> working directly on Falcon rockets for that matter, since they aren’t exactly secret or weaponized
There is a long list of adversaries trying to develop technologies that approach SpaceX's. (Every missile program, for starters.)
Securoty clearance, after getting a visa and work permit? Sure, why not?
And not all jobs at those companies require clearance, far from it actually.
And not all jobs at those companies require clearance, far from it actually.
> Securoty clearance, after getting a visa and work permit? Sure, why not?
Clearance requires US citizenship.
> And not all jobs at those companies require clearance, far from it actually.
This is the more important point.
Clearance requires US citizenship.
> And not all jobs at those companies require clearance, far from it actually.
This is the more important point.
> Clearance requires US citizenship
"...if a non-U.S. citizen requires access to U.S. classified information and meets the requirements of the 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 117.10(k), a Limited Access Authorization (LAA) no higher than the Secret level may be issued."
https://www.dcsa.mil/Industrial-Security/International-Progr...
"...if a non-U.S. citizen requires access to U.S. classified information and meets the requirements of the 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 117.10(k), a Limited Access Authorization (LAA) no higher than the Secret level may be issued."
https://www.dcsa.mil/Industrial-Security/International-Progr...
> ... but the LAA is not a national security eligibility. Access to classified will be limited to a specific program or project and will be cancelled upon the completion of the program or project for which it was approved...
I mean, I originally thought about lengthening my answer to point out that there are limited ways to allow people of extraordinary necessity to work on classified projects, but I figured it wasn't necessary.
I mean, I originally thought about lengthening my answer to point out that there are limited ways to allow people of extraordinary necessity to work on classified projects, but I figured it wasn't necessary.
> Clearance requires US citizenship.
How do you think information is shared amongst NATO? Do they get American citizenship for a day?
Not every Clearance do not require US citizenship.
How do you think information is shared amongst NATO? Do they get American citizenship for a day?
Not every Clearance do not require US citizenship.
See, clearance in Europe doesn't require citizenship. It does make it a lot easier so.
You can require security clearance if the job requires it. You cannot forbid refugees and asylees from all jobs preemptively.
SpaceX has nothing to do with giving clearances. They just check if they are active (they can pay the government to investigate if someone should be given one)
And many workers will not require security clearance.
SpaceX has nothing to do with giving clearances. They just check if they are active (they can pay the government to investigate if someone should be given one)
And many workers will not require security clearance.
a) DOJ states that asylees/refugees are no different to US citizens with respect to export control laws.
b) US government issues security clearances not SpaceX so it is their call whether a candidate is suitable or not. And given that they are filing a lawsuit we can assume this is not an issue.
c) The issues raised by the DOJ do not relate specifically to security clearances.
b) US government issues security clearances not SpaceX so it is their call whether a candidate is suitable or not. And given that they are filing a lawsuit we can assume this is not an issue.
c) The issues raised by the DOJ do not relate specifically to security clearances.
Not every role at SpaceX requires clearance.
But every role requires being a US person due to ITAR regulations.
That's not what ITAR says so.
All roles at SpaceX are ITAR restricted, including janitors etc. SpaceX could set up physical separation to allow them to hire non-ITAR employees, but they are not required to.
ITAR restricted roles are restricted to "US persons". SpaceX confused that terminology with "US citizens", but "US persons" is a broader term than "US citizens".
ITAR restricted roles are restricted to "US persons". SpaceX confused that terminology with "US citizens", but "US persons" is a broader term than "US citizens".
Why the hell does a janitor need ITAR accreditation (the right term, as one can have ITAR access without any kind of security clearance whatsoever)?
And I can assure you, outside the US, even Chinese nationals can have access to ITAR equipment and data. I am no US person neither, and I had in the past. As does every single user of US military gear in nations the US exports to...
And I can assure you, outside the US, even Chinese nationals can have access to ITAR equipment and data. I am no US person neither, and I had in the past. As does every single user of US military gear in nations the US exports to...
