Quote from: thespacecow on 10/31/2024 05:18 amOut of the box thinking to break the regulatory impasse: How to Free Elon Musk’s SpaceX From Federal Red Tape - A ‘Space Coast Compact’ could exempt the company from NEPA and remove it from the FAA’s purview.QuoteThere is another powerful alternative rooted in America’s tradition of federalism: the interstate compact. Although the Constitution limits the states’ pre-existing sovereignty, the Compact Clause permits them to create legally binding agreements among themselves. Its only limitation is that Congress must authorize any compact that encroaches on federal power or implicates federal concerns. Once the Legislature does so, as the Supreme Court clarified in Cuyler v. Adams (1981), such compacts take on the full force of federal law.Most interstate compacts originally dealt with issues like state boundaries or water rights. Over time their use expanded to include problems states share but which require a different policy framework than they can pursue alone or via federal action. States have used compacts to create unified occupational-licensing regimes and to coordinate state taxes for multistate entities. Others have helped create well-known institutions—such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority—which regulate interstate and international commerce in a way otherwise reserved for the federal government.This vehicle is prime for states concerned about threats to American prosperity and sovereignty, including as relates to space development. Gulf Coast states have a particular interest in advancing American commercial spaceflight and stand to lose the most from FAA suffocation. They maintain some of the most important launch sites, training facilities and manufacturing plants, and they have tens of thousands of jobs connected to the space industry.Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida might therefore consider banding together to create a Space Coast Compact. The terms could establish the authorities, structure and governance of a Space Coast Launch Authority with the right to review plans and issue launch permits for aircraft and spacecraft operating in the signatory states. The new authority, an alternate to the FAA, would be accountable to the states’ governments, staffed by those who actually want to launch aircraft, and exempt from NEPA and other strictures that uniquely bind federal action.Libertarian fairy tales [deleted]
Out of the box thinking to break the regulatory impasse: How to Free Elon Musk’s SpaceX From Federal Red Tape - A ‘Space Coast Compact’ could exempt the company from NEPA and remove it from the FAA’s purview.QuoteThere is another powerful alternative rooted in America’s tradition of federalism: the interstate compact. Although the Constitution limits the states’ pre-existing sovereignty, the Compact Clause permits them to create legally binding agreements among themselves. Its only limitation is that Congress must authorize any compact that encroaches on federal power or implicates federal concerns. Once the Legislature does so, as the Supreme Court clarified in Cuyler v. Adams (1981), such compacts take on the full force of federal law.Most interstate compacts originally dealt with issues like state boundaries or water rights. Over time their use expanded to include problems states share but which require a different policy framework than they can pursue alone or via federal action. States have used compacts to create unified occupational-licensing regimes and to coordinate state taxes for multistate entities. Others have helped create well-known institutions—such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority—which regulate interstate and international commerce in a way otherwise reserved for the federal government.This vehicle is prime for states concerned about threats to American prosperity and sovereignty, including as relates to space development. Gulf Coast states have a particular interest in advancing American commercial spaceflight and stand to lose the most from FAA suffocation. They maintain some of the most important launch sites, training facilities and manufacturing plants, and they have tens of thousands of jobs connected to the space industry.Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida might therefore consider banding together to create a Space Coast Compact. The terms could establish the authorities, structure and governance of a Space Coast Launch Authority with the right to review plans and issue launch permits for aircraft and spacecraft operating in the signatory states. The new authority, an alternate to the FAA, would be accountable to the states’ governments, staffed by those who actually want to launch aircraft, and exempt from NEPA and other strictures that uniquely bind federal action.
There is another powerful alternative rooted in America’s tradition of federalism: the interstate compact. Although the Constitution limits the states’ pre-existing sovereignty, the Compact Clause permits them to create legally binding agreements among themselves. Its only limitation is that Congress must authorize any compact that encroaches on federal power or implicates federal concerns. Once the Legislature does so, as the Supreme Court clarified in Cuyler v. Adams (1981), such compacts take on the full force of federal law.Most interstate compacts originally dealt with issues like state boundaries or water rights. Over time their use expanded to include problems states share but which require a different policy framework than they can pursue alone or via federal action. States have used compacts to create unified occupational-licensing regimes and to coordinate state taxes for multistate entities. Others have helped create well-known institutions—such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority—which regulate interstate and international commerce in a way otherwise reserved for the federal government.This vehicle is prime for states concerned about threats to American prosperity and sovereignty, including as relates to space development. Gulf Coast states have a particular interest in advancing American commercial spaceflight and stand to lose the most from FAA suffocation. They maintain some of the most important launch sites, training facilities and manufacturing plants, and they have tens of thousands of jobs connected to the space industry.Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida might therefore consider banding together to create a Space Coast Compact. The terms could establish the authorities, structure and governance of a Space Coast Launch Authority with the right to review plans and issue launch permits for aircraft and spacecraft operating in the signatory states. The new authority, an alternate to the FAA, would be accountable to the states’ governments, staffed by those who actually want to launch aircraft, and exempt from NEPA and other strictures that uniquely bind federal action.
