Tag: regulation

Musk says SpaceX will sue California Coastal Commission

8:42 am

In a tweet on X on October 12, 2024, Elon Musk said that SpaceX will sue the California Coastal Commission for violating his first amendment rights as soon the court opens tomorrow.

“Filing suit against them on Monday for violating the First Amendment,” he wrote, adding: “Tuesday, since court is closed on Monday.”

At least two commissioners had made it very clear in public statements at a hearing last week that they were voting against a Space Force request that would increase the number of launches at Vandenberg because they opposed Elon Musk’s political positions, not because the request would do any harm to the coast. The commission then rejected the request 6-4, with others claiming that SpaceX should have made the request directly rather than have the Space Force do it.

The vote remains non-binding, as the Space Force has the legal power to do whatever it wants at Vandenberg, and only works with the commission as a courtesy.

2 comments

FAA approves launch license for tomorrow’s SpaceX Starship/Superheavy launch

12:24 pm

Superheavy being captured by the tower chopsticks at landing
Artist rendering of Superheavy being captured by
the tower chopsticks at landing. Click for video.

The FAA today announced that it has finally approved a launch license for the fifth test launch tomorrow of SpaceX’s Starship/Superheavy, and that this approval applies to the next few launches as well, assuming the FAA or other government agencies or politicians don’t attempt to nitpick things again.

The full written re-evaluation [pdf] released today is somewhat hilarious, in that it spends 61 pages essentially concluding that SpaceX’s proposed actions were already approved by the 2022 Environoment Reassessment [abbreviated PEA by the FAA], spending page after page detailing why a license should be approved based on that 2022 reassessment. After wasting more than two months essentially retyping the 2022 conclusions, this report concludes ludicrously:

The 2022 PEA examined the potential for significant environmental impacts from Starship/SuperHeavy launch operations at the Boca Chica Launch Site and defined the regulatory setting for impacts associated with Starship/Super Heavy. The areas evaluated for environmental impacts in this WR [written reevaluation] included noise and noise compatible land use and biological resources.

Based on the above review and in conformity with FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph 9-2.c, the FAA has concluded that the modification of an existing vehicle operator license for Starship/Super Heavy operations conforms to the prior environmental documentation, that the data contained in the 2022 PEA remains substantially valid, that there are no significant environmental changes, and all pertinent conditions and requirements of the prior approval have been met or will be met in the current action. Therefore, the preparation of a supplemental or new environmental document is not necessary to support the Proposed Action.

In plain English, SpaceX is doing nothing to require this bureaucratic paperwork, but we have insisted on doing it anyway in order to justify our useless jobs while acting to squelch free Americans from getting the job done as they wish. As Musk so rightly put it last month, “It takes longer to do the government paperwork to license a rocket launch than it does to design and build the actual hardware.”

Despite this approval, we must emphasize that this action has now set a very bad precedent for the future, When SpaceX makes changes to its flight plans on future test launches — something that is guaranteed as the company incrementally improves the design — the FAA will almost certainly shut things down again as it spends months once again determining that nothing is wrong.

Either way, stand by for tomorrow’s test launch, lifting off at 7 am (Central time). I have embedded the Space Affairs youtube live stream below, since SpaceX’s live streams on X don’t allow one to stand by, and will only go live 35 minutes before launch.
» Read more

34 comments

Study proves that more than a decade after passage the promises of Obamacare were all a pack of lies

1:30 pm

Figure 1 from the study, and possibly its most damning datapoint
Figure 1 from the study, and possibly its most
damning datapoint. ACA stands for Affordable
Care Act, Obamacare’s official name.

A new study comparing the promises made about Obamacare by President Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2010 with the real world results more than a decade later shows that either those promises were a pack of lies, or were pushed by politicians so ignorant of the basic facts of economy that we would have been better off having the legislation written and approved by blind voles.

“Obamacare has failed in every particular – it failed to make health care more affordable; it failed to improve the health of Americans; it piled on an enormous amount of additional debt on taxpayers; it has principally enriched massive insurance company conglomerates, and it now serves as a major impediment to real heath care reforms that would empower patients and doctors,” Phil Kerpen, American Commitment and Unleash Prosperity president and one of the study’s co-authors, told the DCNF. “As we show in this paper, every single promise that was made to pass this law turned out to be false.”

You can read the actual study here. From its executive summary:
» Read more

8 comments

California officials: SpaceX shouldn’t be allowed to launch from Vandenberg because we hate Elon Musk

10:11 am

In voting yesterday to reject a plan by the military to increase the number of launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, members of the California Coastal Commission admitted openly they did so because they do not like Elon Musk and his publicly stated political preferences.

The California Coastal Commission on Thursday rejected the Air Force’s plan to give SpaceX permission to launch up to 50 rockets a year from Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County.

“Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” Commissioner Gretchen Newsom said at the meeting in San Diego.

…“I really appreciate the work of the Space Force,” said Commission Chair Caryl Hart. “But here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”

It must be noted that this vote is not legally binding on the military. Though it has always tried to work in cooperation with this commission, it has the right to decide for itself how many launches it wants to allow out of Vandenberg. Whether it will defy the commission however is uncertain, and likely depends entirely on who wins the presidential election. If Harris wins, she will likely order the Space Force to not only obey the commission but to further limit launches by SpaceX at Vandenberg. If Trump wins, he will likely tell the Space Force to go ahead and expand operations, ignoring the immoral political machinations of these commissioners.

