Could you explain how this FAA delay in any aspect relates to safety? Oh, there are changes on the rocket! The FAA requested changes being made to this rocket. During launch, the ocean beneath the flightpath is off limits. It takes 15 minutes for the booster to return to the pad, which results in the originaly intended flightpath. Every security aspect has been worked on in the last two years. Maybe you remember the 150 item list, of which not all items needed be before testflight #1. 🚀🏴☠️🎸
There's a line between the companies themselves being the reason no civilian has died from a rocket and the FAA being the reason no civilian has died from a rocket. The FAA seems to be praised for the safety record when, in my opinion, they responsible for 10% of the safety considerations. Rockets are very safe because no company wants to blow up a rocket and risk people for no reason. They want to learn from it and improve upon it or get it "right" the first time. There's also a point where a rocket is at a 0% risk of injuring or killing civilians and every dollar over that point is thrown into the fire and wasted. Companies are saying the FAA are severely crossing the line and are nothing but a nuisance since it's now eating away at the company and costing them money for no inherent benefit to anyone. Not the tax payers, not the company, and not even the FAA. Just wasting time. That's what the companies are enraged about. Because they're putting aside 10% of their budget to the FAA paperwork. TLDR: FAA isn't the sole reason for the safety record and they're being very difficult and expensive to get launch licenses from
The largest cause of risk in aviation is literally the FAA. You need to understand the administration stands against Musk's efforts. This is political. The FAA exists to create what is called captured regulatory markets. It prohibits free market economics. While also decreasing aviation safety. The FAA's logic is all pilots want to unalve themselves, therefore every landing is only because of regulation. The reality is, pilot organzations are the singular and primary reason for a steady reduction of aviation accidents. Likeiwse, where they still exist, they exist with the FAA's full blessing.
I think Starship might be first to attempt a landing/catch, they're mainly waiting on regulatory approvals and have their own launch site, while NG has a lot of assembly and testing left before the flight and has to share. Especially with some of the high profile missions launching soon, I don't think they'll have enough dedicated time available at the pad for test firing and all the scrubs first launch attempts often involve before Starship is able to get permission to fly (assuming they don't get hit with another dumb delay). They're both pretty ambitious when it comes to successfully returning the boosters, so I'm not sure either way on that. For both my feeling is that they'll make close to landing but have to abort into the water at the last moment due to some unaccounted for anomaly.
That last part is a bit different than you seem to imagine. The boosters are going to come from high above the landing spot. Triggering the Flight Abortion System may be the only way to abort into the ocean. Starship better not be near the beach if that happens. 🚀🏴☠️🎸
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx that's how the system works, if it thinks anything is far enough off parameters far before landing itll blow itself up or burn to splash hard in the ocean way far away from any land
All the delays are down to Space X not the FAA. Space X are useless at keeping them onside and make too much noise about whose fault they think it is. Musk is a twat at times.
SpaceX complaining about how their rapid RE-iterating is regulatory heavy. But SpaceX are the ones that developed this business model, other rocket companies don’t do things this way, perhaps for multiple reasons. “Wait a second, this whole operation was your idea”
Again SpaceX stating that the FAA needs to streamline THEIR process is a giant pot calling the kettle black. The entire reason the FAA are constantly backlogged with SpaceX regulatory work is because of the nature of SpaceX’s business model of rapid RE-iteration.
"other rocket companies don’t do things this way, perhaps for multiple reasons"... BO hasn't launched new Glen yet.. ULA has launched Vulcan once and possibly 3 launches before the end of the Year.. SLS is moving at a glacial pace and is totally unaffordable for NASA. Boeing Starliner.. Yeah let's not even talk about that... Other rocket companies are in a holding pattern - SpaceX is the company that has saved and is saving USA's reputation as a leader in space. So maybe the government should adapt to their model rather than SpaceX adapt to the government's regulatory model which has been designed around above-mentioned industry players that move at a snail's pace....
@@NeedlessPedantics: I hate to break it to you, but while NASA (and the military) didn't likely iterate _this_ fast during the space race, they did iterate pretty fast.
Oil tanker disasters can do 100s or 1000s of times more damage to the marine environment than a Starship launch could ever do. Do oil tankers need regulatory approval every time they set out on a new voyage?
this is the same gulf that the oil industry dumped hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into while other rigs kept pumping without any interference from any government entities or any improvements to the pumping procedures , just seems like space x is being treated very unfairly . if I were spaceX I would be looking for a country that appreciated what they are trying to accomplished. Space x has been a big part to do with this new space industry, we should be helping as much as possible not trying to impede them . come on FAA get with it fast!
Exactly, I've been saying that for years. I bet Belize would love to see tens of thousands of jobs created by Starship, the influx of infrastructure investments and a Starbase that attracts tourism. In the mid and long term, this industry will bring billions of dollars to any country that supports it.
Fossil fuel projects are categorically exempt from a lot of NEPA requirements by law, and regulatory bodies are incentivized to maximalism by the fact that Environmental Impact Statements' are challenged in court a lot and judges often force regulatory bodies to amend them to add considerations, and plaintiffs dont generally need to provide evidence those considerations are actual problems, just that they haven't been considered in the EIS.
2:55 That is "flash rust" around the doublers. A good power sprayer will get that ready for paint. No grinding required. Very easy. Side note, I wish there was less "I guess" reporting mixed in with real information. I don't mind your opinions, to be fair.
Question, since I haven't seen it asked here yet -- Doesn't SpaceX need to finish the second tower before they launch anyway? Isn't that why they're building the second tower, to do the catch test without putting their main launch tower at risk? Maybe the plan changed again, or maybe they're expecting the second tower to be done well within the 60-day period being discussed, but this feels like a lot of finger-pointing for something they're not actually ready to do.
Actually they are not completely unreasonable. SpaceX has approval to launch flight 5 same as flight 4. Doing test that way would provide 80% of test results SpaceX needs to achieve.
Question: exactly what is the FAA going to do during the 60 days that will make the flight safer? The FAA delay is doing actual harm to both SpaceX and America’s space program. Delays cost money. The current FAA rules concerning space flights seem to be unreasonable and should be updated to prevent unnecessary delays.
@@BabyMakR Which is ironic that despite Boeing actively trying to block off SpaceX. They somehow always seem to fail themselves and inevitably give their contracts to SpaceX(I'm sure someone regrets shutting out SpaceX on the crew capsule to ISS)
As with all things American politics, there is no doubt in my mind that the real reason for these delays is to hold the launch back until after the presidential election. It's incredibly stupid and wasteful of government funds, but they do it anyway, for a LOT of things.
awesome to see some news on the hearing and the all in summit in between all the rocket coverage :D for someone who isn't super interested in a giant propelled tank and when one is made but enough interested to follow it all its nice to hear about some varying topics
As far as the question at the end, I would say Starship Super Heavy but it seems the FAA is going to hole them back enough to give New Glen a chance to try
It's probably more that Elon doesn't get along with the current administration, but Daddy Bezos does, so they're showing him who really has the power here.
I'd be belly-aching if it were a two year delay, but it's just two months. Two freakin' months. (Yeah, yeah...with an option for more.) Should the booster not be successfully caught and instead significantly damage the OLT and/or OLM (heavy forbid the tank farm), how big of of a delay will that cause? That's the time frame (and money) SpaceX has put on the table and it's no two months. But hey, they're fairly good at this stuff...they might just pull it off (I hope they do -- it'll be very cool). Even so, there's no harm (except to a bit of moola) in doing a quick launch under the current license...certify Starship for reentry, show you can precision land two boosters in a row -- and have a successful flight with all engines firing when commanded and both ships surviving to reusability. You don't waste two months and you still get to gather precious data which is what 2024 launches were supposed to be all about. Without reliability there is no reusability. Let's not forget: first time is luck; second time is coincidence; third time is skill. (Starliner has yet to hit the "first" milestone -- do better, Boeing.)
Gotta disagree with the guy dressing down the FAA their primary job is NOT to make American manufacturers of any aeronautical technology more competitive on the world market it exists to uphold legislation and safety standards for the good of the public and the people who fly on American made planes/rockets I understand they may be slowing things down possibly nefariously but at the end of the day they are there to protect people and the environment
FAA should have nothing to do with them, except to keep safe area around the launch and landing areas. Stick to Cessna’s and allowing Boeing to muck up jetliners.😊
Love how BO is against the Elon rapid iteration model yet they seem to be all about it in the scenario that NG fails to land. It’s almost like getting out there, failing, and then learning from that is actually a pretty good way of doing things! Very much looking forward to NG’s maiden launch.
