Author Topic: FAA, FWS & other permits/licenses for Boca Chica DISCUSSION (Thread 6)  (Read 34952 times)

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15211
  • N. California
  • Liked: 15299
  • Likes Given: 1433


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?

Speaking as someone from another country it's hard not to see a coincidence with a certain event in early November and unspoken agendas....

"Never ascribe to malice" totally applies here.

You are literally correct: It's hard not to see a conspiracy. It's a human tendency. It's tempting. It's also mostly always baseless or at least wrong. (The seeing, not the conspiracy, in case I wasn't clear)
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline billh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
  • Houston
  • Liked: 1171
  • Likes Given: 866
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).
I think it's a matter of overlapping state and federal jurisdictions. Whatever SpaceX had negotiated with TCEQ didn't necessarily obligate EPA. They have their own ideas about the investigations and permits required. I agree this is inefficient. There is also the matter of vastly different cultures between SpaceX and the various government agencies. The former prioritizes speed and agility: let's just figure out what's reasonable and move on. The latter prioritizes fulfilling the regulations to the letter. Each needs to learn how to better accommodate the other.

Offline Hyperborealis

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 489
To answer one bromide with another, even paranoiacs have enemies. And some have more reason to have enemies than others--say prominent owners of social media and opponents of the current ruling faction. Certainly claims either way are speculative. But it takes very little for a bureaucrat to insist on I's dotted and T's crossed. And the political use of planning permits at least on a local level is very old news.

Offline rcdk

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 0
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

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3407
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

Can we move the license discussions to the license thread?

[zubenelgenubi: Splinter discussion split/merged here.]
« Last Edit: 09/30/2024 10:28 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3407
Bureaucracies can veto something the same way unions can, and it seems from the evidence to be very much in play here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule

Offline thespacecow

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • e/acc
  • Liked: 445
  • Likes Given: 129
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?

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3407
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?

Can you PM the contents to those who like your post?

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15211
  • N. California
  • Liked: 15299
  • Likes Given: 1433
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?
Was that the one with the three conditions for a waiver?  That was useful, insightful and new. You could in fact almost be granted a patent for it, strictly speaking.

Must have been by accident - I recommend you re-post, and self-report it with a quick explanation.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2024 03:09 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline dabomb6608

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
  • IL
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 97
I saw it and had planned on looking it up myself when I had time, but then it was gone the next time I looked. It was something I was unaware of and seemed directly relevant to this discussion thread.

Offline JoeWakefield

NOTMAR out for "Hazardous Space Operations" off the coast of Boca Chica on October 12th from 7:00-8:10am, maybe the FAA stuff got sorted out early?
« Last Edit: 10/02/2024 04:22 pm by JoeWakefield »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6782
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10389
  • Likes Given: 46
Or a someone previously scheduled a NOTMAR and forgot to cancel it. IIRC at least one previous flight had a NOTMAR published after a delay was announced.

Offline KilroySmith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Phoenix, AZ, USA
  • Liked: 568
  • Likes Given: 363
Or SpaceX filed it as a way to apply a bit more pressure to the FAA. 
Chicanery, I tell you!

Offline geza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • Budapest
    • Géza Meszéna's web page
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 80
Or SpaceX filed it as a way to apply a bit more pressure to the FAA. 
Chicanery, I tell you!

There is likely to be hard bargaining at a high level.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2727
  • Liked: 2646
  • Likes Given: 10875
Cross-posting for conversation.

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

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2727
  • Liked: 2646
  • Likes Given: 10875
My guess is that the EPA fine was so high precisely because SpaceX was willing to forgo negotiations with the EPA in order to expedite licensing.  The fine likely was made without the determination that SpaceX was complying with what a permit would require (since such a determination would not yet have been done).  TCEQ had the benefit of this determination.

In my experience, the EPA can sometimes come into these kinds of negotiations with an extremely high and unrealistic first offer.  A company can then make a counteroffer and explain why the proposed fine is unreasonably high.  Usually, there are several rounds of negotiations and the resulting fine can then be in a much lower range.  These negotiations often last many months.

The problem here is that the magnitude of a fine signals to other agencies the severity of the infraction.  The FAA probably looked at EPA's high six-figure fine of SpaceX and alarm bells started to go off.  But in reality, this is not a serious infraction.  If SpaceX had a protracted negotiation with EPA, it seems likely that the fine would have been much smaller.  But meanwhile, SpaceX would not be launching.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2024 09:39 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3407
Cross-posting for conversation.

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

To avoid everyone having to click in and find the magic link that lists the fine, I'll save you the time:

$3750

Online steveleach

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2618
  • Liked: 3173
  • Likes Given: 1065
Good to see confirmation that SpaceX didn't need a payment plan to pay off that fine.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Good to see confirmation that SpaceX didn't need a payment plan to pay off that fine.

Considering SpaceX has to put up indemnity bonds in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars for each Starship flight already, and considering there are statutory limits to regulatory fines, NO fine they could be assessed would require a payment plan. ;)
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Confusador

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 295
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 389
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
....

This is not correct, the gating item for the launch license is the sonic boom analysis for the catch attempt.

The TCEQ issue is a gating item for the Tiered Environmental Assessment.

Tags:
 

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