BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jan 2021, 15:57

Unfortunately it seems that SpaceX has run afoul of the FAA, who is requiring a site inspection prior to granting approval for the flight. Speculation I heard is that during a recent static fire test, someone got onto the closed road that goes past the pads, driving by in their car. No harm done, but not sufficient security. Could all be rumor, but the source of the wait at this point is not. We're waiting for approval from OKC.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Jan 2021, 19:24

It would be interesting to know why the FAA decided to refuse permission at the last minute. Typical government inefficiency?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jan 2021, 10:41

Username Protected wrote:

It would be interesting to know why the FAA decided to refuse permission at the last minute. Typical government inefficiency?

From what I'm reading is not that the FAA refused it at the last minute it's that they didn't issue it in time SpaceX hoped (and acted as) it would be. They just took their sweet time.

Hence Musk's tweet about FAA being only ready to do handful of expendable launches per year.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jan 2021, 11:49

Username Protected wrote:

It would be interesting to know why the FAA decided to refuse permission at the last minute. Typical government inefficiency?

From what I'm reading is not that the FAA refused it at the last minute it's that they didn't issue it in time SpaceX hoped (and acted as) it would be. They just took their sweet time.

Hence Musk's tweet about FAA being only ready to do handful of expendable launches per year.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jan 2021, 14:29

no surprise he wants to operate from repurposed oil platforms in the sea. Tow them out to international waters and have at it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jan 2021, 15:13

Username Protected wrote:

no surprise he wants to operate from repurposed oil platforms in the sea. Tow them out to international waters and have at it.

Won't help that much since oceanic airspace is assigned to various countries and the FAA would be involved for anything close to the USA.

He just needs to go a few miles south and operate from Mexico. They would probably love to have his operation down there.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jan 2021, 17:12

Username Protected wrote:

no surprise he wants to operate from repurposed oil platforms in the sea. Tow them out to international waters and have at it.

Won't help that much since oceanic airspace is assigned to various countries and the FAA would be involved for anything close to the USA.

He just needs to go a few miles south and operate from Mexico. They would probably love to have his operation down there.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jan 2021, 17:34

I thought SpaceX moved this launch forward on the schedule with short-ish notice ...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Jan 2021, 17:35

Username Protected wrote:

no surprise he wants to operate from repurposed oil platforms in the sea. Tow them out to international waters and have at it.

Won't help that much since oceanic airspace is assigned to various countries and the FAA would be involved for anything close to the USA.

He just needs to go a few miles south and operate from Mexico. They would probably love to have his operation down there.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Jan 2021, 18:36

Username Protected wrote:

He just needs to go a few miles south and operate from Mexico. They would probably love to have his operation down there.

Not gonna happen as SpaceX is subject to ITAR...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2021, 22:58

Quote:

The so-called mishap investigation was opened that week, focusing not only on the explosive landing but on SpaceX’s refusal to stick to the terms of what the FAA authorized, the two people said. It was unclear what part of the test flight violated the FAA license, and an FAA spokesman declined to specify in a statement to The Verge.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/29/22256657/spacex-launch-violation-explosive-starship-faa-investigation-elon-musk

Quote:

The FAA's evaluation of a permit or license application includes a review of 1) public safety issues (such as overflight of populated areas and payload contents); 2) national security or foreign policy concerns; 3) insurance requirements for the launch operator; and 4) potential environmental impact.

https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship/

I am glad the FAA is onboard with helping us get to Mars

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2021, 23:28

Quote:

It was unclear what part of the test flight violated the FAA license, and an FAA spokesman declined to specify in a statement to The Verge.

They violated the part where they are making so much progress they embarrass NASA and every rocket maker in the world.

SN8 was a tremendous success.

This may be the license being discussed:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/Final_%20License%20and%20Orders%20SpaceX%20Starship%20Prototype%20LRLO%2020-119)lliu1.pdf

I'm guessing this clause is the one at issue:

SpaceX must identify and report any anomaly to the FAA occurring on a prior flight of the vehicle or during any pre-flight processing of the vehicle License Order No. LRLO 20-119A that could be material to public safety. SpaceX may not proceed with flight operations until receiving written correspondence from the FAA that the identified anomalies have been adequately addressed.

Lots of vague words like "could be material to public safety" and "adequately addressed". Who defines what those are?

Mike C.