What most of the people, even the higher-ranking academically speaking, do not get, is that industrial disaster are inherently complex phenomenons, a stacking of deviations, oversights and unknowns. @USCSB channel has lots of content showcasing this. "Whi destroyed Three Mile Island" by Nicholas Means also illustrate this brilliantly. These slow, cumbersome assessment processes are mere reflections of lessons learned through fire, ashes an blood. There is this saying : "I will let you remove this fence as soon as you can explain why it was put here".
I respect that, but the cited reason for this delay is a sonic boom in a slightly different region possibly harming wildlife. Not plowing hundreds of passengers into the ground like Boeing, _potentially harming wildlife by startling them with a sonic boom._ This is pure inefficiency.
Not to mention they already pre approved the launch of 9 starship this year and they wanna take it back now, because SpaceX made them better. They also say if SpaceX asks questions then they can reset the time indefinitely which means they have no reason for the hold up and are doing it just because they can. It's abuse of power
@@KingCreeper-1026 Oh, and don't forget how they wanted SpaceX to test to see if they would be harmed. They wanted SpaceX to capture a bunch of wild animals and then deliberately expose them to sonic booms so see if they because more stressed after the sonic booms than while they were just tied up.
Last time this happened Elon said they were ready to fly but gosh darn it FAA said no. Turns out they were no where close to achieving even the reduced goal they settled on.
@@fractalelf7760 They didn't let him sand blast South Padre Island again. That was a positive contribution. Musk thinks the US is China and he can dump whatever he wants on his neighbours in the name of progress. So far he's thrown concrete about with gay abandon, covering a whole town in the debris from it. He's launched without permission, which is unforgivable because it shows Space X's Chairman has zero respect for any rules. Musk choose Boca Chica as his Starbase, I can't think of a worse place to have chosen given the issues there. The buy in was cheap though, and his bent politician friends from Texas overpromised on what they could deliver.
Also their CEO was caught whining for the Vice President to be assassinated on X. Something that might also prompt an investigation by the government over government contracts.
@@PaleoWithFries Elon whining to his millions of followers on X that the President and Vice President isn't getting enough liquidation attempts on their lives, is probably not going to make any appeal process go well.
I still think theres good to letting the FAA re-evaluate. Theres a good chance that SpaceX would keep their attitude with regulations even in situations where its a real concern that they could do harm.
As much as it is frustrating that there is a hold up, in the context of normal rocket development 60 days is nothing. "Hey underfunded and understaffed agency, can I change the plans and still fly my 5000 ton rocket tomorrow?"... No, there is a legal hold before dropping multi ton parts, even if it is a bit of ocean. The hot stage ring is not a small change to the profile, and just because they already flew it once is not permission to keep using it. I wonder whether this is the FAA looking back on the last flight and realising that there probably should have been considerably more scrutiny on the hot staging ring. They were being unduly lax last time, not too strict this one. They get a lot of flak, but I am perpetually amazed by the extent to which the FAA are able to be accommodating to SpaceX's aggressive testing. They have repeatedly signed off on ground breaking flights of the largest flying vehicle in history on weeks notice. As for sonic booms affecting wildlife, Concorde was blamed for the loss of 60,000 racing pigeons in 1997, and superheavy is significantly bigger and blunter. I absolutely believe that it needs to fly, but somebody should have a plan in place for monitoring the impact on wildlife. The thing that really irks me about the environmental stuff is that this is a test site, not an industrial one. The whole point of a test site is that you don't know the answers to these questions. You can make educated guesses about the impact of sonic booms on wildlife, but they will be guesses none the less... Or you can fly the thing and actually just look.
"Concorde was blamed for the loss of 60,000 racing pigeons in 1997" you can't be serious. That's the only known effect of a sonic boom on animals? Is not even wild life. You know that "loss" doesn't mean "dead" in that context, more like "freed".
I think the majority of the flak derives from the FAA's streamlining to oversee a refined industry. If they want to be good at regulating irregular prototypes, they will have to streamline their process towards that goal. As for 60 day delays being normal in rocket development... you might want to define when. Slow paperwork is certainly normal this year, but no one under the current FAA's jurisdiction is making giant leaps for mankind. Fewer deaths in the testing programs leading up to Apollo might have been worth a slower development time, but maybe not.
My first thought on hearing the reasoning was for the different ocean landing area than last time was basically just don't we change where farings and boosters land pretty frequently?
look yall, red tape can be annoying and it can be excessive, but can we all please stop swinging the pendulum so far the other direction that we are cheerleading for major corporations to not be subject to regulations? can we really not see the slippery slope that has been dramatically proven time and time again? i mean, cmon, ffs
But look how government workers have gotten nothing done in terms of building rockets the last 30 years. SpaceX comes along and builds fantastic facilities. Government only contribution is delay and endless studies.
The problem is starship had approval for 9 launches this year and now they want to take that back bc they upgraded their ship? I mean if it's a better ship and you already approved 9 worse versions of it before then there should be no reason for the hold up. Not to mention that they added "if you ask any questions, we will reset the time" which just says that they literally don't have a reason to postpone the launch. It's an abuse of government power
@@wubnix it's mentalities such as these that mean that important details get missed. The FAA's regulations are written in blood. The rules are like this because even so much as moving a bolt can change the outcomes of a disaster significantly. The times are set this way so everybody can raise relevant concerns relating to the various impacts the launch will have on the environment and to people's safety. Regulations are supremely important they are not doing this to obstruct progress, it is because when you look historically at regulations being ignored for the sake of convenience, terrible things happen.
@@minerscale I'm not saying regulations aren't important. I'm saying they already did their job and approved 9 starships yet they want to take it back for no reason at all. And the fact that they have a petty rule saying that if questions are asked then the timer gets reset is proof that they have no reason to stop the launch. What good does resetting the time do for the safety of people. Nothing at all. Not to mention SpaceX is already a trusted launch provider, so they are familiar with the risks and the consequences. This isn't some new company with potentially dangerous outcomes. It's the company that has the only crew rated spacecraft in America rn. Yet FAA feels good enough to skip out on Boeing regulations despite Boeing being just as renowned as SpaceX but with much bigger problems
Good god that politician is dramatic and worthless. Licencing is not about "making things competitive on the world market", that attitude is how you got Boeing. The idea that the boss of the FAA should ever be 'determining how fast these things go through' with regards to engineering decisions is such a politician statement. So much rhetoric, so little reality.
Gilmore Aerospace earlier this year complained that the Australian Space Agency was the most egregiously strict launch regulator in the world, and really wished that wasn't the case. Stupid genies.
i love how SpaceX is always like the "smart" kid who does all the work and sets the ground, then everybody else just coppies them, with the falcon 9, starship like landing tests from china?
To be fair, SpaceX copied a lot of stuff too. But yeah, everyone in second place has always copied the winner. Russia and China will always be second place, no matter how many red banners they wave. (I love Dreamchaser, which is an old Russian design). Long term, America will simply execute better.
Regulations can be incredibly annoying, but let’s not forget they’re the only thing protecting the environment and public from maniacs like Musk. Slightly slower progress is a small price to pay for safety. And any statement from a company owned by Musk needs to be taken with a HUGE pinch of salt.
Holy cow it’s someone speaking REASON! Everyone else is blaming this on politics given we have an election in a month and a half yet the FAA has been regulating in the same way they have been for several years. People are calling the recent FAA fines political because of the timing but if you look at the history of how the FAA dishes out fines and about how long it takes, you’d see nothing different from what they have been doing for years. SpaceX DECIDED to apply for a 450 license knowing it was the less lenient license. The FAA offers a license that allows for more modifications without having to reapply but that’s not the license SpaceX applied for…. That being said, we do absolutely need a more streamlined process and with how busy both aviation and spaceflight is getting, we need separate administrations. There should be an FAA for aviation and an FSA for spaceflight. Our current system is overburdened and slow, but we still need a system to protect the environment and the general public.
Wow im surprised people in these comments are so quick to take Elon's side in this issue, even Matt himself not addressing the statement the FAA put out that shut down basically everything Elon was whining about. At the end of the day Spaceflight is very risky business and many of those regulations are written in blood. The FAA has a system of approvals, that SpaceX is fully aware of, but they largely want to do things their way, by changing the design of Starship and the stage 0 on the fly, as well as mission profiles flight trajectories etc. When the senator asked "What changed?" the answer is everything, from flight to flight they change every aspect of the mission in some way. And while as a Space tech enthusiast, that can be frustrating, consider it from a saftey first perspective. Do you think these companies should be able to have an incident where the ship explodes, or at least part of it burns up, then you can just change the design of the ship, the mission profile, the flight trajectory and the splash down location and not go through approval again? Does that sound safe to you?
