Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission

#41

Post by fennecfoxen »

edrxty wrote: post #37
mullingitover wrote: post #3

Seems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying: > 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?

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…

> 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.

Re: FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission

#42

Post by mcguire »

mullingitover wrote: post #3

Seems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying: > 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?

"Seems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying"

They'd never do that, would they?

Re: FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission

#43

Post by ncallaway »

tymekpavel wrote: post #38
GoOnThenDoTell wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Launches from international waters from a US firm will still need FAA approval

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.

Re: FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission

#44

Post by notatoad »

mullingitover wrote: post #3

Seems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying: > 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?

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.

Re: FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission

#45

Post by wil421 »

edrxty wrote: post #37
mullingitover wrote: post #3

Seems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying: > 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?

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…

A small untowered airport seems like exactly the type of place where someone could fly into a nearby tower.

Re: FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission

#46

Post by carterhall »

mullingitover wrote: post #3

Seems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying: > 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?

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.

Re: FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission

#47

Post by hirundo »

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.

Re: FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission

#49

Post by swsieber »

mullingitover wrote: post #3

Seems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying: > 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?

>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.

Re: FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission

#50

Post by timeToSh1t »

mullingitover wrote: post #3

Seems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying: > 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?

You sweet summer child. The FAA doesn't just make the rules, they basically get to determine how they're interpreted as well. There have been some creative interpretations throughout the years.

And who gets to determine FAA jurisdiction? Well it's funny you ask...

Post reply on HN