....(skipped)...The mechanism is exactly what you (so well) said, but the sentiment is correct.It's not about arbitrarily preempting SpaceX from otherwise reasonable regulations (e.g. building codes) but it's about the need to somehow get around unreasonable and originally unintended hardship caused by out of context regulations.There are two solutions:- Rewrite a lot of regulations - Grant selective immunity in some cases. Not only to SpaceX. But such mechanisms can and will be abused, so it has to be only a temporary measure.But something's gotta happen.An aviation-scale spaceflight industry, for the first time, is within reach, but an industry like this won't happen in the current environment of shark-counting. Would we want to live in a world that was "saved" from jetliners and airports?
Quote from: meekGee on 10/31/2024 09:57 pm....(skipped)...The mechanism is exactly what you (so well) said, but the sentiment is correct.It's not about arbitrarily preempting SpaceX from otherwise reasonable regulations (e.g. building codes) but it's about the need to somehow get around unreasonable and originally unintended hardship caused by out of context regulations.There are two solutions:- Rewrite a lot of regulations - Grant selective immunity in some cases. Not only to SpaceX. But such mechanisms can and will be abused, so it has to be only a temporary measure.But something's gotta happen.An aviation-scale spaceflight industry, for the first time, is within reach, but an industry like this won't happen in the current environment of shark-counting. Would we want to live in a world that was "saved" from jetliners and airports?It is not like they have to rewrite a lot of regulations. The basis is quite solid.they have to combat trolling (or activism as it is now called).Objections should be made "in thoughtful way" and in "reasonable manner". They should contain "scientifically based arguments" and be constructive. The attempts of spamming can be combated and the choices are infinite. Situation when a Micro-climatic zone suddenly became "interesting" for anything "nature" only with the arrival of some company is a red flag, if a "local activist group" consists exclusively of people who came to live in the area "to matter" is a red flag.Conflicts between agencies can be resolved "automatically" by defining areas of expertise: FAA is "good" (not really anymore but it is a separated story) about things in the air, it is in the "personal" interests of local water etc. agencies to maintain quality of the local resources, USACE is good (are really really good still) about anything built etc. etc. The current growing idea of org antagonism is extremely stupid.Basically everything can be solved if existing structures are professionally competent. Within current regulations space. (well not everything in AST is good, but it is again a "part of the process" and I am sure space companies and FAA can solve it if they will approach it constructively.).The problem is not regulations (I've already quoted AIG report about AST regulatory practices), the problem is that people working there somehow started to think that trolling is "helpful for a cause", whatever cause they find appealing.
Here's a bunch of emails within the FWS regarding Starship. They are really not beating the allegations that the agency is incredibly incompetent. A short threadThese were all acquired via FOIAThey cite a WAI video as a sourceciting ESGhound as a "good article"using Labpadre and NSF streams as part of environmental monitoringapparently the FWS didn't know how this thing worked to begin withMildly concerning that they seem to have no open comms with SpaceX?They have no idea what kind of reports to fileGeneral TLDR they keep citing multiple youtube videos and articles for their investigation rather than data they recorded, which is, interesting to say the least. No direct comms with SpaceX either.Anyway here's all the photos attached throughout this fileFlight 1 debris field
Some FOIA'd docs (thread):Quote from: TheSpaceEngineerHere's a bunch of emails within the FWS regarding Starship. They are really not beating the allegations that the agency is incredibly incompetent. A short threadThese were all acquired via FOIAThey cite a WAI video as a sourceciting ESGhound as a "good article"using Labpadre and NSF streams as part of environmental monitoringapparently the FWS didn't know how this thing worked to begin withMildly concerning that they seem to have no open comms with SpaceX?They have no idea what kind of reports to fileGeneral TLDR they keep citing multiple youtube videos and articles for their investigation rather than data they recorded, which is, interesting to say the least. No direct comms with SpaceX either.Anyway here's all the photos attached throughout this fileFlight 1 debris fieldThreadUnrolledLink: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1853443340953330163.html?utm_campaign=topunroll
Not to get too political but I think it’s fair to say given the election results some change might be coming in this arena. Trump has the opportunity to do the absolute funniest thing if he were so inclined. Regardless I think it’s fair to say Musk and SpaceX are very much in the executive’s favor and they have explicitly stated they wish to streamline these processes.