If he had chosen a better location away from built up areas and wildlife reserves it would have helped. Doing it in Florida would have been smarter, and wouldn't have had anything like the delays Musk has caused the company by being petulant. Plenty of inspectors hanging around in Florida to oversee your launches, not so many in Texas. His problem in Texas is the FAA don't have the manpower to keep up with his changes, Musk's answer is to cut their budget? Is he stupid or just really stupid?
Genuinely fascinated by how many people think the FAA should have zero say over when, where and how a rocket gets launched into space... Maybe somebody should tell them what the first A in NASA stands for.
Not only is this harming US space capacity it is also likely slowing down the Artemis missions. No one wants to have an incident but the FAA knew all about the procedures SpaceX was doing. I mean the catch arm has been in the works for at least 2 years if I remember correctly. I think the FAA needs to figure out how to balance safety with speed of process. You need to keep things safe but no one wants to see the whole process grind on for another decade because they can only do two launches before the FAA wants another environmental scan done. I get also that Mr. Musk has not endeared himself over the past few years but SpaceX should be treated with at least a modicum of common sense. Hold them accountable when it makes sense but stop creating reasons to halt procedures.
FAA should update its regulations and decision mechanisms at one point, if they understand that as space programs develop really fast and with more complexity, they have to adjust accordingly in order to be functional and not just a silly nuisance.
i think the faa dosnt want to look like they are in spacex pocket like they where with boeing. but also didnt falcon 9 go through many changes and that flew just fine.
I imagine, Elon having the first colony on Mars...and then has to establish his own reglements and administrations....which are not faster than those on earth :P
Probably not a popular opinion but the FAA guy is following the rules made by legislators. IMO SpaceX needs better project managers if they’re oblivious to the regulations governing their work. If they’re unhappy with the regulations, get elected officials to change them, not whine to bureaucrats handcuffed by regulations they didn’t make.
Does a driver need to have their licence plate renewed every time they instal new headlight, tires, or wipers; or selects a new GPS coordinate; as if it were new car? No, that would be silly.
If you get a license to specificly drive a motorcycle, and you show up in a truck? They applied for a very specific license they KNEW what that. FAA rules are Cristal clear
The FAA's priority is NOT to keep the US competitive, it's to keep the public safe. That's what sets it appart from eg. China. Sure, I wish it would go faster too. But I don't want Apollo 2.
Believe me, if the CCP can slow us down using our own bureaucracy and to the moon and/or mars first the last thing that will be safe(er) is the US public. I think we should have delayed the landing in Normandy in June of 1944 to study the effect on the sardine population there first. /s
@@QuasistellarNymphomaniac no one is saying get rid of FAA but dude they have had more than 3 months to do this paperwork and checks and for some reason they need to ask about "environmental actions" even though they've done it like every other time before. Not to mention why is it taking two months to figure out if it's ok environmentally
@@wubnix where did you get 3 months? SpaceX submitted the new flight plan mid august. This is what's delaying things. They just repeat Flight 4 profile, they could launch today.
@@QuasistellarNymphomaniac so they had 3 months to get the rest of the paperwork done and another month for the flight plan. That's seems like plenty of time to pass some papers around. There is still no reason why it should take 3 months to figure out if the EPA is fine with it
@@wubnix Nothing here is taking three months! You are ill informed. SpaceX said guys, we're gonna fly a totally different trajectory next time, still fine, ay? Do you really expect the FAA to say 'fine, whatever'?
Why may Starship be allowed to splash their debris into the Gulf of Mexico, But I may not throw my debris there??? And if the fishermen don't like it that Starship litters their fishing area, let alone risking heavy objects potentially falling onto their boats, than Starship can bugger off, honestly! Starship brings very little value to humanity; if you truly think about the really, really big picture, EVERYTHING considered. What are we going to do on the moon and Mars? Really? Can you tell me? We've been to the moon, there is NOTHING there for us! It was nothing but a colossal waste of resources - THIS is the reality of Starship. You can hate me for this, but this is the bitter truth! Look, I love helpful technology and space exploration! I am fascinated by the mars rovers, the James Webb space telescope and everything these robots have revealed. It has served to bolster my absolute awe of creation. But there is absolute NO POINT whatsoever to send humans any further than the ISS. There really is NOTHING for us nor anything of use to us out there. The Apollo missions have proven this already! Really, NOTHING! Yet, some keep on wasting gazillions of resources to go virtually NOWHERE! The Cosmos is so large yet we are seemingly willing to spend half our earthly resources just so that we can send a man to Mars? Really? We really have to be the most pitiful of all creation... Some humans think we are so fantastic, but once we consider ourselves within the entirety of our cosmic reality, we are truly a sad bunch! Just on the resources and money squandered to try an get humans to the moon and beyond ALONE, world poverty could have been eradicated MANY times over!
Really wish people didn't become stupid about regulations the instant it slighlty inconvenience them, regulations are there for a reason, and as a pilot, I surely understand that the FAA's regulations make sense, even if they inconvenience me sometimes. Whether a rocket is launched in 4 months or 2 will not change much in the large scale, but if we can avoid big catastrophies because of it, we surely should do so.
While I understand that the bureaucracy is sickenning, it's a part of lawfull state - where there are some timelines for decisions and where everyone who feels that they have something to add can be allowed that. If you prevent that, you get closer and closer to dictatorship - it can work that way for you in your company, but not in a state.
It needs to be balanced, too much bureacracy and you get the current state of many parts of the western world, where they simply can't build fast enough to keep costs under control and replace aging infrastructure. It's to the point where many places even struggle to build enough housing to meet demand.
These are not stupid delays. You can’t expect to launch a continuously modified rocket with a modified flight plan to not get looked into. McCormick is an absolute joke.
Did you here him rant about Quantum and AI as if he knew shit about this stuff... SpaceX desided to do this kind of engineering and testing, the FAA rules are clear, and SpaceX have continuously flaunted the FAA regulations and just asumed they would get away whit it... FAA gave SpaceX the denefit of the doubts before and they dropped tons of wreakiged over Westland they assured the FAA was safe from debris. FAA have every right to make sure SpaceX dot ever i and cross every t from now on.
All the politicians are clowns, they set the rules, now they complain about them being enforced. Musk's answer to the problem is even more stupid than the politicians mouthing his script though.
The FAA warned SpaceX that this place was going to require a stricter safety standard then other launch sites when they started... and since then all SpaceX have done is flaunt the FAA's authority. Refusing to take responsibility for their fuckups and complained about unfair treatment while the FAA have been proffecional and nearly aleayes completed studies on time.
Coleman is dead right. Putting national pride above the environment and planet we all share is dumb and pointless. I hate when spaceflight is used to push the nationalism that it’s supposed to end! and i am a long term subscriber. I love spaceflight, and i love this channel, i just think it’s important to take care of wildlife as much as we can. People are accusing the faa of being paid by blue origin… maybe mccormic is being payed by spacex! We have seen elon promise more than he had before. He cares about pumping spacex stock and getting richer more than anything, i promise, and cutting corners on safety inspections is not a good sign for human rated starship
Corners are not cut hardly at all with SpaceX. The FAA has far too many regulations and red tape to deal with rapid advancement in technology. Nationalism is not a bad thing as it creates competition to push technology further. Globalism will lead to stagnation for this reason. Countries should cooperate but also push development to compete.
I'm split on the whole FAA thing - we shouldn't just drop all safety and environmental considerations for the benefit of private companies - look how that turned out with Boeing. Yes, China is getting an advantage from skipping safety and environmental considerations - but THAT is also part of our way of life that Mr McCormick seems to be so determined to defend
@@audigex the FAA has had more than 3 months to get their papers organized and yet SpaceX has mad the most powerful, reusable, revolutionary rocket in the world in less time. It's incompetence
But less planes crash and we learn quicker why they do because of organisations like the FAA. Musk has been deliberately reckless on x 2 occasions and he is paying a price for that recklessness. He needs to button his lip for once and duck his nut while standing on the naughty step. Childishly stupid response the "Press Release", that one act of petulance buys him an extra 30 day delay just on its own.
The Boeing's empty return was Suppose to cancel the Polaris Mission to "Save" the stranded Starlinger crew. I even heard 2 was staying behind to make room. Boeing said Starlinger could not undock empty. Then just before Polaris launch poof there was an empty docking port. And crew to rescue. Glad SpaceX completed the Mission.- Is that why the White House and media was silent??
Whenever a multi-billion dollar corporation is pushing back against regulations, the hair on the back of my neck starts to stand... The incidents with Boeing illustrate why we need long and tedious regulations for this newer industry of private space flight
I have a feeling this might have more to do with SpaceX and it's bossman than actual ecological impact. Sonic boom going to give orcas headaches? What do you think the powerful sonar on submarines do to them?
