Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/29/2024 04:57 pmI can’t see why FAA set a minimum date of November for Starship Flight 5. The 60 day consultation with the fish folk is a maximum time, not a minimum. If the fish folk are quick (unlikely but possible), in principle it can launch in October. Why did FAA say it’s AT LEAST November?Speaking as someone from another country it's hard not to see a coincidence with a certain event in early November and unspoken agendas....
I can’t see why FAA set a minimum date of November for Starship Flight 5. The 60 day consultation with the fish folk is a maximum time, not a minimum. If the fish folk are quick (unlikely but possible), in principle it can launch in October. Why did FAA say it’s AT LEAST November?
I thought they had the permit application already filed with the TCEQ, but there were some fairly obvious typos in the measurements.I agree that the regulations are what they are, and complaining about them, while not completely pointless in the long run, is pointless in the short run. But it's not unreasonable that reasonable errors should be able to be remedied in something less than 3+ months (not sure how long, because I can't remember when the application was filed).
You do know "work to the rule" is a form of strike?My dad worked for the railroad, and the union considered it more effective than a normal strike. They simply followed the rules to the letter and effectively shut down the railroad. They would even deny they were doing it.Which is exactly like this situation. It's just the agencies doing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule
Weird that my comment about FAA waivers was deleted by mods, I was just quoting US legal code and FAA regulations, surely that didn't break any rules?
Or SpaceX filed it as a way to apply a bit more pressure to the FAA. Chicanery, I tell you!
Yesterday at 3:05 pm, TCEQ closed out its investigation and fine for use of the water deluge system. It also provides requirements for the further use of the deluge system in absence of a permit, the application for which has been submitted and evaluated by staff. I assume that this was the gating item for SpaceX to use the deluge system like the test that happened last night and for FAA to give its license for the launch. Linked below and attached.As you can see, the fine was so low because there was little economic benefit to SpaceX for avoiding the licensing. It is already doing everything that a permit would require (e.g., the water testing that the company described).https://www15.tceq.texas.gov/crpub/index.cfm?fuseaction=iwr.itemdetail&item_id=936588722024219&addn_id=375569952024183&showdetail=Y
Cross-posting for conversation.Quote from: RedLineTrain on 10/08/2024 08:54 pmYesterday at 3:05 pm, TCEQ closed out its investigation and fine for use of the water deluge system. It also provides requirements for the further use of the deluge system in absence of a permit, the application for which has been submitted and evaluated by staff. I assume that this was the gating item for SpaceX to use the deluge system like the test that happened last night and for FAA to give its license for the launch. Linked below and attached.As you can see, the fine was so low because there was little economic benefit to SpaceX for avoiding the licensing. It is already doing everything that a permit would require (e.g., the water testing that the company described).https://www15.tceq.texas.gov/crpub/index.cfm?fuseaction=iwr.itemdetail&item_id=936588722024219&addn_id=375569952024183&showdetail=Y
Good to see confirmation that SpaceX didn't need a payment plan to pay off that fine.
Yesterday at 3:05 pm, TCEQ closed out its investigation and fine for use of the water deluge system. It also provides requirements for the further use of the deluge system in absence of a permit, the application for which has been submitted and evaluated by staff. I assume that this was the gating item for SpaceX to use the deluge system like the test that happened last night and for FAA to give its license for the launch. ....