Author Topic: FAA, FWS & other permits/licenses for Boca Chica DISCUSSION (Thread 5)  (Read 158690 times)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302

The SLS system is clearly superior. They will not need to skip any launches in order to refurbish their flame trench between scheduled launches. But SpaceX will need to delay multiple launches to make time to refurbish their steel plates. They may lose as much as one week per year.
This is a meaningless endorsement, a terrible comparison, & a faulty conclusion regarding  metrics between the approaches of SLS & SH/SS given the extremely low flight rate of SLS.
Exactly. It was intended as extremely heavy-handed sarcasm.
You should have included a smiley emoji with your post for those people that don't get the sarcasm. ;)

Offline ChrisC

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2259
  • Liked: 1612
  • Likes Given: 1809
Did the temporary flight restriction (TFR) rules over Boca Chica change?  I thought there was a blanket 10000-foot AGL for the entire area, but checking today I see a) a 10000-foot TFR for just the launch complex and b) only a 2000-foot TFR for the village / production area.  I did search the forums before posting, but maybe it was already reported / discussed someplace that didn't come up in search.

Issued 29-Dec-2023, and valid until 01-Jun-2024:
https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_9592.html
https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_9593.html
« Last Edit: 01/29/2024 10:16 pm by ChrisC »
PSA #1: EST does NOT mean "Eastern Time".  Use "Eastern" or "ET" instead, all year round, and avoid this common error.  Google "EST vs EDT".
PSA #2: It's and its: know the difference and quietly impress grammar pedants.  Google "angry flower its" .  *** See profile for two more NSF forum tips. ***

Online Alexphysics

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Spain
  • Liked: 5999
  • Likes Given: 948
They've always had a TFR just over the launch site. Used to be 5,000ft then went to 7,200ft and now it is at 10,000ft. The other one is not the production site, that's Massey and goes to 2,000ft for the ground testing and such. I suspect that once they start ship testing there it may lifted a big higher.

Offline ChrisC

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2259
  • Liked: 1612
  • Likes Given: 1809
OK thanks.  So there's never been a 10k ft restriction over the village?  I thought that was why all the flyovers were always done so high up.  I mean, they could fly lower and just avoid the launch site cylinder.

EDIT:  I asked a similar question elsewhere, and the response was: "The TFR expired on December 31, 2023. A new one was not created to replace it. I have no idea why not. In the past a new TFR was created a couple of days before the old one expired."
« Last Edit: 01/30/2024 02:39 am by ChrisC »
PSA #1: EST does NOT mean "Eastern Time".  Use "Eastern" or "ET" instead, all year round, and avoid this common error.  Google "EST vs EDT".
PSA #2: It's and its: know the difference and quietly impress grammar pedants.  Google "angry flower its" .  *** See profile for two more NSF forum tips. ***

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11986
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9617
  • Likes Given: 8211
This twitter post contains a link to an article, which I provided in this NSF post.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1760701425154183674

Quote
The FAA says SpaceX has asked for permission to launch Starship at least nine times. This year.

Source Article

Quote
"They're looking at a pretty aggressive launch schedule this year," he said. "They're looking at, I believe, at least nine launches this year. That's a lot of launches. If you're doing modifications and doing them one by one, that's a lot of work. We've been talking to SpaceX constantly around the clock, coming together and trying to figure out how do we do this. We're invested with the company, and so we'll work with them to get them back going as soon as they can."

Remakr from regarding FAA Staffing issues to keep up with SpaceX launch requests

Quote
"Right now, we're at about 140 people, and they're pedaling as fast as they can," he said. "We're working on the weekends. We're working late into the night. We do need additional staff."
« Last Edit: 02/22/2024 03:47 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11986
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9617
  • Likes Given: 8211
Comment from Alex

https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1760702932171817426

Quote
Glad to see SpaceX is trying to get permission for more launches but I don't see how it can get any more than 5 launches this year, let alone 9. I hope I'm proved wrong though 😅
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1583
  • Liked: 1628
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11986
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9617
  • Likes Given: 8211
If you don't want to twitter click, read about it Ars Technica:

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/spacex-seeks-to-launch-starship-at-least-nine-times-this-year/

alugobi i did so in my post (ie,. added the article link so people didn't have to go to Twitter.) along with the wording at the top "This Twitter post contains a link to an article, which I provided in this NSF post."   Toiny
« Last Edit: 02/22/2024 04:46 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
  • Liked: 2337
  • Likes Given: 4519
Comment from Alex

https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1760702932171817426

Quote
Glad to see SpaceX is trying to get permission for more launches but I don't see how it can get any more than 5 launches this year, let alone 9. I hope I'm proved wrong though 😅

Monthly Starship launches beginning in March, then a break for holidays in December? I’ll take it.