And it must be emphasized how immoral and improper these commissioners are. Their task is to regulate the use of the California coast in order to protect it for all future users, from beach-goers to rocket companies. It is not their right to block the coast’s use to certain individuals simply because those individuals have expressed political views they oppose. Not only does this violate Musk’s first amendment rights, it is an outright abuse of power.

If anyone in California reading this article wishes to tell these commissioners what they think of their actions yesterday, you can find their contact information here.

27 comments

Mitsuibishi’s H3 rocket wins launch contract from UAE

8:55 am

Capitalism in space: The United Arab Emirates (UAE) yesterday announced that it has awarded the launch contract for its first unmanned probe to the asteroid belt to the Japanese company Mitsuibishi and its new H3 rocket.

The UAE Space Agency (UAESA) announced Oct. 10 it selected Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to launch its Emirates Mission to the Asteroid Belt (EMA) on an H3 rocket in the first quarter of 2028. Terms of the contract were not disclosed.

The spacecraft, also known as MBR Explorer after Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai, will fly by six main belt asteroids between 2030 and 2033 before rendezvousing on a seventh, Justitia, in 2034, later deploying a lander.

This mission is the third that the UAE has selected MHI to launch. An H-2A rocket launched the Emirates Mars Mission, a Mars orbiter, in 2020, while KhalifaSat, a remote sensing satellite, launched as a secondary payload on another H-2A in 2018.

What makes this launch contract different from the previous two is that the winner is Mitsubishi. Previous awards went through Japan’s space agency JAXA, which appeared to manage the H2A entirely. Now, Mitsubishi is in control, and is working directly with its customer.

This change proves that Japan’s government effort to promote private enterprise in space is real, that though it has been slow to wrest bureaucratic control from JAXA, that wresting is happening nonetheless.

Leave a comment

EPA to NASA: We intend to regulate how you dispose ISS, and that’s only the start

12:47 pm

The FAA to SpaceX
The EPA and its supporters to the American space industry:
“Nice industry you got here. Sure would be a shame if
something happened to it.”

It appears the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a number of activist groups are now lobbying for the right to regulate whether anything in orbit can be de-orbited into the oceans, beginning with how NASA plans to dispose of the International Space Station (ISS) when the station is de-orbited into the ocean sometime before 2030.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is evaluating how the disposal of the International Space Station into the ocean will need to be regulated but has not shared the details of any specific concerns or aspects of regulation. “EPA’s Office of Water is coordinating with the Office of General Counsel on this complex issue. The agency does not have a timeline for this evaluation,” EPA spokeswoman Dominique Joseph told SpaceNews.

“Sixty-six years of space activities has resulted in tens of thousands of tons of space debris crashing into the oceans,” said Ewan Wright, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of British Columbia and a junior fellow of the Outer Space Institute, an interdisciplinary group of experts working on emerging space sustainability issues.

While Wright is later quoted as saying that disposal in the ocean is “the least worst option,” the article at the link includes quotes from several other academics, all claiming that such an option must be stopped at all costs, because it threatens to “cause great damage” to the ocean. These “experts” make this claim by comparing ISS’s de-orbit with the dumping of old ammunition from World War I as well as plastic forks now.
» Read more

27 comments

The bad consequences to the bad COVID policies in 2020 continue to pile up

2:27 pm

Lysenko with Stalin
Trofim Lysenko (on the left), preaching to Stalin as he destroyed
Soviet plant research by persecuting anyone who disagreed with him,
thus causing famines that killed millions. He is now the role model for
today’s entire government health community.

Three stories this week illustrate once again that not only did none of the governmental actions imposed by our “betters” during the COVID panic in 2020 work, they are now resulting in long term harm across large populations.

First there was a study of 1.7 million children that found a marked increase in serious heart problems in children who got the jab.

Their research confirmed a large body of evidence showing links between the COVID-19 shots and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in adolescents. The research also confirmed that even in 2021, when the vaccine was first authorized for children and teens, that age group did not face a high risk for COVID-19-related serious outcomes, including death or the need for emergency care, hospitalization or critical care.

You can read the paper here [pdf]. Fortunately, the study also found no deaths in either group from these heart conditions, and that new heart ailments among the jabbed children were rare. Nonetheless, the study found solid evidence that the jab caused some harm while doing little to prevent COVID. As noted in the first link:
» Read more

10 comments

SpaceX says it is targeting October 13, 2024 for 5th Starship/Superheavy launch

9:13 am

Superheavy being captured by the tower chopsticks at landing
Artist rendering of Superheavy being captured by
the tower chopsticks at landing. Click for video.

The hint last week that SpaceX might attempt its fifth test orbital launch of Starship/Superheavy launch by mid-October was confirmed yesterday by the company. It announced on its Starship/Superheavy webpage that it is now targeting October 13, 2024 for 5th Starship/Superheavy launch, “pending regulatory approval.”

SpaceX’s announcement noted that the flight’s primary goals will be an attempted chopstick landing of Superheavy at the launch tower in Boca Chica and a test of Starship’s ability to return and land using its newly redesigned heat shield.