Because SpaceX doesn't want their engineers to have to worry about when & where they can talk about work while they're at work.
Source? Because thisnis the first time I ever heard of that interpretation of ITAR in my whole life...
Edit: That approach could get you sued for discrimination so.
Edit: That approach could get you sued for discrimination so.
The why is hearsay and speculative. But all jobs at SpaceX are ITAR (https://www.spacex.com/careers/jobs/), and the DOJ apparently has no problem with that part of it.
Just checked one job, all it says is, that the applicant must be able to obtain ITAR accreditation from the Department of State. Nothing really extraordinary in aerospace, especially for an US company. Weird so, that SoaceX is emphasizong the ITAR aspect so much, but then I have no experience how that is handled in the US, maybe that normal.
That being said, ITAR is not a job classification, ITAR covers the move of anything defense or dual use related (data, information, hardware...) outside the US with some weird things about nationalities of people handling those things. It has nothing to do with classified or secret information, that is something different in addition to ITAR.
The thing that puzzles me about roles like janitors: ITAR is "need to know, right to know", meaning if you don't have both, you don't need access to ITAR protected data. And since the normal janitor, or payroll admin, has neither nobody bothers those roles with ITAR normally...
That being said, ITAR is not a job classification, ITAR covers the move of anything defense or dual use related (data, information, hardware...) outside the US with some weird things about nationalities of people handling those things. It has nothing to do with classified or secret information, that is something different in addition to ITAR.
The thing that puzzles me about roles like janitors: ITAR is "need to know, right to know", meaning if you don't have both, you don't need access to ITAR protected data. And since the normal janitor, or payroll admin, has neither nobody bothers those roles with ITAR normally...
As you point out, ITAR refers to "US Persons", and "US Persons" explicitly allows permanent residents, lawfully admitted temporary residents, and refugees. "or who is a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)"
...
(3)“Protected individual” defined As used in paragraph (1), the term “protected individual” means an individual who— (A)is a citizen or national of the United States, or (B)is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160(a) or 1255a(a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title;
...
...
(3)“Protected individual” defined As used in paragraph (1), the term “protected individual” means an individual who— (A)is a citizen or national of the United States, or (B)is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160(a) or 1255a(a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title;
...
Alternately, is it possible that he runs companies in industries that are subject to heavy regulation, is ideologically opposed to regulation (to the point that his companies consistently shirk regulatory requirements at every opportunity), and owns his own giant propaganda broadcast network?
And he as a billionaire lives in a tax favorable nation for him, where federal agencies don't receive proper funding in part due to low taxes on people with wealth like him, resulting in lower funding for legally required regulation of his own industries?
And is reported to be using low-regulation states to get favorable/low regulation; for for example asking Kingdom of Tonga to approve of more than doubling the total number of satellites in orbit. https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-files-29988-satellit...
> where federal agencies don't receive proper funding in part due to low taxes on people with wealth like him
Hilarious considering how much tax revenue the US Government has.
Hilarious considering how much tax revenue the US Government has.
Irrelevant. However much revenue it has, its expenses are higher. People want it to do more than they are willing to pay for.
So, here's Musk, proposing that they government do even more - hire more people. There are three options: Find something else to cut, raise more revenue, or run a larger deficit. Musk's lack of taxes is directly relevant.
So, here's Musk, proposing that they government do even more - hire more people. There are three options: Find something else to cut, raise more revenue, or run a larger deficit. Musk's lack of taxes is directly relevant.
Wouldn't running the nations industry more efficiently, in this case less waiting time for the bureaucracy, increase the nations revenue? It seems to me SpaceX has the potential to be a trillion dollar company.
Maybe but one single disaster due to failure to comply with regulations would more than wipe out that increase in revenue. We see this time and time again. The recent train derailment in Ohio is a great example of this.
Name checks out
FAA's slowness is different than other part of the government targeting spacex for separate issues.