To be fair , SpaceX does have approval to launch flight 5 same as flight 4. They can test starship flaps, tiles and controlled landing. Why not launch that flight now?
@@ascherlafayette8572 ok. But testing Starship is key. Will the flaps burn again? Will tiles fall off. Can Starship be controlled all the way and land on a dime. All those tests can be done now. I hope they go for it.
Yeah, why not wast several $millions on what's already been done!? They build their rockets faster than the FAA can move a papersheet to the next desk. Surely they can dump 30 more Starships into the ocean before they attemp to start HLS.
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx they have much more work to do on Starship. Fly it now, find out if the flaps work. Heat tiles also. The speed of the returning Starship is also much higher once it gets into true orbit. That speed pots a lot more stress on the ship.
Comparing 🍎 to 🍊 New Glen is basicly developed like the SLS or Vulcan every tingle component tested to failure before launch, they have worked whit the FAA every single way and planes every single launch whit a single vehicle design... I'm not saying NewGlen is better I prefer starship but... SpaceX desided to do it this way and while it's faster to the launchpad it's slower to get finished.
Because of the technology involved, they're sadly not allowed to do that, But it would be hard to blame anyone from wanting to get out from under this incompetence.
Question: exactly what is the FAA going to do during the 60 days that will make the flight safer? The FAA delay is doing actual harm to both SpaceX and America’s space program. Delays cost money. The current FAA rules concerning space flights seem to be unreasonable and should be updated to prevent unnecessary delays.
Agreed, but one can also reason that the hotstage landing in a slightly different region of the Gulf of Mexico requiring a new 60 day consultation as needlessly excessive.
@@MattLownehow would you know are you a sonic boom expert or an environmental expert or even understand what the area of either location looks like ? I'm going to guess no
As someone who works in a regulated industry, I can sympathize but the regulator is there for public health and safety which is job #1. Sometimes it is tiring though.
Who first? Reminds me of the almost one year delay of Starship first testflight. FAA would not let it launch before Boeing's SLS rocket. When I heard FAA delays Starship IFT5 to November, I had just before heard that NewGlenn was scheduled to launch in November. I wish Bezos would offer his workers a bonus for completing a good job, instead of finding ways for his money to disturb the work of competitors. SueOrigin is two years older than SpaceX, yet they've launched not one orbital rocket. If their first attempt fails spectacularly, then it can only be called KARMA. 🚀🏴☠️🎸
What a load of conspiracy nonsense. HLS Starship is just as important as SLS, since it is the lander. SpaceX screwed up and didn't make the vertical propellant tanks conform to Texas regulations for LCH4, so SpaceX had to replace them. SpaceX didn't apply for an exception to the EIS for Falcon class rockets at Boca Chica, until they were already flying the Starship tests. Now SpaceX has given the FAA new info in Aug, so it needs to be evaluated. The FAA vs SpaceX BS is clickbait from other channels. The FAA defended SpaceX in front of Congress after the unauthorized SN8 flight. The FAA assigned someone to Boca Chica so that there would not be another miscommunication like what happened with SN8. The FAA changed their procedures in 2021 to make them faster for SpaceX's faster launch cadence. Musk apparently has a persecution complex and evidently thinks that the rules should not apply to him.
saying that the space launch system is boing's would be like saying that because some parts of SpaceX rockets are made not at SpaceX its not SpaceX's rocket now yes it is a lot more stuff on the sls built by boing then SpaceX uses well boing does build the core stage tank but that's it like it nothing else is built by boing yes there is the ula delta interim cryogenic propulsion stage is not built by NASA but ula but still you are not completely wrong
look starship might have been ready to launch. But given they are still doing work on the chopsticks and the launch mount they are not ready to test. Love the progress they are achieving but the big corpo whining is so stupid
No matter how much a jerk Elon is to regulations, environmental reviews are important. Instead of being jerks about it the government critics should be providing more funding. Remember the old saying: two mothers can’t make a baby in four and a half months. Seriously, the environment is important, and important work takes time. 😊 Great video. 😊
It is the job of a regulatory body to make sure that everything is order. The FAA here is just doing its job. We all saw what happened the last time the FAA rounded corners (Boeing). If you want the process to go faster, increase their budget. They are not just delaying for the fun of delaying.
@@homuraakemi493 I will conced that money badly invested could lead to even longer delays. HOWEVER, if processes remain the same and they just have more resources to go through and review demands, the execution should speed up. See it like this: if 1 person has to do the job of 5 people. Everything takes longer.
I wish people would decide if the FAA is too safety-conscience or not safety-conscience enough. Seems to vary based on the company.
Could you explain how this FAA delay in any aspect relates to safety?
Oh, there are changes on the rocket! The FAA requested changes being made to this rocket. During launch, the ocean beneath the flightpath is off limits. It takes 15 minutes for the booster to return to the pad, which results in the originaly intended flightpath. Every security aspect has been worked on in the last two years. Maybe you remember the 150 item list, of which not all items needed be before testflight #1.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
There's a line between the companies themselves being the reason no civilian has died from a rocket and the FAA being the reason no civilian has died from a rocket. The FAA seems to be praised for the safety record when, in my opinion, they responsible for 10% of the safety considerations.
Rockets are very safe because no company wants to blow up a rocket and risk people for no reason. They want to learn from it and improve upon it or get it "right" the first time.
There's also a point where a rocket is at a 0% risk of injuring or killing civilians and every dollar over that point is thrown into the fire and wasted. Companies are saying the FAA are severely crossing the line and are nothing but a nuisance since it's now eating away at the company and costing them money for no inherent benefit to anyone. Not the tax payers, not the company, and not even the FAA. Just wasting time. That's what the companies are enraged about. Because they're putting aside 10% of their budget to the FAA paperwork.
TLDR: FAA isn't the sole reason for the safety record and they're being very difficult and expensive to get launch licenses from
The largest cause of risk in aviation is literally the FAA.
You need to understand the administration stands against Musk's efforts. This is political.
The FAA exists to create what is called captured regulatory markets. It prohibits free market economics. While also decreasing aviation safety. The FAA's logic is all pilots want to unalve themselves, therefore every landing is only because of regulation. The reality is, pilot organzations are the singular and primary reason for a steady reduction of aviation accidents. Likeiwse, where they still exist, they exist with the FAA's full blessing.
@@justanothercomment416 can you prove that this is not just a bunch of opinions stated as fact? aside from pointing to content creators?
Might have something to do with the cash Boeing's lobbiests are pushing around DC.
I think Starship might be first to attempt a landing/catch, they're mainly waiting on regulatory approvals and have their own launch site, while NG has a lot of assembly and testing left before the flight and has to share. Especially with some of the high profile missions launching soon, I don't think they'll have enough dedicated time available at the pad for test firing and all the scrubs first launch attempts often involve before Starship is able to get permission to fly (assuming they don't get hit with another dumb delay).
They're both pretty ambitious when it comes to successfully returning the boosters, so I'm not sure either way on that. For both my feeling is that they'll make close to landing but have to abort into the water at the last moment due to some unaccounted for anomaly.
That last part is a bit different than you seem to imagine. The boosters are going to come from high above the landing spot. Triggering the Flight Abortion System may be the only way to abort into the ocean. Starship better not be near the beach if that happens.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx that's how the system works, if it thinks anything is far enough off parameters far before landing itll blow itself up or burn to splash hard in the ocean way far away from any land
All the delays are down to Space X not the FAA. Space X are useless at keeping them onside and make too much noise about whose fault they think it is. Musk is a twat at times.
SpaceX complaining about how their rapid RE-iterating is regulatory heavy.
But SpaceX are the ones that developed this business model, other rocket companies don’t do things this way, perhaps for multiple reasons.
“Wait a second, this whole operation was your idea”
Again SpaceX stating that the FAA needs to streamline THEIR process is a giant pot calling the kettle black.
The entire reason the FAA are constantly backlogged with SpaceX regulatory work is because of the nature of SpaceX’s business model of rapid RE-iteration.
"other rocket companies don’t do things this way, perhaps for multiple reasons"... BO hasn't launched new Glen yet.. ULA has launched Vulcan once and possibly 3 launches before the end of the Year.. SLS is moving at a glacial pace and is totally unaffordable for NASA. Boeing Starliner.. Yeah let's not even talk about that...
Other rocket companies are in a holding pattern - SpaceX is the company that has saved and is saving USA's reputation as a leader in space.
So maybe the government should adapt to their model rather than SpaceX adapt to the government's regulatory model which has been designed around above-mentioned industry players that move at a snail's pace....
