Space X and the FAA

[727Sky]

It seems like since Elon and Trump have become friends the great arm of the federal government in the form of the Federal Aviation Administration has started screwing with Space-X's launch plans.. No doubt China loves this stuff !

There used to be a magazine (maybe 20 years ago" called "US Aviator" that wrote about and exposed many of the corrupt vengeful acts by certain regional departments of the FAA. There were many stories about inept idiots at work. One I still remember was a twin engine aircraft that had the new "Q" tipped props.. A fed during a ramp check grounded the aircraft and accused the pilot of almost landing gear up and managing to make a go-around; thus the prop tips were perfectly bent over (no scratches or runway rash visible..yet that must be the cause!!"

So the aircraft was grounded for several days even though they had been given the paperwork about the new propellers installation which was legal and certified.. Federal bureaucratic B.S.

[727Sky]

US Congress, NASA, SpaceX NOW Forcing FAA for Starship Launch License! “The next fight of Starship is ready to fly. We are waiting on regulatory approval. It shouldn’t be possible to build a giant rocket faster than the paper can move from one desk to another.” The truth is exactly as Elon Musk says, but unfortunately, his beloved Starship is currently stuck under the grip of the government's FAA environmental agency. To join forces in seeking fairness for Starship, everyone, even the US Congress, NASA is now pressuring the FAA to allow the launch of Starship. So, what is the reason for this? Let’s find out on today’s episode of Alpha Tech: US Congress, NASA, SpaceX NOW Forcing FAA for Starship Launch License! A Sept. 10 hearing by the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee on “encouraging commercial space innovation while maintaining public safety” became a forum for complaints about a set of commercial launch and reentry regulations at the FAA, known as Part 450. FAA's Part 450 regulations were introduced in 2021, consolidating previous regulations (Parts 415/417, 431, and 435) into a single framework with the aim of simplifying the licensing process. It seemed that the licensing process would be streamlined, but in reality, it has become even more complicated. Many in the launch industry have warned since the regulations took effect in March 2021 that companies are finding it very difficult to obtain licenses under Part 450. Industry officials raised concerns about Part 450 during an October 2023 hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee's space subcommittee, with one witness, SpaceX's Bill Gerstenmaier, warning that the “entire regulatory system is at risk of collapse” due to the difficulties in getting licenses under the new regulations. So far, witnesses at the House hearing made it clear that those concerns have not subsided. US Congress, NASA, SpaceX NOW Forcing FAA for Starship Launch License! “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. The FAA aims to clarify its regulations through a set of documents called advisory circulars. These circulars are designed to provide guidance on how license applicants can demonstrate compliance with the agency's rules. However, as Cavossa pointed out, the FAA has not yet released many of these planned advisory circulars, leaving some uncertainty in the compliance process. Mike French, serving as the vice chair of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Group (COMSTAC) for the FAA, echoed these worries. He highlighted that COMSTAC had put forward several suggestions to the FAA to tackle issues with the Part 450 regulations. Among these proposals were two key ideas: first, extending the FAA's 180-day evaluation period for completed license applications to encompass certain aspects of the pre-application phase; and second, permitting companies to fall back on existing legacy regulations in situations where advisory circulars for the new rules haven't been issued yet. These recommendations aim to streamline the process and provide more flexibility for companies navigating the regulatory landscape.