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5461
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3163
  • Likes Given: 3921
Comment from Alex

https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1760702932171817426

Quote
Glad to see SpaceX is trying to get permission for more launches but I don't see how it can get any more than 5 launches this year, let alone 9. I hope I'm proved wrong though 😅

Monthly Starship launches beginning in March, then a break for holidays in December? I’ll take it.

The likelihood of 9 launches this year has to be near 0% probabilty.

It's good to ask and get it for when you need it, but they don't have the hardware in flow to even support it and the factory is being built right now.

Just the static fire, fuel farm loading and stacking schedule would make a monthly cadence extremely difficult for sometime. 

I do think they will get there and maybe by the end of this year they are able to do that.  But not with enough time to get 9 flights completed.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5 (Welp a little early on IFT-4, but still have a shot at 5)

Offline Kspbutitscursed

Comment from Alex

https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1760702932171817426

Quote
Glad to see SpaceX is trying to get permission for more launches but I don't see how it can get any more than 5 launches this year, let alone 9. I hope I'm proved wrong though 😅

Monthly Starship launches beginning in March, then a break for holidays in December? I’ll take it.

The likelihood of 9 launches this year has to be near 0% probabilty.

It's good to ask and get it for when you need it, but they don't have the hardware in flow to even support it and the factory is being built right now.

Just the static fire, fuel farm loading and stacking schedule would make a monthly cadence extremely difficult for sometime. 

I do think they will get there and maybe by the end of this year they are able to do that.  But not with enough time to get 9 flights completed.
i expect 6 or 7 this year IF IFT-3 goes well i would expect 7 if it doesnt go well then 4 this year
I attempt to fly in ksp
WEN OFT-4                 #Wen Booster 12/13 engines installation

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
I don't think there is much chance of >5 flights this year.

But asking now makes tons of sense, in case procedural or lawsuit delays happen, because they will need it pretty soon to meet their Artemis HLS obligations. If they don't get >5 flights next year there's trouble.

Offline jfallen

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 106

The likelihood of 9 launches this year has to be near 0% probabilty.

It's good to ask and get it for when you need it, but they don't have the hardware in flow to even support it and the factory is being built right now.

Just the static fire, fuel farm loading and stacking schedule would make a monthly cadence extremely difficult for sometime. 

I do think they will get there and maybe by the end of this year they are able to do that.  But not with enough time to get 9 flights completed.
[/quote]

Ship/boosters:
28/10
29/11
30/12
31/13
32/14
35/15
26/13-2
36/14-2
37/15-2
 All of this hardware is in flow.  Granted this is aggressive,  but sometimes you need to prepare for catastrophic success.

Sorry I had to throw 26 in there, cause I knew it would draw comments.  But if they are Granted 9 flights, it's still a candidate if the flow doesn't give us a 38 or higher by November.

Edit, there's also an equal chance some of these will be determined to be obsolete and will be instead cut up.  I guess all have to just wait and see.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2024 12:10 am by jfallen »

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5461
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3163
  • Likes Given: 3921
Ship/boosters:
28/10
29/11
30/12
31/13
32/14
35/15
26/13-2
36/14-2
37/15-2
 All of this hardware is in flow.  Granted this is aggressive,  but sometimes you need to prepare for catastrophic success.

Sorry I had to throw 26 in there, cause I knew it would draw comments.  But if they are Granted 9 flights, it's still a candidate if the flow doesn't give us a 38 or higher by November.


I don't think it matters if there are some rings stacked up right now.  Completing the vehicle and doing the tests to ensure they are ready for flight is taking up tons of time.  Cryoload, spin prime, static fire, stacking WDR etc.  Those are all very time consuming.

I think they will drop or consolidate some of these test as time passes. 

again, I think they can hit a pretty quick cadence later this year if the tests go well.  But they have plenty of steps to go through to get there and each step is going to take time. 

Look at how much time moving these vehicles are taking to handle, move, test, launch facility work between flights, tanker deliveries. 

It is taking up a lot of time right now.

Edit: I'd bet that 6 flights this year is a max if things go great.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5 (Welp a little early on IFT-4, but still have a shot at 5)

Online InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1843
  • Likes Given: 3041


The likelihood of 9 launches this year has to be near 0% probabilty.

It's good to ask and get it for when you need it, but they don't have the hardware in flow to even support it and the factory is being built right now.

Just the static fire, fuel farm loading and stacking schedule would make a monthly cadence extremely difficult for sometime. 

I do think they will get there and maybe by the end of this year they are able to do that.  But not with enough time to get 9 flights completed.

Ship/boosters:
28/10
29/11
30/12
31/13
32/14
35/15
26/13-2
36/14-2
37/15-2
 All of this hardware is in flow.  Granted this is aggressive,  but sometimes you need to prepare for chatestrophic success.

