Where did I get the information on the violation of the overpressure requirements?
The FAA released that information to the news media and they reported it! While no doubt not even 30 in a million of newsmen understand the concept it is obtuse enough in nature that we can be assured they did not make it up.
The FAA utterly lacks the expertise to help SpaceX figure out why the Starships are crashing.
Fortunately, as Elon Musk has put it, “It pays to be a little bit paranoid in this business.” SpaceX has adopted a degree of paranoia in its company policies, after starting out by doing what all such new companies do and adopting an attitude that the established companies in the business were too cautious. Then comes a few high speed 2X4’s applied to the skull and they begin to figure it out.
If the FAA continues to intervene, look for Musk to go back to offshore barges or even to a foreign country for his launches (like the European spaceport in Guiana, South America). OR, perhaps the FAA would be happier if we went back to begging rides on RUSSINA rockets (they could never be blamed for THOSE failures!) The very HUBRIS of the FAA–trying to “regulate from the rear”–regulating something they know nothing about.
Go back and look at all of the rocket failures that GOVERNMENT rockets had in the lead-up to the space program–where was the FAA in “helping” the program THEN? Go back to all of the X-planes that flew at Edwards–THEY had no “FAA supervision.” I can see it all now–“Captain Yeager, you are charged with a still-unwritten Federal Air Regulation for operating the X-1 with known defects–operating the aircraft with a known medical deficiency (broken ribs), and an unauthorized addition to the flight controls (broomstick). Furthermore, the B-29 crew created a hazard to people on the ground by releasing this unairworthy aircraft in flight.” The difference? Unlike PRIVATE aircraft and rocket development, GOVERNMENT IS EXEMPT FROM OTHER GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT.
The British used to have a saying “The CAA considers it a failure every time an aeroplane takes to the skies–there is always the POSSIBILITY of a failure.” The FAA seems to have adopted that failed policy.
SpaceX wouldn’t be allowed to move out of the country. Rocket technology is export controlled under ITAR and a bunch of other federal laws. They would have to have State department permission which I seriously doubt they would get. As far as the offshore barges are concerned I don’t think that would get them out from under the FAA since they would still be a US company. Unfortunately if a government agency wants to control your company you don’t have a lot of options unless you have a lot of support in congress. There is a reason that companies like Boeing and Lockheed spend huge amounts of money on campaign contributions. If they were having a problem like this they would simply make a few phone calls and the FAA would get told to back off from someone very high up. There are still limits to this though as Boeing recently found out.
Musk has enough money to launch from the European Spaceport in Guiana–or to establish a space company in any other “flag of convenience” country–and I wouldn’t blame him. Perhaps Musk’s fervent desire to go to Mars is to escape the FAA
As others have pointed out, the FAA is hardly a space expert–but that doesn’t stop them from trying to regulate it. This isn’t limited to aviation–consider government failure in almost ANYTHING they try to regulate–border crossings? Wage and price controls? Energy policy? The economy? Inflation? Covid? Commodity prices/farm program? Look at aviation itself–how many successful government-designed and manufactured U.S. airplanes can you name? (off the top of my head, I can only think of the N3N–pre WW II).
This isn’t a new phenomenon–does anybody really think that the X-planes could or should have been regulated by the FAA? Let’s face it–throughout aviation history, MOST new aircraft and advances would have been regulated out of the skies by the FAA. If the FAA had existed then, would they have approved the Spirit of St. Louis? ("You can’t fly an airplane with no windshield! You don’t have adequate navigation for an Atlantic crossing! You might lose cloud clearance minimums at night over the Atlantic! "You exceeded your duty time! You landed at a major airport at night, without any lights! You didn’t have an FAA sign off on that airplane, or the required sign-off flight time!
I have a 60+ year collection of most major aviation magazines. The common thread? Ridicule of the CAA/FAA. They have some good ideas–but nearly always “jump the shark” by taking those ideas far overboard.
Could you post a link to your source, please?