> SpaceX told the FAA in May that it did not believe the review was necessary because it only intends to use the "integration tower for production, research, and development purposes and not for FAA-licensed or -permitted launches," the FAA said.
Does the FAA have jurisdiction over this tower if they're not actually using it for launches?
All that said, this is a case where the FAA probably shouldn't be dragging their heels. It's trivial (single digit minutes) to figure out what this impacts and shouldn't be more than a day to come to a conclusion and generate a report on necessary approach, chart, and notam updates among others. Unfortunately this isn't how these agencies operate.
EDIT: The FAA reviewed the site multiple times, including earlier this year and found no impact on aviation navigation so unclear what they're potentially upset about. The area is rather sparse and the closest airport is a small untowered field 15 miles away.
I have some state-run tennis courts nearby. In order to sign up you need to bypass the certificate warning, identify what kind of nonprofit you aren't, specifically ask for the "tennis" amenity at the tennis court location, and explain what you want to do there (tennis). Oh, and you need to sign up at least two days in advance so the bureaucrat can approve it.
Indeed, it is not how these agencies operate.
nobody has issued any orders or fines. any drama about the FAA being "angry" seems to be invented by the internet.
(I could totally be wrong and there's good reasons to build this, but my initial assumption is that the only real reason to build a launch tower would be to launch stuff with it)
edit: super heavy not falcon 9 here is the youtube video I was remembering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdU9RzlHm-o
Well, the article does sort of accuse them of that, right after the part you quote:
> But the agency said description in documents "indicates otherwise."
> The FAA cited a SpaceX document that the towers would be used to integrate the Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle. "Super Heavy would be mated to the launch mount, followed by Starship mated to Super Heavy," the FAA letter said quoting SpaceX's May 5 submission.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
Title is completely misleading.
They'd never do that, would they?
There are rules about towers within some distance of an airport. Perhaps it runs afoul of those.
I'm sure there's no real problem, it's just the government getting some PR and potentially some money via some kind of license/permit fee.
Musk and SpaceX have no desire to hurt anyone, that would impact their plans.
At this point this country would greatly benefit from less government involvement in just about everything. /libertarian
What makes you so sure? There's airports and heli pads nearby. It's the FAAs job to keep aviation safe.
I.e. the title you see might not be the one the poster saw.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
Inasmuch as "multi planetary" means multiple _self supporting_ planetary settlements (and otherwise, what's the point?), that seems to be an entirely unrealistic goal for the foreseeable future, so, by definition, there cannot really be a "critical path" to such a goal.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
There's the document.
If there are legit concerns that the FAA needs to be involved in, that's fine. But the fact that Dickson is personally involved is a sign he might be the kind of person that likes to flex on people. There's almost certainly no good reason for him to be personally involved.
If Dickson is just out to engage in a public pissing contest with Elon Musk, it's not hard to predict the outcome. Musk, in 2021, is not easily bullied.
Going head to head with the agency controlling airspace on top of that is a pretty terrible idea.
If Musk is in the right here, the FAA will not have any luck bullying him.
“Okay, okay we’re sorry, Mr. Musk”
I've never seen Tesla/Musk apologize for anything, except when it comes to China. If Musk wants to be able to open his mouth with his opinions he'd be better to stay in the US.
"Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) came under increased pressure in China on Wednesday from regulators and state media after Monday's protest by a disgruntled customer at the Shanghai auto show went viral and forced the electric car maker into a rare apology."
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/china-...
And lets not forget when he was accused by the Chinese government on having his vehicles spy in China and how he had to grovel to not get shutdown.
A few bureaucrats from specific regions made some comments but nothing series.
Also, about the 'spying thing' this was reasonably thing by the government not to allow Tesla in military bases in China, this is no different then things like IPhones not being allowed there.
There was never concern that they would 'shutdown' Tesla.
Tesla has great support from the city and location they are in and pretty good relationship with the central government.
If anything, Tesla has most problems with German environmental (anti progress) groups and the bureaucracy there.
There’s nothing wrong with that, being government contractor is a huge part of an economy.
/s
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action...
The military industrial complex, crony capitalism, and siphoning tax dollars to billionaires are definitely debatable topics.
What he has is a plausible path to shipping canned apes for a brief sojourn to a far away locale fairly hostile to long term habitation. If that's what he wants, fine, but there's no reason the regular legal process needs to be waived for that.
The important part of that end is a much more economical tech for putting mass into orbit. I'd argue that is currently the single most effective thing that we can do toward becoming multiplanetary. Yes it still leaves a very long road ahead, but it's a bridge across an otherwise impassible chasm. A related Heinlein/Pournelle exchange:
Unfortunately, in Blowups Happen a capability for orbiting large payloads had been developed. "Aha," I said. "I see your problem. If you can get a ship into orbit, you're halfway to the moon."
"No," Bob said. "If you can get your ship into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere."
He was very nearly right.
Many aspects of SpaceX's rockets are covered by ITAR, which puts strict regulations and controls on the exports of many aspects of SpaceX's vehicles.
I imagine exporting the rocket to a non-US based firm would be a much larger bureaucratic hurdle than getting FAA approvals.
This leaves me (and hopefully you) wondering what ITAR actually still accomplishes. I guess federal contracts dictate the use of the ensuing technology? I still see issues with that depending on how IP rights are assigned.
I guess we're waiting on the next PGP-style test of export control laws.