I really hope they're ALREADY in a process of Flight 7 licensing for Block 2 because FAA's reverse scale is so sensitive, just need Flight 6 relight data and it should have been good to go
Quote from: Alvian@IDN on 11/06/2024 09:17 pmI really hope they're ALREADY in a process of Flight 7 licensing for Block 2 because FAA's reverse scale is so sensitive, just need Flight 6 relight data and it should have been good to goIt seems likely the FAA has been guiding SpaceX towards a Part 450 vehicle operator license so they don't need to approve each individual flight.
AST’s transition to “streamlined,” performance-based regulations under Part 450 hasresulted in delayed agency guidance, confusion, and uncertainty both for the regulatedentity and the regulator. In September 2020, AST updated its regulations in an attempt toreform the licensing process and keep pace with the growth of the launch industry. Whilewell-intentioned, the Part 450 effort has not succeeded in accomplishing a streamlinedprocess. AST’s ability to process licenses in a timely fashion has declined rather thanimproved—indeed, as evidenced by licensing for the handful of applicants under Part 450,approval timelines are not improving.
This STA uses information from previous grant 1693-EX-ST-2024. This STA is necessary to authorize Starship Test Flight 7 vehicle communications launching from Starbase TX.Operation Start Date: 12/14/2024Operation End Date: 06/14/2025
Speaking at the 31st Annual Baron Investment Conference Nov. 15, Gwynne Shotwell, president and chief operating officer of SpaceX, revealed that the company has been unable to get a Part 450 reentry license for its Dragon spacecraft despite its extensive flight history.“I could not get a license for Dragon to reenter on Part 450, so you can imagine the struggle we have with Starship,” she said.She argued that the problem with the regulatory process is that it dates to an era when launches were much less frequent. “I launch Falcon every two or two and a half days, and regs just weren’t built to keep up with that.”Shotwell called for a drastic change to the regulatory process. “Everyone is starting to recognize in all industries that regulation needs to be reinvented. I probably spend more half my time working regulatory issues,” she said.She recommended that regulations should focus on an outcome rather than specific procedures. In the case of a launch like Starship, she said, that means ensuring a safe launch that does not hurt people. “These are very simple things, yet the regulations for launch are thousands of pages.”“You fundamentally have to break down the current regs and figure out what’s important, and only build a reg that’s readable. No one’s going to read thousands of pages,” she said. “Figure out how to do it in five pages, then everybody reads it, everybody understands it, and we can all move forward together quickly.”She acknowledged, though, that such major reform would be a long-term process. In the meantime, she said, “we’ll be working through waivers, guidance papers, to try to operationalize the regulatory regime.”
Quote from: sdsds on 11/06/2024 09:23 pmIt seems likely the FAA has been guiding SpaceX towards a Part 450 vehicle operator license so they don't need to approve each individual flight.It also seems likely that SpaceX have been resisting that guidance...Quote from: Bill GerstenmaierAST’s transition to “streamlined,” performance-based regulations under Part 450 hasresulted in delayed agency guidance, confusion, and uncertainty both for the regulatedentity and the regulator. In September 2020, AST updated its regulations in an attempt toreform the licensing process and keep pace with the growth of the launch industry. Whilewell-intentioned, the Part 450 effort has not succeeded in accomplishing a streamlinedprocess. AST’s ability to process licenses in a timely fashion has declined rather thanimproved—indeed, as evidenced by licensing for the handful of applicants under Part 450,approval timelines are not improving. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/ADC08FC1-E28D-4178-8D39-16E02BB803CE
It seems likely the FAA has been guiding SpaceX towards a Part 450 vehicle operator license so they don't need to approve each individual flight.