Ah yes, the Murdoch-owned New York Post. Definitely an objective source for information about the Biden administration.
There's nothing bizarre about the DOJ prosecuting someone who has no filter and constantly brags about his disdain for the law. In fact, it makes you quite an obvious target for prosecutors. See also: Trump, Donald J.
There's nothing bizarre about the DOJ prosecuting someone who has no filter and constantly brags about his disdain for the law. In fact, it makes you quite an obvious target for prosecutors. See also: Trump, Donald J.
It's quite possible that the Biden administration may have it out for him because he is a vocal critic and isn't letting them suppress speech on Twitter they way they used to.
However, if you read (or listen in my case) to his recently released biography (it presents both his flaws and greatness), you will see plenty of examples of intentionally flouting regulations. This is due to a combination of ignorance/impulsiveness (e.g. the $420/share fiasco), a maniacal sense of urgency, reality distortion (e.g. Full self driving that is not full self driving), and product perfectionism (e.g not including a safety warning on the back of the passenger side mirror because he didn't like how it looked). It's also ingrained in his way of working to question all requirements until it is proved that they are needed- this would also predispose one towards flouting regulation until enforcement.
All of these traits have helped to make him highly successful, but they all come bundled with a dark side that makes for an inevitable clash with regulators.
However, if you read (or listen in my case) to his recently released biography (it presents both his flaws and greatness), you will see plenty of examples of intentionally flouting regulations. This is due to a combination of ignorance/impulsiveness (e.g. the $420/share fiasco), a maniacal sense of urgency, reality distortion (e.g. Full self driving that is not full self driving), and product perfectionism (e.g not including a safety warning on the back of the passenger side mirror because he didn't like how it looked). It's also ingrained in his way of working to question all requirements until it is proved that they are needed- this would also predispose one towards flouting regulation until enforcement.
All of these traits have helped to make him highly successful, but they all come bundled with a dark side that makes for an inevitable clash with regulators.
> he is a vocal critic and isn't letting them suppress speech on Twitter they way they used to.
This never happened.
This never happened.
> the DOJ's bizarre suite alleging the company engaged in employment discrimination against non-US citizens
This wasn't bizarre and was appropriate. The company updated their recruitment policies to comply.
This wasn't bizarre and was appropriate. The company updated their recruitment policies to comply.
I assume the review is a pretty reasonable one and thats why the article doesn't detail what it is or why nobody is claiming its unnecessary.
Reviews plural. Each launch gets one, so there are over 90 for SpaceX alone this year, plus more for RocketLab, Virgin Galactic, ULA et cetera.
And AFAICT, SpaceX acknowledges these are necessary in the second paragraph.
And AFAICT, SpaceX acknowledges these are necessary in the second paragraph.
Is SpaceX urging congress to raise their taxes to pay for more staffing? I doubt it.
Do you seriously think they wouldn't pay for the additional staff directly out of pocket if they were allowed to? Seems like an obvious and easy win as far as business investments go.
So you want the 3rd party agency responsible for review to be paid for by the company that wants the review...
> you want the 3rd party agency responsible for review to be paid for by the company that wants the review
No, they're saying that the not "urging congress to raise their taxes" take is a straw man.
No, they're saying that the not "urging congress to raise their taxes" take is a straw man.
Okay so if you dont want either of those things, where does the money come from?
> if you dont want either of those things, where does the money come from?
I don't see a problem with higher use fees for frequent funding new hires. I can't imagine SpaceX would, either. Plenty of regulators charge application fees without getting compromised.
I don't see a problem with higher use fees for frequent funding new hires. I can't imagine SpaceX would, either. Plenty of regulators charge application fees without getting compromised.
Again, this is a strawman. No one should engage with this question.
The tax payer, Musk cannot be bothered either way with all the world saving stuff he does.
That's only for the pharmaceutical industry.
They could charge $20M for each application round. That'd provide enough staff.
