I still don’t understand why it is the FAA that licenses launches in the first place. The FAA’s role should be about the same as the coastguard’s - managing potential traffic conflicts. The EAA or ASPCA or the NACAA probably know about as much about building and launching rockets as the FAA.
NASA, which does employ a few actual rocket scientists and which has actual experience in space operations, should be given a new regulatory mandate (and the budget to go with it). They have the experience to meaningfully investigate incidents and accidents. They also have a slightly broader risk tolerance - something that the nascent space industry needs in order to grow.
For the record, I’m not advocating for wild west space ops. I just think that we need to understand that the learning curve for commercial space flight will involve more risk than the FAA’s culture is built to accept.
1 reply
A camel is a racehorse designed by a committee.
The information provided so far indicates that it is indeed absurd bureaucratic red-tape. Stuff any sensible individual could probably resolve in a day - or less.
I have recent experience dealing with government - specifically around specifics of access to a building. The bureaucrats in charge did not understand the layout of the (small) building, despite it being literally 30ft from their office. Took 6 months to resolve!!
If all you know is pushing paper, then that is what you’ll do, I suppose.
Completely agree. Space launches are not in the FAA’s wheelhouse of expertise and should not be given overall approval authority. Congress and industry love to complain and criticize the agency for all kinds of approval delays. But once there is an incident that takes place, the agency is then criticized for rubber stamping and/or lack of oversight. It is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.
1 reply
The FAA (ATO) should be involved as much as is needed to minimize the disruption to airspace use. Anything to do with the construction should be under NASA.
NASA’s charter is development and exploration… making them a regulatory agency just wouldn’t work.
We need correlation for use of airspace, and we need some sort of regulatory authority that can monitor and regulate the dangers to the populace. In China, for instance, the major launch sites are well inland and they regularly drop burned-out stages into the countryside.
So I think we need some sort of regulatory agency. Dropping this in the FAA’s lap makes about the same sense as making Space Force a part of the Air Force and controlled by it. I think we need a dedicated agency specifically tasked to regulating US space operations, and our primary interface with the international community.
(post deleted by author)
The FAA doesn’t need any encouragement from President Biden to slow-walk any permits for SpaceX. Elon Musk is his own worst enemy when it comes to dealing with the FAA, and pretty much any other government agency. He has routinely gone on record saying that the FAA is inept or incompetent when it comes to overseeing rocket launches and reentries. He may have a point, but saying so on television or the newspapers is only going to prompt them to go slower and ask for even more data before they approve anything. Try calling the guys at the local FSDO lazy and stupid and see what happens when you submit a 337 request.
1 reply
If you’re referring to a field approval, you’d be better off spending the money on a DER/DAR. Inspectors are more and more reluctant to accept the risks of data approval.
Regardless of all the personality issues, SpaceX offers America a unique opportunity to advance space technology not seen since the 60’s. To the FAA: Get on, Get off, or Get out of the way.
This is government doing what it does best which is unnecessarily getting in the way of private sector space activities.
Musk is almost certainly making plans to move SpaceX rocket R&D off shore…literally and figuratively.
The response by the FAA Official just shows why they are not the folks to add any new authority to the scope of what authority they have responsibility for because They are bureaucrats
interested only in rules, fiefdoms and paperwork on top of endless cycles of the same. This is proven when (taken from article direct quote from the FASA official in charge of this system) Kelvin Coleman, testified that the FAA has taken several measures to streamline its process including creating advisory circulars, increasing staff levels and forming a committee to expedite license approvals.End Quotation.
Lets read this and examine his words a minute This Official thinks taking steps to make the process more streamlined is adding more (new, untrained or at best inexperienced) staff, so now it takes more effort to get the right person to file a permit or request properly because unless those new staff are going to grab a stack of applications for launch license 's and work in parallel with existing staffhaving the same authority as existing staff then there is no advantage to adding more staff all they will do is introduce more chance of a rejected application or acceptance of a application in error thus slowing the actual issuance of the launch license. Create advisory circulars - sounds like publication of some kind of notification , Advisory to who? A launch license has been requested , now some staff gets assignment to write this document ,document waits for aproval, rewrite resubmit for aproval, be printed or formatted for electronic distribution distributed to some other parties time allowed for this group or department to respond to the proposed advisory,etc… Read DELAY LOOP again a layer of endless paperwork and then wants to FORM a Committee to EXPEDITE the issuance of the requested license??? How does any of this expedite anything except growing older or death of a company while awaiting the golden licence??
First this shows the attitude and aproach taken by the FAA is faulty and fails to meet the requirements of the task which is to issue permission to launch a craft into space in a timely manner. so I propose the following, The FAA is responcible foronly atmospheric operated craft not attempting travel into spaceor any craft operating in space or transiting atmospheric air space. No extensive studys are to be required such as each launch needing a new enviromental impact study for launches occuring from previously used and studied sites, the original studies done for a site should cover future usebarring new factors worthy of a new study (new fuel, new species discovery, pollution of a environment from unexamined cause becoming known) and then only that aspect being reviewed not a full re-application for a new PERMIT thats lets Licence launch sites and facilities not each launch. Permit each launch with a simple check list , launching a previously tested and approved rocket type, using same booster,site previously used ,weather is approved if with in agreed required safe limits,permit for that launch Approved launch window is set and THEN FAA gets a 24hour notice that launch site X-1, canavral, the virginia launch range what ever will be ACTIVE on this date from window opening until closed please issue proper notice to all air traffic to avoid launch range and stay clear as range will be in use. FAA can handle all traffic rerouting needed to keep Atmospheric traffic clear and out of danger. Let the FAA take care of its duties to air traffic just as it does now, say when a MOA is in use that airs pace is closed period! Let the certification of rockets and spacecraft stay in th e hands of persons and departments all ready expert at this art. Simply achieve efficient and safe application for and issuance of permission to launch. The statements by the FAA official do not address or solve the problem in any sane persons way of thinking, the only way his statement makes any sense at all is that he sees a stack of backlogged applications for licence, in FAA speak a licence is a semi permanent thing like as in a pilots Licence, or a type certification of anew type or design of an aircraft long term endeavors at any level so routing it through advisory panels added staff , committee is an OK way to reduce the backlog because as long as itis not sitting in an in box , but some movement is happening the backlog is veiwed as under control. The delays and time required for these methods being used is an acceptable thing and is viewed by the group or person applying for certification or pilots credential is accepted as normal and a few weeks or months added to getting approval is not a huge deal because the time required to get those approvals is common to take years to acquire by custom. Lets not make a permit to launch a customarily long (years ) endeavor Keep the bureaucrats out of the loop advise, dont ask them for permission, tell them this is happening on this day at this time clear the area .
“…forming a committee to expedite license approvals.”
Oh good… this will produce results in 10 to 15 years. Seriously FAA? Seriously?
Companies are investing billions in space projects but launches are regulated by the same agency that oversees single engine monoplanes. If we do not stop the bureaucrat obsession with over-regulation and the delays imposed by the “green eyeshade” bureaucrats, countries like China which do not have this problem will win the race. We are allowing people who cannot be fired and have no accountability to control human advancement.