The returning booster will slow down from supersonic speeds, resulting in audible sonic booms in the area around the landing zone. Generally, the only impact to those in the surrounding area of a sonic boom is the brief thunder-like noise with variables like weather and distance from the return site determining the magnitude experienced by observers.

Starship will fly a similar trajectory as the previous flight test with splashdown targeted in the Indian Ocean. » Read more

20 comments

FAA and the Biden administration proves it is out to destroy SpaceX

9:47 am

The FAA to SpaceX
The FAA to SpaceX “Nice company you got here.
Sure would be a shame if something happened to it.”

In the past week the FAA proved unequivocally that it is abusing its regulatory powers for political reasons, imposing much harsher regulatory restrictions on SpaceX while allowing other companies much more free rein.

That reality became most evident first with the FAA response to the serious failure of one of the strap-on solid-fueled boosters during the second test launch of ULA’s Vulcan rocket on October 4, 2024. During that launch something went seriously wrong with that booster 38 seconds after launch, involving an explosion and what appeared to be ejection of that booster’s nozzle. Though the launch succeeded in placing its payload into the correct orbit, it required the rocket’s main engines to compensate aggressively.

Despite this, the FAA decided no investigation by it was necessary.

The Federal Aviation Administration, which licenses commercial space launches in the United States, said in a statement that it assessed the booster anomaly and “determined no investigation is warranted at this time.” The FAA is not responsible for regulating launch vehicle anomalies unless they impact public safety.

This decision is correct, but the contrast with the FAA’s treatment of SpaceX is quite striking. If the FAA applied the absurd standard it has been using against SpaceX, it would claim that this Vulcan launch threatened public safety because the incident occurred 38 seconds after launch and was thus relatively close to Florida, where an out of control rocket could potentially threaten public safety.

Such a threat of course really doesn’t exist, as the FAA correctly concluded, because the rocket has a self-destruct system to prevent it from crashing in habitable areas.

Yet the agency failed to use this logic with SpaceX. Instead the FAA decided anything SpaceX launches that doesn’t work perfectly poses a serious public safety threat, no matter where or how it happens, and thus has repeatedly grounded SpaceX launches. A first stage, flown already 23 times, falls over after soft-landing successfully on its drone ship in the middle of the Atlantic, and somehow this justified the FAA grounding SpaceX due to the threat to public safety. A second stage, after successfully placing two astronauts into orbit, misfires during its de-orbit burn but still lands in the middle of the ocean, far from any habitable regions, and somehow this justified the FAA grounding SpaceX due to the threat to public safety.

And the fact that a Superheavy returning to its launchpad at Boca Chica will cause a sonic boom — as do every Falcon 9 landings at Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg — is now justification for grounding Starship/Superheavy test launches, even though sonic booms pose zero threat to anyone other than startling them with the sudden noise.

The FAA further illustrated its bias against SpaceX when it decided to allow the company to do its launch this morning of Europe’s Hera asteroid mission, but specifically stated that the company’s other launches remain grounded.
» Read more

38 comments

FAA: No Starship/Superheavy launch before late November

9:01 am

In response to speculation that the fifth Starship/Superheavy test launch could happen in mid-October — based on a recent notice to mariners from the Coast Guard, the FAA on Wednesday made it clear that its stonewalling of SpaceX will continue.

“We are not issuing launch authorization for a launch to occur in the next two weeks — it’s not happening,” an FAA spokesman said Wednesday afternoon. “Late November is still our target date.”

The report comes from the San-Antonio Express-News, and as is typical of the reporting in the propaganda press, the article only gives the FAA’s side of this story, making absolutely no mention of SpaceX’s detailed and very public objections. As far as this news outlet is concerned, the FAA is god, whatever it says must be true. So much for a skeptical free press whose goal is supposed to be to hold government accountable.

16 comments

European phone companies demand the FCC stop SpaceX’s cell-to-satellite Starlink plans

10:22 am

Several European phone companies have now submitted a request to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to block a waiver that would allow SpaceX to operate its new cell-to-satellite Starlink satellites at radio frequencies normally not permitted.

This request follows similar requests by Verizon and AT&T to the FCC. The fear is that the use of these frequencies in the low orbit of Starlink satellites will interfere with satellites in the much higher geosynchronous orbits that these phone companies presently use.

While those concerns might be valid (SpaceX says no), these companies also fear the competition of Starlink itself, as its low orbit means it can provide better service, and are clearly hoping the FCC will act to protect them from that competition.

In a more sane world, the FCC would decide this issue on purely technical grounds. It was formed expressly to police the frequencies so that users would not interfere or pirate each others licenses, and had done that job quite well for decades.

Sadly, the FCC no longer confines itself to this one job. For the past four years the FCC has arbitrarily decided its job should include many other things not listed in its statutory authority, such as policing the de-orbiting of satellites and determining the acceptable lifespans of orbiting spacecraft, while also making many decisions based entirely on political factors, sometimes even favoring some companies over others for partisan reasons.

Thus we should have no confidence that the FCC will make this decision on purely technical grounds, especially since it has shown a clear hostility to SpaceX in its recent decisions.

3 comments

Mid-October date for the 5th Starship/Superheavy test orbital launch?

10:01 am

A US Coast Guard announcement issued today includes a notice to mariners of a rocket launch window at Boca Chica from October 12th to October 19th, suggesting that SpaceX has gotten an update from the FAA that a launch license will be issued for those dates, more than a month earlier than previously predicted by the FAA.