The agency would have a financial motivation to incorrectly reject applications, which is better than having a financial motivation to rubber-stamp them. (Both things are bad, but incorrect reject is slightly better.)
The agency would have a financial motivation to incorrectly reject applications, which is better than having a financial motivation to rubber-stamp them. (Both things are bad, but incorrect reject is slightly better.)
RocketLab charges ~$7M per launch.
I don't know how the FAA operates, but that's a perfectly reasonable model.
They are still government employees. Where the government takes the money from has little impact on their goals.
They are still government employees. Where the government takes the money from has little impact on their goals.
Regulatory capture is a danger there. But yea, the article says they suggested it at least as an interim solution.
funding the Federal Aviation Administration, included $37.854 million for its Office of Commercial Space Transportation. The office, which received $32.47 million in fiscal year 2022, requested $42.5 million for 2023.
We're talking about maybe an extra $20 million. The idea this demands some reassessment of federal tax policy to meet the funding requirements is just hilariously transparent and nonsensical axe-grinding.
[1] https://spacenews.com/omnibus-includes-budget-increases-for-...
We're talking about maybe an extra $20 million. The idea this demands some reassessment of federal tax policy to meet the funding requirements is just hilariously transparent and nonsensical axe-grinding.
[1] https://spacenews.com/omnibus-includes-budget-increases-for-...
[deleted]
I have a question: Does it cost something for SpaceX or anyone to get paperwork for new vehicles, existing changes, regular launches, object movements etc. ?
If it had a price tag, well, the companies would surely pay for their services, right? The more job there is to do that means the more FAA would get paid.
If it had a price tag, well, the companies would surely pay for their services, right? The more job there is to do that means the more FAA would get paid.
Does SpaceX pay a fair share of taxes or do they weasel out of it like every big corporation?
They don't pay taxes, since they aren't profitable. Their core business (launching Falcon9 etc) is highly profitable, but is a small B billion business. OTOH their new businesses (Starlink and Starship) require $10B+ investments.
What does it matter? We have a money printer.
We’ve had to enact generationally high interest rates to try and fix money printer issues. Money printing is not the answer here
Why tax? There's a money printer. What's a few billion more on the yearly interest payments to the Fed?
Why stop at doubling? Those staff should come and sleep at SpaceX shopfloor next to Starship!
It's a joke the FAA take longer to shuffle paperwork than SpaceX take to design and build an entire spacecraft.
No, because said paper work is there to ensure nobody gets hurt when said spacecraft explodes, as it did.
And no one was hurt so everything worked out?
I took an extra mortgage with my house as collateral and went to the casino with that money. I won a lot of money, so that made it a smart decision, right?
If you can do that with high probability (9 times out of 10?), then yes.
All safety critical stuff comes down to high-stakes gambling.
One approach that I've seen work well is to estimate the expected number of terrible events per year (which is just the mean time to failure of the system). Things start to be reasonably at about a 0.01 probability per year. (So, we'd expect SpaceX to crash in a populated area once a century. If they launch roughly 100 rockets per year. That means that there has to be a less than a 1 in 10,000 chance that a given rocket crashes and that it kills someone in the process.)
(The 0.01 is picked as an example. I have no idea how many zeros the actual FAA regulatory process aims for, or if they go by expected deaths vs. incident rates, etc.)
All safety critical stuff comes down to high-stakes gambling.
One approach that I've seen work well is to estimate the expected number of terrible events per year (which is just the mean time to failure of the system). Things start to be reasonably at about a 0.01 probability per year. (So, we'd expect SpaceX to crash in a populated area once a century. If they launch roughly 100 rockets per year. That means that there has to be a less than a 1 in 10,000 chance that a given rocket crashes and that it kills someone in the process.)
(The 0.01 is picked as an example. I have no idea how many zeros the actual FAA regulatory process aims for, or if they go by expected deaths vs. incident rates, etc.)
This isn't really great logic. Lofting concrete chunks over populated areas isn't exactly "everything worked out" or "safe" even if everyone happens to survive.
