<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: FAA issues license for SpaceX&#8217;s seventh test flight of Starship/Superheavy	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/faa-issues-license-for-spacexs-seventh-test-flight-of-starship-superheavy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/faa-issues-license-for-spacexs-seventh-test-flight-of-starship-superheavy/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:04:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike Borgelt		</title>
		<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/faa-issues-license-for-spacexs-seventh-test-flight-of-starship-superheavy/#comment-1537961</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Borgelt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:04:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://behindtheblack.com/?p=110811#comment-1537961</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Trump needs to fire half of the FAA &quot;pour encourager les autres&quot;.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trump needs to fire half of the FAA &#8220;pour encourager les autres&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: M. Murcek		</title>
		<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/faa-issues-license-for-spacexs-seventh-test-flight-of-starship-superheavy/#comment-1537952</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[M. Murcek]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 18:47:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://behindtheblack.com/?p=110811#comment-1537952</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Mark. Gummint standard practice is that any variation is a totally new thing.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark. Gummint standard practice is that any variation is a totally new thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mark Sizer		</title>
		<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/faa-issues-license-for-spacexs-seventh-test-flight-of-starship-superheavy/#comment-1537926</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Sizer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 16:43:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://behindtheblack.com/?p=110811#comment-1537926</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m all in favor of avoiding Chinese-style &quot;just let the rocket fall where it may&quot; launches, but what exactly is the FAA looking for with these licenses? 

We&#039;ve already had the booster both drop in the ocean, both planned and contingent, and be caught. There are not that many other options. Presumably, the drop-in-ocean-on-purpose option is now obsolete. All future launches will be &quot;we&#039;ll catch it, unless we can&#039;t, then abort into the ocean&quot; Nothing new to approve of, there.

Is this all about the Starship? It makes some sense to double-check the abort points and trajectories, but does the FAA have staff who are that skilled?

How broad is their authority? For example, from an &quot;aviation&quot; perspective, a mission that goes up, does one orbit, then comes down is the same as a mission that goes up, does 200 orbits while transferring fuel to a depot, then comes down (assuming the &quot;up&quot; and &quot;down&quot; parts aim toward the same places). Does the FAA have the authority to regulate what&#039;s done out of atmosphere?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m all in favor of avoiding Chinese-style &#8220;just let the rocket fall where it may&#8221; launches, but what exactly is the FAA looking for with these licenses? </p>
<p>We&#8217;ve already had the booster both drop in the ocean, both planned and contingent, and be caught. There are not that many other options. Presumably, the drop-in-ocean-on-purpose option is now obsolete. All future launches will be &#8220;we&#8217;ll catch it, unless we can&#8217;t, then abort into the ocean&#8221; Nothing new to approve of, there.</p>
<p>Is this all about the Starship? It makes some sense to double-check the abort points and trajectories, but does the FAA have staff who are that skilled?</p>
<p>How broad is their authority? For example, from an &#8220;aviation&#8221; perspective, a mission that goes up, does one orbit, then comes down is the same as a mission that goes up, does 200 orbits while transferring fuel to a depot, then comes down (assuming the &#8220;up&#8221; and &#8220;down&#8221; parts aim toward the same places). Does the FAA have the authority to regulate what&#8217;s done out of atmosphere?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: M. Murcek		</title>
		<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/faa-issues-license-for-spacexs-seventh-test-flight-of-starship-superheavy/#comment-1537906</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[M. Murcek]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:28:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://behindtheblack.com/?p=110811#comment-1537906</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Professional bureaucraps play a long game. Administrations come and go G7+ like to stay cozy. Only statutorially changing FAAs reach and mission will correct some of the egregious garbage they have been pulling recently.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Professional bureaucraps play a long game. Administrations come and go G7+ like to stay cozy. Only statutorially changing FAAs reach and mission will correct some of the egregious garbage they have been pulling recently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Richard M		</title>
		<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/faa-issues-license-for-spacexs-seventh-test-flight-of-starship-superheavy/#comment-1537826</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard M]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 03:56:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://behindtheblack.com/?p=110811#comment-1537826</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Blue Origin, meanwhile, is still waiting for *its* license....]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Blue Origin, meanwhile, is still waiting for *its* license&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Dick Eagleson		</title>
		<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/faa-issues-license-for-spacexs-seventh-test-flight-of-starship-superheavy/#comment-1537821</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 03:50:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://behindtheblack.com/?p=110811#comment-1537821</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Now that SpaceX has the IFT-7 license perhaps it will move up the launch date.  Booster 14 and Ship 33 have already done static fires.  There had been some loose talk awhile back about perhaps launching IFT-7 on Christmas Eve.  Maybe Santa will bring us IFT-7 this year after all.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that SpaceX has the IFT-7 license perhaps it will move up the launch date.  Booster 14 and Ship 33 have already done static fires.  There had been some loose talk awhile back about perhaps launching IFT-7 on Christmas Eve.  Maybe Santa will bring us IFT-7 this year after all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