It must be emphasized that this notice is from the Coast Guard, not the FAA. The FAA has said nothing new about SpaceX’s launch license application. This notice suggests several possiblilites, all or none of which may be true:

1. The FAA has told SpaceX privately that it expects to issue that license in time for a launch in two weeks, and SpaceX then moved quickly to get the Coast Guard in line.

2. SpaceX and the Coast Guard are working together to increase the pressure on the FAA to get out of the way.

3. The public condemnations of the FAA by SpaceX in the past few weeks have worked to force that agency to back off its hardnosed regulatory over-reach.

All of this is wild speculation. For all we know, this Coast Guard notice is something it always issues prior to major static fire tests at Boca Chica. We shall have to wait to get a better sense of what is happening.

Hat tip to reader Steve Richter.

4 comments

Gogo buys competitor Satcom Direct

9:53 am

Gogo, which provides internet access for business jets, has now purchased its main competitor Satcom Direct, in order to provide a service that can better compete with Starlink.

Satcom Direct would get $375 million in cash and five million shares from Gogo under a deal announced Sept. 30, subject to regulatory approvals, and up to $225 million in extra payments tied to performance targets over the next four years, suggesting around $636 million in maximum total proceeds.

Gogo has historically dominated the small and midsize part of the business aviation market and connects about 7,000 planes, according to William Blair analyst Louie DiPalma, while Satcom Direct has a commanding market share for long-haul.

Combined, William Blair estimates the companies are providing Wi-Fi to around 8,200 of the 9,200 business jets that currently have connectivity — or nearly 90% of the market.

Gogo’s share price has dropped 70% since 2022 in the face of Starlink’s recent signing of numerous airline companies. The stock market obviously thinks Starlink is eventually going to capture the business jet customer as well. This deal will possibly allow Gogo to compete more effectively.

8 comments

Rocket Lab completes new capsule for Varda

9:10 am

Varda's space capsule, on the ground in Utah
Varda’s first capsule on the ground in Utah.

Rocket Lab today announced it has completed testing and intergration of a new recoverable capsule for the in-space manufacturing company Varda, to be used in orbit to produce pharmaceuticals that can only be created in weightlessness.

No launch date was announced. This was the second of four capsules Rocket Lab is building for Varda, with the first having already completed its flight, where it returned to Earth after successfully crystallizng the HIV drug Ritonavir.

The most important tidbit in the press release however was this:

Varda received permission from the FAA under a Part 450 license earlier this month, making them the only company to ever secure a second reentry license.

With the first capsule, the capsule’s return was delayed almost six months because the FAA and the military couldn’t get their paperwork together to approve the return license. Varda now has that return license in hand before launch, meaning it will get the capsule back when it wants.

One comment

Musk and Shotwell once again blast red tape against the company

12:54 pm

The EPA to SpaceX
The EPA to SpaceX “Nice company you got here.
Sure would be a shame if something happened to it.”

In a follow-up to SpaceX’s blunt critical response to the attacks against it by the head of the FAA, Mike Whitaker during House testimony on September 24, 2024, Elon Musk in a tweet yesterday called for Whitaker to resign.

That blast however was only the start. During a different hearing on September 24th before the Texas state house appropriations committee, Gywnne Shotwell, the CEO of SpaceX, called the actions of the EPA to regulate the launch deluge system for Starship/Superheavy “nonsense.”

“We work very closely with organizations such as the (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality),” she said. “You may have read a little bit of nonsense in the papers recently about that, but we’re working quite well with them.”

…On Tuesday, Shotwell maintained that the the system — which she said resembles “an upside down shower head” — was “licensed and permitted by TCEQ [Texas Commission on Environmental Quality] … EPA came in afterwards and didn’t like the license or the permit that we had for that and wanted to turn it into a federal permit, which we are working on right now.”

…The state agency has said the company received a stormwater permit — a type that’s usually quickly approved — but did not have the permit required for discharge of industrial wastewater produced by launches. That type of permit requires significant technical review and usually takes almost a year to approve. [emphasis mine]

The problem with this demand by both EPA and TCEQ is that SpaceX is not dumping “industrial wastewater produced by launches.” The deluge system uses potable water, essentially equivalent to rain water, and thus does zero harm to the environment. In fact, a single rainstorm would dump far more water on the tidal islands of Boca Chica that any of SpaceX’s Starship/Superheavy launches.

Thus, this demand by the EPA clearly proves the political nature of this regulatory harassment. The unelected apparatchiks in the federal bureaucracy are hunting for ways to stymie and shut down SpaceX, and they will use any regulation they can find to do so — even if that use makes no sense. And they are doing this because they support the Democratic Party wholesale, and thus are abusing their power to hurt someone (Elon Musk) who now opposes that party.

11 comments

New Zealand’s new government abandons promise to streamline red tape

9:17 am

With the release of a new space strategy document [pdf] today, it appears that New Zealand’s new government has abandoned a promise it had made during the election campaign to streamline its space licensing requirements.

It appears that the new leading party in the government had promised to eliminate the present complex licensing rules that require an entirely new license every time a rocket or satellite company makes any change in its plans. The new space strategy however makes no mention of this change, and in fact seems more focused on expanding the government’s reach into space operations, including building and launching its own satellite by 2030. The article at the link suggests this change is possibly because the leading party is in a coalition government that must satisfy its coalition partners.