That was sand, not concrete.
> That was sand, not concrete
"...many large concrete chunks, stainless-steel sheets, metal and other objects were 'hurled thousands of feet away,' along with a plume of concrete particles that resulted in the miles-away scattering. A 3½-acre fire also started on Boca Chica State Park, south of the launch pad, the agency said."
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-04-26/spacex-sta...
"...many large concrete chunks, stainless-steel sheets, metal and other objects were 'hurled thousands of feet away,' along with a plume of concrete particles that resulted in the miles-away scattering. A 3½-acre fire also started on Boca Chica State Park, south of the launch pad, the agency said."
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-04-26/spacex-sta...
That does not contradict what I said. The concrete chunks did not get as far as populated areas.
Also articles dated 4-26 significantly predated any lab analysis of the particles that reached Boca Chica Ranch and Port Isabel. It was presumed they were concrete particles, but they were just sand.
Also articles dated 4-26 significantly predated any lab analysis of the particles that reached Boca Chica Ranch and Port Isabel. It was presumed they were concrete particles, but they were just sand.
Even if things are "just sand", silicosis is a thing and drowning a populated area in it is not super great.
Silicosis from 30 seconds of exposure to a small amount of sand is not a thing.
Covering homes with fine dust, and then having that abate in 30 seconds, is not a thing.
It's on a fucking beach. Every time there's wind (and the area is very windy), there's sand in the air.
You're saying the way the towns were inundated was typical and this was not out of the ordinary in any way?
Like, bruh: blowing up your pad and showering the surrounding area isn't cool.
It's not a surprise that this freaks out local residents. It's not a surprise that lots of freaked out local residents makes for a freaked out regulator.
Like, bruh: blowing up your pad and showering the surrounding area isn't cool.
It's not a surprise that this freaks out local residents. It's not a surprise that lots of freaked out local residents makes for a freaked out regulator.
It's being launched over an ocean with nobody on board. These reviews are just obstruction.
That seems a bit reductive, example from article notes how rocket flight paths do pass over public lands from certain locations and trajectories:
> For example, the company's Falcon 9 launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base sometimes fly over Jalama Beach, which is due south of the spaceport in California. SpaceX has been performing calculations, based on flight path and breakup analysis, to determine whether the beach needs to be closed. But because this work would compete directly with the FAA's Starship analysis, it has put the Jalama Beach review on hold and attempted to find nighttime launch windows when the beach would be empty.
> For example, the company's Falcon 9 launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base sometimes fly over Jalama Beach, which is due south of the spaceport in California. SpaceX has been performing calculations, based on flight path and breakup analysis, to determine whether the beach needs to be closed. But because this work would compete directly with the FAA's Starship analysis, it has put the Jalama Beach review on hold and attempted to find nighttime launch windows when the beach would be empty.
You've obviously never built a house in California. They're complaining about 6-8 month turnarounds to review a rocket permit.
That's well below the typical turnaround time for new house construction around here. Heck, I've heard of generator permits taking longer than that.
To be clear how absurd that is, a generator permit is one that gets you permission to pour a concrete pad, place a store-bought residential generator on it, and then trench and run electrical lines between it and an existing electrical panel.
I empathize with SpaceX, but there are similar issues with far larger economic impact throughout all layers of the US government. Ever hear the story about the access road in Marin that they needed to build for Golden Gate Bridge maintenance? It took longer to permit and cost more to build than the bridge (inflation adjusted).
That's well below the typical turnaround time for new house construction around here. Heck, I've heard of generator permits taking longer than that.
To be clear how absurd that is, a generator permit is one that gets you permission to pour a concrete pad, place a store-bought residential generator on it, and then trench and run electrical lines between it and an existing electrical panel.
I empathize with SpaceX, but there are similar issues with far larger economic impact throughout all layers of the US government. Ever hear the story about the access road in Marin that they needed to build for Golden Gate Bridge maintenance? It took longer to permit and cost more to build than the bridge (inflation adjusted).