@@NeedlessPedantics: I hate to break it to you, but while NASA (and the military) didn't likely iterate _this_ fast during the space race, they did iterate pretty fast.
Oil tanker disasters can do 100s or 1000s of times more damage to the marine environment than a Starship launch could ever do. Do oil tankers need regulatory approval every time they set out on a new voyage?
Not even the launch - just the splashdown of the Hotstage ring 😭😭😭
Oil tankers don't generally carry the risk of going off course at Mach 3 and then blowing up.
@@flisskennigen4675this is not about what you commented. this is about a a piece of metal in the ocean
@@flisskennigen4675that’s not even the problem dawg, they’re literally just complaining because of a PIECE and not the entire rocketship💀
The tanker is the same vehicle dummy all these starship rockets are all new and different
this is the same gulf that the oil industry dumped hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into while other rigs kept pumping without any interference from any government entities or any improvements to the pumping procedures , just seems like space x is being treated very unfairly . if I were spaceX I would be looking for a country that appreciated what they are trying to accomplished. Space x has been a big part to do with this new space industry, we should be helping as much as possible not trying to impede them . come on FAA get with it fast!
Exactly, I've been saying that for years. I bet Belize would love to see tens of thousands of jobs created by Starship, the influx of infrastructure investments and a Starbase that attracts tourism. In the mid and long term, this industry will bring billions of dollars to any country that supports it.
Russia perhaps? Musk and his mates seem to like the Russian way of doing things. You know, one oligarch one vote, that sort of thing.
Fossil fuel projects are categorically exempt from a lot of NEPA requirements by law, and regulatory bodies are incentivized to maximalism by the fact that Environmental Impact Statements' are challenged in court a lot and judges often force regulatory bodies to amend them to add considerations, and plaintiffs dont generally need to provide evidence those considerations are actual problems, just that they haven't been considered in the EIS.
2:55 That is "flash rust" around the doublers. A good power sprayer will get that ready for paint. No grinding required. Very easy. Side note, I wish there was less "I guess" reporting mixed in with real information. I don't mind your opinions, to be fair.
Question, since I haven't seen it asked here yet -- Doesn't SpaceX need to finish the second tower before they launch anyway? Isn't that why they're building the second tower, to do the catch test without putting their main launch tower at risk? Maybe the plan changed again, or maybe they're expecting the second tower to be done well within the 60-day period being discussed, but this feels like a lot of finger-pointing for something they're not actually ready to do.
i'm a simple kiwi, i see NZ in video i upvote.
Not easy with just a beak and those stubby wings, but we appreciate your efforts.
FAA may be unreasonable in this case but I'm not gonna take a corporations word for it
Actually they are not completely unreasonable. SpaceX has approval to launch flight 5 same as flight 4. Doing test that way would provide 80% of test results SpaceX needs to achieve.
Question: exactly what is the FAA going to do during the 60 days that will make the flight safer? The FAA delay is doing actual harm to both SpaceX and America’s space program. Delays cost money. The current FAA rules concerning space flights seem to be unreasonable and should be updated to prevent unnecessary delays.
Which corporation? The one trying to launch or the ones trying to stop them from launching?
@@JustAThought01 The FAA didn't write the 60 day clause. Boeing and ULA did.
@@BabyMakR Which is ironic that despite Boeing actively trying to block off SpaceX. They somehow always seem to fail themselves and inevitably give their contracts to SpaceX(I'm sure someone regrets shutting out SpaceX on the crew capsule to ISS)
Anyone that truly understands how our government works knows EXACTLY why these delays exist.
Because Musk isn't a communist Democrat.
As with all things American politics, there is no doubt in my mind that the real reason for these delays is to hold the launch back until after the presidential election. It's incredibly stupid and wasteful of government funds, but they do it anyway, for a LOT of things.
awesome to see some news on the hearing and the all in summit in between all the rocket coverage :D for someone who isn't super interested in a giant propelled tank and when one is made but enough interested to follow it all its nice to hear about some varying topics
As far as the question at the end, I would say Starship Super Heavy but it seems the FAA is going to hole them back enough to give New Glen a chance to try
Not only Blue Origin but whatever the Chinese are cooking up with US ingredients.
It's probably more that Elon doesn't get along with the current administration, but Daddy Bezos does, so they're showing him who really has the power here.
i'd imagine bezos is nattering in a few ears around the FAA to try and delay the superheavy license
It is terrible that the American space program is now the plaything of billionaires.
I'd be belly-aching if it were a two year delay, but it's just two months. Two freakin' months. (Yeah, yeah...with an option for more.) Should the booster not be successfully caught and instead significantly damage the OLT and/or OLM (heavy forbid the tank farm), how big of of a delay will that cause? That's the time frame (and money) SpaceX has put on the table and it's no two months. But hey, they're fairly good at this stuff...they might just pull it off (I hope they do -- it'll be very cool). Even so, there's no harm (except to a bit of moola) in doing a quick launch under the current license...certify Starship for reentry, show you can precision land two boosters in a row -- and have a successful flight with all engines firing when commanded and both ships surviving to reusability. You don't waste two months and you still get to gather precious data which is what 2024 launches were supposed to be all about. Without reliability there is no reusability. Let's not forget: first time is luck; second time is coincidence; third time is skill. (Starliner has yet to hit the "first" milestone -- do better, Boeing.)
Gotta disagree with the guy dressing down the FAA their primary job is NOT to make American manufacturers of any aeronautical technology more competitive on the world market it exists to uphold legislation and safety standards for the good of the public and the people who fly on American made planes/rockets I understand they may be slowing things down possibly nefariously but at the end of the day they are there to protect people and the environment
We are paying for excessive regulation and government bureaucracy with higher prices and less progress. Enjoy the suck.
@@pctrashtalk2069 lol nice bot account enjoy the suck 😂😂
Meanwhile blue origin gets moved up , imagine that , corruption
At least they haven't launched without permission or sand blasted San Padre Island accidently.
@@rorykeegan1895 but have they made sure they're not going to crash into a whale in the middle of the ocean?
Honestly my favourite zero G indicator i have seen xD. So damn cute!!!
Thanks!
FAA should have nothing to do with them, except to keep safe area around the launch and landing areas. Stick to Cessna’s and allowing Boeing to muck up jetliners.😊
Love how BO is against the Elon rapid iteration model yet they seem to be all about it in the scenario that NG fails to land. It’s almost like getting out there, failing, and then learning from that is actually a pretty good way of doing things! Very much looking forward to NG’s maiden launch.
What most of the people, even the higher-ranking academically speaking, do not get, is that industrial disaster are inherently complex phenomenons, a stacking of deviations, oversights and unknowns. @USCSB channel has lots of content showcasing this. "Whi destroyed Three Mile Island" by Nicholas Means also illustrate this brilliantly. These slow, cumbersome assessment processes are mere reflections of lessons learned through fire, ashes an blood. There is this saying : "I will let you remove this fence as soon as you can explain why it was put here".
I respect that, but the cited reason for this delay is a sonic boom in a slightly different region possibly harming wildlife. Not plowing hundreds of passengers into the ground like Boeing, _potentially harming wildlife by startling them with a sonic boom._ This is pure inefficiency.
Not to mention they already pre approved the launch of 9 starship this year and they wanna take it back now, because SpaceX made them better. They also say if SpaceX asks questions then they can reset the time indefinitely which means they have no reason for the hold up and are doing it just because they can. It's abuse of power
@@KingCreeper-1026 Oh, and don't forget how they wanted SpaceX to test to see if they would be harmed.
They wanted SpaceX to capture a bunch of wild animals and then deliberately expose them to sonic booms so see if they because more stressed after the sonic booms than while they were just tied up.
@@wubnix Oh, and also, don't forget landing the rockets on whales.
Last time this happened Elon said they were ready to fly but gosh darn it FAA said no. Turns out they were no where close to achieving even the reduced goal they settled on.
And your point? How did FAA contribute positively?
@@fractalelf7760the point is that spaceX has a history of blaming the FAA for problems the FAA didn’t cause.
@@jacob416 Yeah I think you are misreading the situation there.
@@illustriouschin they achieved all their goals for that flight, so what's your point?
@@fractalelf7760 They didn't let him sand blast South Padre Island again. That was a positive contribution. Musk thinks the US is China and he can dump whatever he wants on his neighbours in the name of progress. So far he's thrown concrete about with gay abandon, covering a whole town in the debris from it. He's launched without permission, which is unforgivable because it shows Space X's Chairman has zero respect for any rules.
Musk choose Boca Chica as his Starbase, I can't think of a worse place to have chosen given the issues there. The buy in was cheap though, and his bent politician friends from Texas overpromised on what they could deliver.