Three years ago I would have said this policy change would have guaranteed that Rocket Lab would shift more operations to the U.S., but the increased red tape imposed by the FAA’s new “streamlined” Part 450 regulations doesn’t make such a shift helpful any longer. Since the UK government also appears to be favoring heavy regulations that have stalled spaceports there, these government actions might help explain why there has been a sudden burst of new rocket companies and spaceports in Europe and in India in the past two years. Private concerns in both sense an opportunity.

One comment

FAA administrator claims SpaceX wasn’t following regulations; SpaceX says that’s false

4:08 pm

FAA administrator Mike Whitaker today said this to SpaceX:
FAA administrator Mike Whitaker today to SpaceX:
“Nice company you have there. Shame if something
happened to it.”

In a hearing today before the House transportation committee, the FAA administrator Mike Whitaker claimed repeatedly that the red tape his agency has imposed on SpaceX, as well as the fines it recently imposed on the company, were due to safety concerns as well as SpaceX not following the regulations and even launching without a license.

Mike Whitaker, the administrator of the FAA, told lawmakers on the House Transportation Committee that his decision to delay SpaceX’s launch for a few months is grounded in safety, and defended the $633,000 fine his agency has proposed against SpaceX as the “only tool” the FAA has to ensure that Musk’s company follows the rules.

… [Kevin Kiley (R-California)] argued those reviews don’t have anything to do with safety, prompting Whitaker to shoot back: “I think the sonic boom analysis [related to returning Superheavy back to Boca Chica] is a safety related incident. I think the two month delay is necessary to comply with the launch requirements, and I think that’s an important part of safety culture.”

When Kiley asked what can be done to move the launch up, Whitaker said, “complying with regulations would be the best path.”

SpaceX immediately responded with a detailed letter, published on X, stating in summary as follows:

FAA Administrator Whitaker made several incorrect statements today regarding SpaceX. In fact, every statement he made was incorrect.

The letter then detailed very carefully the falseness of each of Whitaker’s claims. You can read images of the letter here and here. The company noted:

It is deeply concerning that the administrator does not appear to have accurate information immediately available to him with respect to SpaceX licensing matters.

Based on SpaceX’s detailed response, it appears its lawyers are extremely confident it has a very good legal position, and will win in court. Moreover, the politics strongly argue in favor of fighting now. Though such a fight might delay further Superheavy/Starship test launches in the near term, in the long run a victory has a good chance of cleaning up the red tape for good, so that future work will proceed without this harassment.

Whitaker’s testimony also suggests strongly that he — a political appointee by the Biden administration –is likely the source of many of the recent delays and increased red tape that SpaceX has been forced to endure. He clearly thinks he knows better than SpaceX on these technical areas, even though his education and work history has never had anything to do with building rockets.

21 comments

Isar begins static fire tests of its Spectrum rocket

9:44 am

Proposed spaceports surrounding Norwegian Sea
Proposed spaceports surrounding Norwegian Sea

Isar Aerospace, one of three German rocket startups vying to the be first to complete an orbital launch, has now revealed that it has begun static fire tests of its Spectrum rocket at its launch facility at the Andoya spaceport in Norway.

In response to questioning from European Spaceflight, Isar confirmed that all components of the Spectrum rocket that will be utilized for its inaugural flight had arrived in Andøya and that testing of the first and second stages had begun.

“All components of our launch vehicle Spectrum have arrived in Andøya and the final preparations for the first test flight of Spectrum are in full swing,” an Isar Aerospace spokesperson said. “We are currently performing hot fire tests of the first and second stages. These tests will determine whether the systems meet all the necessary requirements for the first test flight.”

The company has a 20-year lease at Andoya, and though it has not announced a launch date, these ground tests suggest that launch could occur quite soon. If so, Isar will have beaten Rocket Factory Augsburg and Hyimpulse to space. Rocket Factory had apparently been in the lead until a fire during a full static fire test of its RFA-1 rocket’s first stage in August destroyed the rocket.

This race is also between the spaceports surrounding the Norwegian Sea. Rocket Factory is launching from Saxavord in the Shetland Islands, a spaceport that has been under development the longest, since before 2020, and has been plagued with the red tape problems that appear systemic in the United Kingdom. Andoya however is a latecomer in this race. Though it has been used for suborbital tests for decades, it only started its effort to become a commercial spaceport for orbital flights in November 2023, less than eleven months ago.

Leave a comment

Brazil approves space bill that appears to crush that country’s future in space

10:13 am

The Brazillian legislature has now approved a new space regulatory bill that appears to create a whole range of new agencies and regulatory bodies, all designed to heavily supervise all space activities while giving a great deal of arbitrary power to the government.

The quote below says it all. Note that the term “space operators” refers to any private aerospace operation.

The [government] may economically exploit, directly or indirectly, without bidding, the space infrastructure, including ground equipment and logistical resources, installations and computer systems necessary to carry out space activities.