Sorry I had to throw 26 in there, cause I knew it would draw comments.  But if they are Granted 9 flights, it's still a candidate if the flow doesn't give us a 38 or higher by November.

All it takes is one or two booster catches and reuse and they can be in the 8-9 range.

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3091
  • Liked: 3968
  • Likes Given: 5389
SpaceNews: FAA to establish committee to refine launch licensing regulations

Quote
In a speech at the FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference here Feb. 21, Kelvin Coleman, FAA associate administrator for commercial space transportation, said the agency would establish an aerospace rulemaking committee, or SpARC, to find ways to streamline launch and reentry licensing regulations that went into effect nearly three years ago.

The regulations, known as Part 450, were intended to streamline the licensing process and were developed relatively quickly, in response to a provision in Space Policy Directive 2 in 2018. Industry, though, has argued that the implementation of the regulations has led to licensing delays, with only a handful of companies receiving Part 450 licenses to date. It has become a key issue for the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) in its recent meetings.

The issue also came up during a Senate hearing in October where industry officials called for improvements in Part 450. At that hearing, Bill Gerstenmaier, SpaceX vice president for build and flight reliability, warned that “the entire regulatory system is at risk of collapse” as other launch companies shift to Part 450 licenses over the next two years.
[...]
The Part 450 SpARC would provide industry with a way to discuss improvements to the regulations, particularly in areas like treatment of reentry vehicles and those launch vehicles still in a flight test program. “It will help us further enhance Part 450 to reduce the burden on the applicants and licensees, as well as the FAA.”
More at the link.
« Last Edit: 02/23/2024 09:40 pm by abaddon »

Offline schuttle89

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Wichita, KS
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 284
Ship/boosters:
28/10
29/11
30/12
31/13
32/14
35/15
26/13-2
36/14-2
37/15-2
 All of this hardware is in flow.  Granted this is aggressive,  but sometimes you need to prepare for catastrophic success.

Sorry I had to throw 26 in there, cause I knew it would draw comments.  But if they are Granted 9 flights, it's still a candidate if the flow doesn't give us a 38 or higher by November.


I don't think it matters if there are some rings stacked up right now.  Completing the vehicle and doing the tests to ensure they are ready for flight is taking up tons of time.  Cryoload, spin prime, static fire, stacking WDR etc.  Those are all very time consuming.

I think they will drop or consolidate some of these test as time passes. 

again, I think they can hit a pretty quick cadence later this year if the tests go well.  But they have plenty of steps to go through to get there and each step is going to take time. 

Look at how much time moving these vehicles are taking to handle, move, test, launch facility work between flights, tanker deliveries. 

It is taking up a lot of time right now.

Edit: I'd bet that 6 flights this year is a max if things go great.

I bet you're correct with the 6 flights number but push for 9 and get to 6 with the momentum to get all the flights they need to complete in 25. At some point there has to be an upward inflection point in number of flights to get to where they need to be for the (at this point dubious) late 26 timeline for Artemis 3.

The other thing that makes 9 flights unlikely is the need to build out launch tower 2. If they have to clear the pad area every week for tests then it will slow down tower 2 work considerably.

Offline Ben Baley

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 305
How would the licensing be affected by Starship attaining orbit?

AIUI with the suborbital trajectory planned for IFT-2 launch and reentry were covered by a single licence, but wth Varda launch and reentry were licensed separately and they were able to launch the spacecraft they intended to land before they were licensed to do so.

That would seem to imply that once they successfully insert into orbit problems that occur after that point shouldn't affect the licensing for subsequent launches. If this is the case it would make it simpler for them a launch rate closer to what they're asking for.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

How would the licensing be affected by Starship attaining orbit?

AIUI with the suborbital trajectory planned for IFT-2 launch and reentry were covered by a single licence, but wth Varda launch and reentry were licensed separately and they were able to launch the spacecraft they intended to land before they were licensed to do so.

That would seem to imply that once they successfully insert into orbit problems that occur after that point shouldn't affect the licensing for subsequent launches. If this is the case it would make it simpler for them a launch rate closer to what they're asking for.


Totally separate circumstances. Varda made an amateur regulatory mistake. You many not have noticed, but SpaceX has now put literally dozens of separate Dragon/Dragon 2 missions into orbit, all of which subsequently re-entered. SpaceX’s Legal and Regulatory people know what they’re doing.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline thespacecow

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 222
  • e/acc
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 52
https://twitter.com/spacesudoer/status/1776284865761317222

Gwynne Shotwell: "We're waiting for the regulatory organization to catch up and let us fly. And I do think that is one of the things that will hold back innovation certainly in this space."

Here you go, most definitive proof that FAA and other regulators have slowed down Starship's progress. Sorry SpaceX haters, this is not a conspiracy theory.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0