At this rate Glen will be fully operational before starship flies again.
It’s spelled “Glenn” after the late astronaut.
60 days evaluation period for a piece of metal landing in a slightly different place in the ocean is ridiculous 😂
Also their CEO was caught whining for the Vice President to be assassinated on X. Something that might also prompt an investigation by the government over government contracts.
Remember that they can reset this timer too if they find anything else ‘different’ about the mission. I doubt the delay will be just 2 months honestly
but what if it hits a fish? 🤡
There really needs to be an open appeal process. This is fucked up.
@@PaleoWithFries Elon whining to his millions of followers on X that the President and Vice President isn't getting enough liquidation attempts on their lives, is probably not going to make any appeal process go well.
I still think theres good to letting the FAA re-evaluate. Theres a good chance that SpaceX would keep their attitude with regulations even in situations where its a real concern that they could do harm.
Space X's FAA problem is Boeing getting embarrassed and making some phone calls.
As much as it is frustrating that there is a hold up, in the context of normal rocket development 60 days is nothing. "Hey underfunded and understaffed agency, can I change the plans and still fly my 5000 ton rocket tomorrow?"... No, there is a legal hold before dropping multi ton parts, even if it is a bit of ocean. The hot stage ring is not a small change to the profile, and just because they already flew it once is not permission to keep using it. I wonder whether this is the FAA looking back on the last flight and realising that there probably should have been considerably more scrutiny on the hot staging ring. They were being unduly lax last time, not too strict this one.
They get a lot of flak, but I am perpetually amazed by the extent to which the FAA are able to be accommodating to SpaceX's aggressive testing. They have repeatedly signed off on ground breaking flights of the largest flying vehicle in history on weeks notice.
As for sonic booms affecting wildlife, Concorde was blamed for the loss of 60,000 racing pigeons in 1997, and superheavy is significantly bigger and blunter. I absolutely believe that it needs to fly, but somebody should have a plan in place for monitoring the impact on wildlife.
The thing that really irks me about the environmental stuff is that this is a test site, not an industrial one. The whole point of a test site is that you don't know the answers to these questions. You can make educated guesses about the impact of sonic booms on wildlife, but they will be guesses none the less... Or you can fly the thing and actually just look.
"Concorde was blamed for the loss of 60,000 racing pigeons in 1997" you can't be serious. That's the only known effect of a sonic boom on animals? Is not even wild life. You know that "loss" doesn't mean "dead" in that context, more like "freed".
I think the majority of the flak derives from the FAA's streamlining to oversee a refined industry. If they want to be good at regulating irregular prototypes, they will have to streamline their process towards that goal.
As for 60 day delays being normal in rocket development... you might want to define when. Slow paperwork is certainly normal this year, but no one under the current FAA's jurisdiction is making giant leaps for mankind. Fewer deaths in the testing programs leading up to Apollo might have been worth a slower development time, but maybe not.
We're really about to get New Glen flight 1 before GTA 6
My first thought on hearing the reasoning was for the different ocean landing area than last time was basically just don't we change where farings and boosters land pretty frequently?
look yall, red tape can be annoying and it can be excessive, but can we all please stop swinging the pendulum so far the other direction that we are cheerleading for major corporations to not be subject to regulations?
can we really not see the slippery slope that has been dramatically proven time and time again? i mean, cmon, ffs
But look how government workers have gotten nothing done in terms of building rockets the last 30 years. SpaceX comes along and builds fantastic facilities. Government only contribution is delay and endless studies.
THANK YOU!!! FINALY SANITY
The problem is starship had approval for 9 launches this year and now they want to take that back bc they upgraded their ship? I mean if it's a better ship and you already approved 9 worse versions of it before then there should be no reason for the hold up. Not to mention that they added "if you ask any questions, we will reset the time" which just says that they literally don't have a reason to postpone the launch. It's an abuse of government power
@@wubnix it's mentalities such as these that mean that important details get missed. The FAA's regulations are written in blood. The rules are like this because even so much as moving a bolt can change the outcomes of a disaster significantly. The times are set this way so everybody can raise relevant concerns relating to the various impacts the launch will have on the environment and to people's safety. Regulations are supremely important they are not doing this to obstruct progress, it is because when you look historically at regulations being ignored for the sake of convenience, terrible things happen.
@@minerscale I'm not saying regulations aren't important. I'm saying they already did their job and approved 9 starships yet they want to take it back for no reason at all. And the fact that they have a petty rule saying that if questions are asked then the timer gets reset is proof that they have no reason to stop the launch. What good does resetting the time do for the safety of people. Nothing at all. Not to mention SpaceX is already a trusted launch provider, so they are familiar with the risks and the consequences. This isn't some new company with potentially dangerous outcomes. It's the company that has the only crew rated spacecraft in America rn. Yet FAA feels good enough to skip out on Boeing regulations despite Boeing being just as renowned as SpaceX but with much bigger problems
How long will it tke to get to the Moon? Three days in space and two weeks through Chinese customs.
Good god that politician is dramatic and worthless. Licencing is not about "making things competitive on the world market", that attitude is how you got Boeing. The idea that the boss of the FAA should ever be 'determining how fast these things go through' with regards to engineering decisions is such a politician statement. So much rhetoric, so little reality.
I heard no one saying "Inspect less", just "what you have done with that 20% of increase of people".
👍
I was just wondering where this week's episode is and boom the RUclips pop-up 🎉
Gilmore Aerospace earlier this year complained that the Australian Space Agency was the most egregiously strict launch regulator in the world, and really wished that wasn't the case.
Stupid genies.
i love how SpaceX is always like the "smart" kid who does all the work and sets the ground, then everybody else just coppies them, with the falcon 9, starship like landing tests from china?
They weren't the first to land a rocket vertically, that was done back in the 90s but aight.
@@kvasir121they never said that they did???
@@kvasir121 yes but its not as if self landing rockets took off metaphorically in the 90's like they seem they are now.
china loves to copy, just look at their airforce lol.
To be fair, SpaceX copied a lot of stuff too. But yeah, everyone in second place has always copied the winner. Russia and China will always be second place, no matter how many red banners they wave. (I love Dreamchaser, which is an old Russian design). Long term, America will simply execute better.
Regulations can be incredibly annoying, but let’s not forget they’re the only thing protecting the environment and public from maniacs like Musk. Slightly slower progress is a small price to pay for safety. And any statement from a company owned by Musk needs to be taken with a HUGE pinch of salt.
Very much agreed
Holy cow it’s someone speaking REASON! Everyone else is blaming this on politics given we have an election in a month and a half yet the FAA has been regulating in the same way they have been for several years. People are calling the recent FAA fines political because of the timing but if you look at the history of how the FAA dishes out fines and about how long it takes, you’d see nothing different from what they have been doing for years. SpaceX DECIDED to apply for a 450 license knowing it was the less lenient license. The FAA offers a license that allows for more modifications without having to reapply but that’s not the license SpaceX applied for…. That being said, we do absolutely need a more streamlined process and with how busy both aviation and spaceflight is getting, we need separate administrations. There should be an FAA for aviation and an FSA for spaceflight. Our current system is overburdened and slow, but we still need a system to protect the environment and the general public.
Where was this protection when SLS dropped 2 of the largest, most polluting rockets in the ocean?
@@FerociousPancake888 but only regulating SpaceX.
That price to pay will be China owns the Moon and America can pound sand here on Earth.
Wow im surprised people in these comments are so quick to take Elon's side in this issue, even Matt himself not addressing the statement the FAA put out that shut down basically everything Elon was whining about.
At the end of the day Spaceflight is very risky business and many of those regulations are written in blood. The FAA has a system of approvals, that SpaceX is fully aware of, but they largely want to do things their way, by changing the design of Starship and the stage 0 on the fly, as well as mission profiles flight trajectories etc. When the senator asked "What changed?" the answer is everything, from flight to flight they change every aspect of the mission in some way. And while as a Space tech enthusiast, that can be frustrating, consider it from a saftey first perspective. Do you think these companies should be able to have an incident where the ship explodes, or at least part of it burns up, then you can just change the design of the ship, the mission profile, the flight trajectory and the splash down location and not go through approval again? Does that sound safe to you?
If he had chosen a better location away from built up areas and wildlife reserves it would have helped. Doing it in Florida would have been smarter, and wouldn't have had anything like the delays Musk has caused the company by being petulant. Plenty of inspectors hanging around in Florida to oversee your launches, not so many in Texas.