The regulatory authorities, AEB and the Air Force Command, will have free access to the facilities and equipment of space operators. They may, at any time, cancel or change the licenses granted in the event of non-compliance with obligations or when there is a threat to national security or violation of international commitments. Even if its activities are suspended or canceled, the operator remains responsible for the artifacts that are in operation. [emphasis mine]

There is a lot more, all of it adding more heavy regulation while imposing great responsibilities both legal and financial on the private companies, all to the benefit of the government.

Who is going to invest billions, even millions, under such an arbitrary regime? No one, especially because the Brazillian government has already proven its willingness to unilaterially block or take over private companies with its actions in connection with Starlink and X.

7 comments

SpaceX and Elon Musk blast the FAA’s red tape again

9:54 am

Are Americans finally waking up and emulating their country's founders?

Fight! Fight! Fight! Yesterday both SpaceX and Elon Musk renewed their attack on the FAA’s apparent arbitrary harassment of the company, both by slowing down development of Starship/Superheavy as well as imposing fines and delays on the company for petty issues relating to Falcon 9 launches.

First, Elon Musk sent out a tweet on X, highlighting a successful static fire launchpad engine test of the Starship prototype the company plans to fly on the sixth Starship/Superheavy orbital flight. As he noted with apparent disgust, “Flight 5 is built and ready to fly. Flight 6 will be ready to fly before Flight 5 even gets approved by FAA!”

Second, and with more force, the company released a public letter that it has sent to the leading Republican and Democratic representatives of the House and Senate committees that have direct authority over space activities, outlining its issues with the FAA’s behavior. The letter details at length the irrational and inexplicable slowdown in FAA approvals that caused two launches last summer to occur in a confused manner, with SpaceX clearly given the impression by the FAA that it could go ahead which the FAA now denies. In one case the FAA claims SpaceX removed without its permission a poll of mission control during its countdown procedure. SpaceX in its letter noted bluntly that the regulations do not require that poll, and that the company already requires two other polls during the count.

In another case involving SpaceX’s plan to change to a new mission control center, the company submitted its request in June, and after two months the FAA finally approved the control center’s use for one launch, but had still not approved it for a second. The first launch went off, so SpaceX thus rightly assumed it could use the control center for the second. Yet the FAA is now trying to fine SpaceX for that second launch.

The third case of FAA misconduct appears to be the most egregious. » Read more

8 comments

FCC commissioner slams FCC for its partisan hostility to SpaceX

10:27 am

The FCC proves its partisan hostility to SpaceX
The FCC proves its partisan hostility to SpaceX

Even as the FAA has increasingly appeared to be harassing SpaceX with red tape, FCC commissioner Brendan Carr this week slammed his own agency for what appears to be clearly partisan hostility to SpaceX in its recent decisions and public statements.

Carr noted how only last year the FCC had canceled an almost $900 million grant that it had previously awarded to SpaceX for providing rural communities internet access. When it did so, the FCC claimed that the company had failed to “demonstrate that it could deliver the promised service.”

That claim of course was absurd on its face, considering that Starlink was the only available commercial system that was actually doing this, directly to individual rural customers.

Carr noted however that this absurd FCC decision was made even more ridiculous this week by the FCC’s chairperson, Jessica Rosenworcel, who accused SpaceX of being a “monopoly” because of its success in launching Starlink satellites and providing this service ahead of everyone else.
» Read more

11 comments

Musk: We will sue the FAA for “regulatory overreach” and “improper, politically-motivated behavior”

9:38 am

In a series of tweets yesterday Elon Musk announced that SpaceX is going to sue the FAA for its recent actions that have delayed development of Starship/Superheavy and have also fined the company for what appear to be petty reasons.

In the second case, the FAA threatened to fine SpaceX $633K because it had not gotten some minor approvals prior to successfully completing two launches safely. The agency gave SpaceX 30 days to respond.

Musk responded bluntly in a tweet, stating that “SpaceX will be filing suit against the FAA for regulatory overreach.” In a second tweet immediately thereafter Musk added that that the fines were “More lawfare.”

In a third tweet he stated unequivocally, “I am highly confident that discovery will show improper, politically-motivated behavior by the FAA.”

As noted in the first link above, the agency took no action against SpaceX for more than a year after those two launches, only issuing the threat to fine the company now, just before the election, and just after the company had publicly criticized the agency for its delays in issuing a launch license for the fifth Starship/Superheavy test flight. I suspect Musk has some good information of solid evidence that some officials either in the FAA or at the White House instigated this action for political reasons. An honest appraisal of the FAA’s actions sure suggests it.

23 comments

FAA fines SpaceX $633K for acting without its permission

12:46 pm

The FAA to SpaceX
The FAA to SpaceX “Nice company you got here.
Sure would be a shame if something happened to it.”

The FAA today revealed that it wants to fine SpaceX a total of $633,009 for two different actions where the company did something without the agency’s express permission.

In May 2023, SpaceX submitted a request to revise its communications plan related to its license to launch from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. The proposed revisions included adding a new launch control room at Hangar X and removing the T-2 hour readiness poll from its procedures. On June 18, 2023, SpaceX used the unapproved launch control room for the PSN SATRIA mission and did not conduct the required T-2 hour poll. The FAA is proposing $350,000 in civil penalties ($175,000 for each alleged violation).

In July 2023, SpaceX submitted a request to revise its explosive site plan related to its license to launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The proposed revision reflected a newly constructed rocket propellant farm. On July 28, 2023, SpaceX used the unapproved rocket propellant farm for the EchoStar XXIV/Jupiter mission. The FAA is proposing a $283,009 civil penalty.