SpaceX is willing to pay more money to fund the FAA hiring staff right?
Does SpaceX pay fair share of taxes in the U.S or does it play the standard tax loophole games of other international corporations? It's not even paying the government sufficiently for the favorable efficiencies that it is asking for. SpaceX and its customers, not the general public, will benefit by additional licensing staff.
> does it play the standard tax loophole games of other international corporations?
SpaceX is an American company--not even multinational. They're barely profitable [1], however, so most taxes would be paid on fees, payroll and property.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/17/spacex-reported-a-profit-in-...
SpaceX is an American company--not even multinational. They're barely profitable [1], however, so most taxes would be paid on fees, payroll and property.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/17/spacex-reported-a-profit-in-...
SpaceX isn't profitable as a whole or barely so, they have a profitable activity (Falcon 9), but they invest a shitload of money into Starship and Starlink.
Tesla pays a lot of taxes.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/total-p....
Tesla pays a lot of taxes.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/total-p....
What does adding extra staff to a late project do?
In cases where the procedures are complicated, which I'd be willing to be this is, you might find that it takes the better part of a decade for new staff to come up to speed at their jobs. And in the mean time the existing staff are going to be spending part of their time doing training.
In cases where the procedures are complicated, which I'd be willing to be this is, you might find that it takes the better part of a decade for new staff to come up to speed at their jobs. And in the mean time the existing staff are going to be spending part of their time doing training.
Late? It's not late.
> hat is on top of new entrants such as United Launch Alliance's Vulcan rocket, Blue Origin's New Glenn, and other smaller rockets coming online. Then there is the increased flight rate by Virgin Galactic, the return to flight by Blue Origin's New Shepard suborbital tourism rocket, and the potential for high-altitude balloon flights. ... "We see a trainwreck coming,"
> For example, when SpaceX sought to move its tank farm at Launch Complex 39A in Florida, it submitted...
> "The range has an operational bent, and they’ve been very supportive about being able to support our launch rate,"
> ...has slowed down the company's progress not just on development of the Starship program, but on innovations with the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as well.
So what I read that FAA is involved into all of falcon flights, into object movements within their territory, with new hardware for falcom, with starship, with new entrants....
And why do I need to repeat the article? They propose the following near-term solution:
> The company also believes that license applicants should be able to opt-in to help fund independent third-party technical support to assist the FAA surge in the near term while the agency goes through the hiring process.
> hat is on top of new entrants such as United Launch Alliance's Vulcan rocket, Blue Origin's New Glenn, and other smaller rockets coming online. Then there is the increased flight rate by Virgin Galactic, the return to flight by Blue Origin's New Shepard suborbital tourism rocket, and the potential for high-altitude balloon flights. ... "We see a trainwreck coming,"
> For example, when SpaceX sought to move its tank farm at Launch Complex 39A in Florida, it submitted...
> "The range has an operational bent, and they’ve been very supportive about being able to support our launch rate,"
> ...has slowed down the company's progress not just on development of the Starship program, but on innovations with the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as well.
So what I read that FAA is involved into all of falcon flights, into object movements within their territory, with new hardware for falcom, with starship, with new entrants....
And why do I need to repeat the article? They propose the following near-term solution:
> The company also believes that license applicants should be able to opt-in to help fund independent third-party technical support to assist the FAA surge in the near term while the agency goes through the hiring process.
Adding more staff will make the 2023 problem worse, but will fix the 2025 problem.
It's not about extra staff for one late project, it's about extra staff to handle the anticipated increase in the number of projects SpaceX, Blue Origin and others are planning to be throwing their way in the next few years. They are already starting to struggle to keep up; this is about preventing it getting worse.
Remember the DOJ's bizarre suite alleging the company engaged in employment discrimination against non-US citizens.
https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/biden-doj-targeting-of-elon-mu...