His problem in Texas is the FAA don't have the manpower to keep up with his changes, Musk's answer is to cut their budget? Is he stupid or just really stupid?
except the faa is not looking into the rocket, they're looking into the metal disc that'll fall into the ocean
Genuinely fascinated by how many people think the FAA should have zero say over when, where and how a rocket gets launched into space...
Maybe somebody should tell them what the first A in NASA stands for.
Aviation, as in aviation research. They have never be a regulatory agency.
@@wpatrickw2012 it stands for aeronautics
@@theonioneater9307 thanks
When a starship lands unscheduled in a neighborhood we will see the difference between public and private… they’ll just declare bankruptcy
Cant vbelieve Matt Lawn still does it after 4 decades of KSP content
Well ,it’s time to privatize the FAA as well (for operational stuff, not enforcement) , I’m a pilot, that’s would be the last thing we need.
what is a shell
Last time someone said that safety was bad and red tape stopping them from doing a dangerous thing… they imploded next to the titanic.
Ahh Its very refreshing to hear yall talk about the FAA and your frustrations. Welcome!!... To MY WORLD!! Muuuhhahahaha 😱😱
Not only is this harming US space capacity it is also likely slowing down the Artemis missions. No one wants to have an incident but the FAA knew all about the procedures SpaceX was doing. I mean the catch arm has been in the works for at least 2 years if I remember correctly. I think the FAA needs to figure out how to balance safety with speed of process. You need to keep things safe but no one wants to see the whole process grind on for another decade because they can only do two launches before the FAA wants another environmental scan done.
I get also that Mr. Musk has not endeared himself over the past few years but SpaceX should be treated with at least a modicum of common sense. Hold them accountable when it makes sense but stop creating reasons to halt procedures.
FAA should update its regulations and decision mechanisms at one point, if they understand that as space programs develop really fast and with more complexity, they have to adjust accordingly in order to be functional and not just a silly nuisance.
Lets just alow billionaires to kill Amy wildlife they see fit
so Zuchu 3 is the same size as Blue Origins New Shepard ??
Matt needs to be an engineer for a space program. No lie
i think the faa dosnt want to look like they are in spacex pocket like they where with boeing. but also didnt falcon 9 go through many changes and that flew just fine.
I imagine, Elon having the first colony on Mars...and then has to establish his own reglements and administrations....which are not faster than those on earth :P
Lets remove the wildlife preserve status of the land around Starbase Texas.
I like that McCormick guy :)
Unfortunately I don't think mr mccormick knows what he is talking about
How so he seems to be spot on.
@@M167A1QUANTUM AI!!!
this jackals knows noting other then that he wants to strip regulation... and threw that he will kill people.
Mccormick is a clown
Probably not a popular opinion but the FAA guy is following the rules made by legislators. IMO SpaceX needs better project managers if they’re oblivious to the regulations governing their work. If they’re unhappy with the regulations, get elected officials to change them, not whine to bureaucrats handcuffed by regulations they didn’t make.
That ring just might hit a turtle lets be real 🤣🚀
Does a driver need to have their licence plate renewed every time they instal new headlight, tires, or wipers; or selects a new GPS coordinate; as if it were new car? No, that would be silly.
If you get a license to specificly drive a motorcycle, and you show up in a truck?
They applied for a very specific license they KNEW what that.
FAA rules are Cristal clear
Uh, no. Clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Also it’s crystal, not cristal
@@AdmiralLj Tell me you don't get the analogy without telling me you don't get the analogy...
Worried about a sonic boom? What about the sound during launch! Haha!
Anybody else remember FAA issues with NASA? I dont
The FAA's priority is NOT to keep the US competitive, it's to keep the public safe.
That's what sets it appart from eg. China.
Sure, I wish it would go faster too.
But I don't want Apollo 2.
Believe me, if the CCP can slow us down using our own bureaucracy and to the moon and/or mars first the last thing that will be safe(er) is the US public. I think we should have delayed the landing in Normandy in June of 1944 to study the effect on the sardine population there first. /s
@@QuasistellarNymphomaniac no one is saying get rid of FAA but dude they have had more than 3 months to do this paperwork and checks and for some reason they need to ask about "environmental actions" even though they've done it like every other time before. Not to mention why is it taking two months to figure out if it's ok environmentally
@@wubnix where did you get 3 months?
SpaceX submitted the new flight plan mid august. This is what's delaying things. They just repeat Flight 4 profile, they could launch today.
@@QuasistellarNymphomaniac so they had 3 months to get the rest of the paperwork done and another month for the flight plan. That's seems like plenty of time to pass some papers around. There is still no reason why it should take 3 months to figure out if the EPA is fine with it
@@wubnix Nothing here is taking three months!
You are ill informed.
SpaceX said guys, we're gonna fly a totally different trajectory next time, still fine, ay?
Do you really expect the FAA to say 'fine, whatever'?
Why may Starship be allowed to splash their debris into the Gulf of Mexico, But I may not throw my debris there???
And if the fishermen don't like it that Starship litters their fishing area, let alone risking heavy objects potentially falling onto their boats, than Starship can bugger off, honestly! Starship brings very little value to humanity; if you truly think about the really, really big picture, EVERYTHING considered. What are we going to do on the moon and Mars? Really? Can you tell me? We've been to the moon, there is NOTHING there for us! It was nothing but a colossal waste of resources - THIS is the reality of Starship. You can hate me for this, but this is the bitter truth!
Look, I love helpful technology and space exploration! I am fascinated by the mars rovers, the James Webb space telescope and everything these robots have revealed. It has served to bolster my absolute awe of creation. But there is absolute NO POINT whatsoever to send humans any further than the ISS. There really is NOTHING for us nor anything of use to us out there. The Apollo missions have proven this already! Really, NOTHING! Yet, some keep on wasting gazillions of resources to go virtually NOWHERE! The Cosmos is so large yet we are seemingly willing to spend half our earthly resources just so that we can send a man to Mars? Really? We really have to be the most pitiful of all creation... Some humans think we are so fantastic, but once we consider ourselves within the entirety of our cosmic reality, we are truly a sad bunch!
Just on the resources and money squandered to try an get humans to the moon and beyond ALONE, world poverty could have been eradicated MANY times over!
the point is to colonize and expand to more planets, obviously
Except that the starship launch destroyed migratory bird eggs already, and spaceX keeps lying when it comes to environmental regs.
FAA: “Starships flights might kill some fish.” Yet fishermen kill millions of fish each day. No problem!
Dumbest statment on comments.
Really wish people didn't become stupid about regulations the instant it slighlty inconvenience them, regulations are there for a reason, and as a pilot, I surely understand that the FAA's regulations make sense, even if they inconvenience me sometimes. Whether a rocket is launched in 4 months or 2 will not change much in the large scale, but if we can avoid big catastrophies because of it, we surely should do so.
Also corporations dictating governement policy is absolutely the worst thing that can happen, it's why boeing is the way that it is
why no one want to revive the "Project Orion" , they have money and technology to pull it off.
New chuck Yeager sweater git here and it's fire 🔥
While I understand that the bureaucracy is sickenning, it's a part of lawfull state - where there are some timelines for decisions and where everyone who feels that they have something to add can be allowed that. If you prevent that, you get closer and closer to dictatorship - it can work that way for you in your company, but not in a state.
It needs to be balanced, too much bureacracy and you get the current state of many parts of the western world, where they simply can't build fast enough to keep costs under control and replace aging infrastructure. It's to the point where many places even struggle to build enough housing to meet demand.
@@dotnet97that is not true
It also needs to not be able to be misused by competitors.
These are not stupid delays. You can’t expect to launch a continuously modified rocket with a modified flight plan to not get looked into. McCormick is an absolute joke.
Did you here him rant about Quantum and AI as if he knew shit about this stuff...
SpaceX desided to do this kind of engineering and testing, the FAA rules are clear, and SpaceX have continuously flaunted the FAA regulations and just asumed they would get away whit it... FAA gave SpaceX the denefit of the doubts before and they dropped tons of wreakiged over Westland they assured the FAA was safe from debris.
FAA have every right to make sure SpaceX dot ever i and cross every t from now on.
Bro. They're delaying because a stainless steel disk will fall in the water.
McCormick is a clown.
All the politicians are clowns, they set the rules, now they complain about them being enforced. Musk's answer to the problem is even more stupid than the politicians mouthing his script though.
6:18 ofc its gonna change they were test flights 🤦♂
The process is the punishment change my mind!
The FAA warned SpaceX that this place was going to require a stricter safety standard then other launch sites when they started... and since then all SpaceX have done is flaunt the FAA's authority. Refusing to take responsibility for their fuckups and complained about unfair treatment while the FAA have been proffecional and nearly aleayes completed studies on time.