To understand the absurdity and abuse of power going on here, one must look at the dates. » Read more

19 comments

A space journalist suddenly notices that the FCC has no legal authority to regulate space junk

9:34 am

An article posted yesterday at Space News was unusual in that this mainstream media space news source and its reporter suddenly recognized, more than a year late, that the FCC’s effort to impose regulations on all satellite companies requiring they build satellites a certain way to facilitate their de-orbit at the end of their lifespan, is based on no statutory authority and is thus illegal.

[A] Supreme Court ruling in June struck down a principle widely known as “Chevron deference,” which gave agencies greater latitude in interpreting ambiguities in laws they enforced. The move has raised questions over the FCC’s space sustainability jurisdiction without a federal law that explicitly authorizes it or other agencies to establish and enforce debris mitigation rules.

Still, the FCC is seen as the logical agency to handle the risk of orbital debris. If courts rule that the FCC has not been granted the authority, Congress will likely address this once it gets around to tackling the issue.

My, my! You mean a federal bureaucrat doesn’t have the right to make law out of thin air, just to facilitate what that bureaucrat thinks should be done? Who wudda thought it!

As an old-fashioned American who believes in freedom and limited government (as clearly established by our Constitution) I had recognized this legal fact immediately in January 2023, when the FCC first made its power grab. That our young modern journalists don’t understand this is both tragic and disgraceful.

What makes this even more disgraceful is that the entire article lobbies hard for the FCC, claiming with no real evidence that “the FCC is seen as the logical agency to handle the risk of orbital debris.”

What this reporter should have known and reported is that both the House and the Senate have disgreed, forcefully. In the House one bill was introduced to give the de-orbit regulatory power to the FAA, while later rejecting a second bill that would have given that power to the FCC. The Senate meanwhile introduced its own bill giving this de-orbit regulatory power to the FAA and Commerce, not the FCC.

Sadly it is probably a mistake to give any government agency too much power in this matter, but our Congress will do so regardless. That is how things are done nowadays. Americans are expected to kow-tow to Washington regulators, in everything they do. Freedom is not the default approach. Regulation is.

6 comments

FAA attempts to justify its red tape

10:06 am

The FAA today responded to SpaceX’s harsh criticism of the licensing process that is delaying the next test orbital launch of Starship/Superheavy, claiming the delays were entirely SpaceX’s fault for changing the flight profile of the mission, likely involving the landing of Superheavy at the launch tower rather than in the Gulf of Mexico.

The agency also claimed that this change meant that the “environmental impact” would cover a wider area, requiring imput from “other agencies.”

An FAA official reiteriated these claims at a conference yesterday, stating that the delay was “largely set by the choices that the company makes.”

All crap and utter rationalizations. The FAA has decided that any change of any kind in the launch operations will now require major review, including bringing in Fish & Wildlife, the Coast Guard, and others to have their say. This policy however has nothing to do with reality, as there is absolutely no additional threat to the environment by these changes. Nor is there any significant increase in safety risks by having Superheavy land at Boca Chica. Even if there were, the only ones qualified to determine that risk are engineers at SpaceX. The FAA is merely rubberstamping SpaceX’s conclusions, and taking its time doing so.

This is America today. Unless something changes soon, freedom is dead. To do anything new and challenging Americans will have to beg permission from bureaucrats in Washington, who know nothing but love to exert their power over everyone else. Under these circumstances, we shall see the end of a great and free nation.

10 comments

Space industry and Congress blast FAA for its so-called “streamlined” regulations

9:32 am

At hearings yesterday before the House Science committee numerous space companies as well as elected officials heaped numerous complaints about the FAA’s regulartory framework, called Part 450, that it adopted in March 2021 supposedly to “streamline” and “speed up” the licensing required to launch.

The result has been the exact opposite, as predicted by many in the industry when the agency was writing these regulations.

Many in the launch industry have warned since the regulations went into force in March 2021 that it was difficult for companies to obtain licenses under Part 450. Industry officials raised concerns about Part 450 at an October 2023 hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee’s space subcommittee, with one witness, Bill Gerstenmaier of SpaceX, warning the “entire regulatory system is at risk of collapse” because of the difficulties getting licenses under the new regulations.

Witnesses at the House hearing made clear those concerns have not abated. “The way it is being implemented today has caused severe licensing delays, confusion and is jeopardizing our long-held leadership position,” said Dave Cavossa, president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, an industry group whose members include several launch companies.

He cited specific concerns such as a long “pre-application” process with the FAA where companies, he said, “get stuck in an endless back-and-forth process” with the agency to determine how they can meet the performance-based requirements of Part 450 with limited guidance. “This process is taking years,” he argued.

It first must be noted that this hearing was not called in connection with the FAA’s stonewalling of SpaceX Starship/Superheavy test program. It was called because since 2021 the entire new rocket industry in the U.S. has ground to a halt, with launches from new rocket companies practically ending because of the red tape imposed on them by Part 450. If something is not done to fix this, new companies in Europe and India will quickly grab market share, choking off profits for the new American companies.

5 comments

FAA delays launch license approval of next Starship/Superheavy test launch until late November

9:51 am


The White House to SpaceX: “Great business you got there! Really be
a shame if something happened to it!”

According to an update today on SpaceX’s Starship webpage, the FAA has told the company to not expect a launch license for its next Starship/Superheavy orbital test launch until late November.

We recently received a launch license date estimate of late November from the FAA, the government agency responsible for licensing Starship flight tests. This is a more than two-month delay to the previously communicated date of mid-September. This delay was not based on a new safety concern, but instead driven by superfluous environmental analysis. The four open environmental issues are illustrative of the difficulties launch companies face in the current regulatory environment for launch and reentry licensing.

This two month delay is actually a four month delay, since SpaceX had previously stated it was ready to launch in early August. » Read more

20 comments

Local Texas authorities fine SpaceX for dumping potable water in Boca Chica

10:33 am

In what is simply another case of apparent harassment fueled by a tiny minority of anti-Musk activists, local Texas authorities have fined SpaceX a whopping $3,750 for dumping potable water at Boca Chica during the last test launch of its Starship/Superheavy rocket.

Late last month, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality shared that SpaceX failed to get authorization to discharge industrial wastewater into or adjacent to surrounding wetlands, resulting in a $3,750 penalty. The wastewater SpaceX is charged with releasing comes from a water deluge system for its massive Starship rocket. The deluge system is used to absorb heat and vibration from the rocket engines firing.

This article is typical of most of our leftist mainstream press. It pushes the false claims of those activists — such as their insistence they represent everyone in the south Rio Grande Valley and that the water was “industrial wastewater.” First, they represent almost no one in south Texas, as almost everyone there is very happy with SpaceX and the billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs it is bringing to the area. For example, these groups recently held an event on the beaches near SpaceX facilities “to fight for its preservation, which they view as being in jeopardy since the arrival of Elon Musk’s SpaceX.”

Only about a dozen people showed up.

Second, the water is not “industrial wastewater.” As Elon Musk noted in a tweet, “Just to be clear, this silly fine was for spilling potable drinking water! Literally, you could drink it.”

Nonetheless, this manufactured environmental issue has clearly been used to stall SpaceX’s efforts. The company had said it was ready to do the next test launch of Starship/Superheavy on August 8, 2024. It is now a month later, and the FAA has still not issued the launch license. It is possible that part of the reason for the delay is because SpaceX has decided it will attempt to bring Superheavy back to the launch tower at Boca Chica, where the tower’s chopstick arms will try to capture it on landing. If so, the FAA might be demanding more assurances of safety than SpaceX can reasonably provide.

The delay however is also almost certainly caused by this fake environmental water issue. The FAA apparently has been forced to deal with it, and that action has stalled all of its new regulatory harassment of SpaceX, including the process to approve a new environmental assessment of Boca Chica that would allow the company to launch as many as 22 times per year.

12 comments

Rocket startup ABL lays off a significant number of staff

9:52 am

As a result of a launchpad fire that destroyed its rocket — just before it was going to make the second attempt to achieve orbit — rocket startup ABL has now laid off a significant but unstated number of staff in order to save money.

In a post on LinkedIn Aug. 30, Harry O’Hanley, chief executive of ABL, said the company was laying off an unspecified number of people. He included the email he sent to company staff after an all-hands meeting to discuss the layoffs.

In 2021 the company had raised almost $400 million in private investment capital, but it is possible that the loss of its first two rockets, one mere seconds after launch and the second before the launch could even occur, has possibly caused some investors to pull their money from the company. It is also possible those investors also recognized that the increased red tape imposed on all rocket companies since the FAA instituted its new “streamlined” Part 450 regulatory rules in 2021 was likely going to delay the next ABL launch attempt so much it made investments in the company no longer viable.

Leave a comment

SpaceX resumes launches with a bang!

9:29 am

Within hours of the FAA clearing SpaceX to resume launches, the company did so most emphatically, launching twice in little more than an hour apart from opposite coasts.

First the company placed 20 Starlink satellites into orbit, its Falcon 9 rocket lifting off from Cape Canaveral. The first stage completed its eighteenth flight, landing on a drone ship in the Atlantic.

Then, one hour and five minutes later, the company launched 21 Starlink satellites, the Falcon 9 lifting off from Vandenberg in California. That first stage completed its ninth flight, landing on a drone ship in the Pacific.

This fast return to flight underlines the unnecessary delay of at least one day in launches caused by the FAA’s red tape. SpaceX had scheduled at least one of these launches the previous night — and was clearly ready to launch — but had to cancel it because the FAA stood in the way.

The leaders in the 2024 launch race:

86 SpaceX
36 China
10 Rocket Lab
9 Russia

American private enterprise now leads the rest of the world combined in successful launches 101 to 54, while SpaceX by itself leads the entire world, including American companies 86 to 69.

2024 is now the second year in a row the U.S. rocket industry has completed more than 100 launches, something it could not do for the first three-quarters of a century after Sputnik, when our precious government used NASA to run our entire space program. Now that freedom and capitalism has managed to wrest some control away from NASA, Americans are finally doing what they would have done in the 1960s, had Congress and President Kennedy not stepped in, first requiring all space exploration be run under a “space program” controlled by NASA, and then passing the Communications Satellite Act in 1962 which forbid Americans from running private profit-oriented launches without government participation.

16 comments
1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 70