What’s that even supposed to mean?
Coleman is dead right. Putting national pride above the environment and planet we all share is dumb and pointless. I hate when spaceflight is used to push the nationalism that it’s supposed to end! and i am a long term subscriber. I love spaceflight, and i love this channel, i just think it’s important to take care of wildlife as much as we can. People are accusing the faa of being paid by blue origin… maybe mccormic is being payed by spacex! We have seen elon promise more than he had before. He cares about pumping spacex stock and getting richer more than anything, i promise, and cutting corners on safety inspections is not a good sign for human rated starship
"pumping spacex stocks" its a private company
Corners are not cut hardly at all with SpaceX. The FAA has far too many regulations and red tape to deal with rapid advancement in technology. Nationalism is not a bad thing as it creates competition to push technology further. Globalism will lead to stagnation for this reason. Countries should cooperate but also push development to compete.
" is used to push the nationalism that it’s supposed to end!"
yes US and USSR wanted to end a nationalism with space fligth
@@homuraakemi493okay I didnt exactly know what i was talking about. But he wouldn’t be the richest person in the world if he didn’t care about money
@@homuraakemi493why else go so far out of his way to make headlines?
I'm split on the whole FAA thing - we shouldn't just drop all safety and environmental considerations for the benefit of private companies - look how that turned out with Boeing. Yes, China is getting an advantage from skipping safety and environmental considerations - but THAT is also part of our way of life that Mr McCormick seems to be so determined to defend
@@audigex the FAA has had more than 3 months to get their papers organized and yet SpaceX has mad the most powerful, reusable, revolutionary rocket in the world in less time. It's incompetence
9:50 WHY IS THE HIGHER ORBIT FASTER MATT ??! >:(
maybe we should investigate donations
What?
HI MATT!
As someone in the aerospace field, working with the FAA can be so vexing.
But less planes crash and we learn quicker why they do because of organisations like the FAA. Musk has been deliberately reckless on x 2 occasions and he is paying a price for that recklessness. He needs to button his lip for once and duck his nut while standing on the naughty step. Childishly stupid response the "Press Release", that one act of petulance buys him an extra 30 day delay just on its own.
The Boeing's empty return was Suppose to cancel the Polaris Mission to "Save" the stranded Starlinger crew. I even heard 2 was staying behind to make room. Boeing said Starlinger could not undock empty. Then just before Polaris launch poof there was an empty docking port. And crew to rescue. Glad SpaceX completed the Mission.- Is that why the White House and media was silent??
Whenever a multi-billion dollar corporation is pushing back against regulations, the hair on the back of my neck starts to stand... The incidents with Boeing illustrate why we need long and tedious regulations for this newer industry of private space flight
Yep the next thing is to turn off lightning in thunder storms to protect the wildlife....
No 0G indicator has been wanted by so many. I want a little asteroid
I have a feeling this might have more to do with SpaceX and it's bossman than actual ecological impact. Sonic boom going to give orcas headaches? What do you think the powerful sonar on submarines do to them?
It's all about the deep state and their hatred for anyone who speaks against it.
I have a feeling it's more about certain other billionaire with a space rocket trying to slow down the competition.
FAA Just wants to get nasa to mars first!
To be fair , SpaceX does have approval to launch flight 5 same as flight 4. They can test starship flaps, tiles and controlled landing. Why not launch that flight now?
They'd have to apply all over again and it would be a redundant test for a $100 million piece of hardware
@@ascherlafayette8572 ok. But testing Starship is key. Will the flaps burn again? Will tiles fall off. Can Starship be controlled all the way and land on a dime. All those tests can be done now. I hope they go for it.
Yeah, why not wast several $millions on what's already been done!? They build their rockets faster than the FAA can move a papersheet to the next desk. Surely they can dump 30 more Starships into the ocean before they attemp to start HLS.
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx they have much more work to do on Starship. Fly it now, find out if the flaps work. Heat tiles also. The speed of the returning Starship is also much higher once it gets into true orbit. That speed pots a lot more stress on the ship.
You need to reach hypersonic speeds to be able to assess the tiles. 0 point in launching unless it's an orbital reentry so false.
Will FAA approve the launch of Bezo's new rocket without phases of testing be done?
Comparing 🍎 to 🍊 New Glen is basicly developed like the SLS or Vulcan every tingle component tested to failure before launch, they have worked whit the FAA every single way and planes every single launch whit a single vehicle design... I'm not saying NewGlen is better I prefer starship but... SpaceX desided to do it this way and while it's faster to the launchpad it's slower to get finished.
Wait until SpaceX moves the launch pad across the Mexican boarder by 5ft.
Because of the technology involved, they're sadly not allowed to do that, But it would be hard to blame anyone from wanting to get out from under this incompetence.
@@M167A1only incompetence I see is how SpaceX have handled their interactions whit the FAA
New vid yayee 🎉🎉
Question: exactly what is the FAA going to do during the 60 days that will make the flight safer? The FAA delay is doing actual harm to both SpaceX and America’s space program. Delays cost money. The current FAA rules concerning space flights seem to be unreasonable and should be updated to prevent unnecessary delays.
bezos be paying the FAA to slow down space x
Finally!
I do agree that the FAA needs to get out of the way and let SpaceX do what it needs to do to get Starship going.
The gulf outweighs bullschidt
Love you matt but, its almost like our environment is important to the continued life of humanity
we do need the enviorment to exist to survive to go to space indeed
Agreed, but one can also reason that the hotstage landing in a slightly different region of the Gulf of Mexico requiring a new 60 day consultation as needlessly excessive.
@@MattLowne ok thanks for understanding
@@MattLowne we REALLY don't know enough about their reasoning to say that. you would need to go to the FAA directly and ask why.
@@MattLownehow would you know are you a sonic boom expert or an environmental expert or even understand what the area of either location looks like ? I'm going to guess no
As someone who works in a regulated industry, I can sympathize but the regulator is there for public health and safety which is job #1.
Sometimes it is tiring though.
2 months!?
Yeah... they are underfunded and understaffed... and they have alot of fucking workd to do.
Who first? Reminds me of the almost one year delay of Starship first testflight. FAA would not let it launch before Boeing's SLS rocket.
When I heard FAA delays Starship IFT5 to November, I had just before heard that NewGlenn was scheduled to launch in November.
I wish Bezos would offer his workers a bonus for completing a good job, instead of finding ways for his money to disturb the work of competitors. SueOrigin is two years older than SpaceX, yet they've launched not one orbital rocket. If their first attempt fails spectacularly, then it can only be called KARMA.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
What a load of conspiracy nonsense. HLS Starship is just as important as SLS, since it is the lander. SpaceX screwed up and didn't make the vertical propellant tanks conform to Texas regulations for LCH4, so SpaceX had to replace them. SpaceX didn't apply for an exception to the EIS for Falcon class rockets at Boca Chica, until they were already flying the Starship tests. Now SpaceX has given the FAA new info in Aug, so it needs to be evaluated.
The FAA vs SpaceX BS is clickbait from other channels. The FAA defended SpaceX in front of Congress after the unauthorized SN8 flight. The FAA assigned someone to Boca Chica so that there would not be another miscommunication like what happened with SN8. The FAA changed their procedures in 2021 to make them faster for SpaceX's faster launch cadence. Musk apparently has a persecution complex and evidently thinks that the rules should not apply to him.
saying that the space launch system is boing's would be like saying that because some parts of SpaceX rockets are made not at SpaceX its not SpaceX's rocket now yes it is a lot more stuff on the sls built by boing then SpaceX uses
well boing does build the core stage tank but that's it like it nothing else is built by boing yes there is the ula delta interim cryogenic propulsion stage is not built by NASA but ula but still you are not completely wrong
Yeah, that smells... fishy.
look starship might have been ready to launch. But given they are still doing work on the chopsticks and the launch mount they are not ready to test. Love the progress they are achieving but the big corpo whining is so stupid
No matter how much a jerk Elon is to regulations, environmental reviews are important. Instead of being jerks about it the government critics should be providing more funding. Remember the old saying: two mothers can’t make a baby in four and a half months. Seriously, the environment is important, and important work takes time. 😊 Great video. 😊
Day 41 of asking you to play REAL SOLAR SYSTEM the KERBAL SPACE PROMGRAM 1 Mod
It is the job of a regulatory body to make sure that everything is order. The FAA here is just doing its job. We all saw what happened the last time the FAA rounded corners (Boeing). If you want the process to go faster, increase their budget. They are not just delaying for the fun of delaying.
"make the bureaucracy faster by giving it money and making it larger" thanks for the laugh
@@homuraakemi493 I will conced that money badly invested could lead to even longer delays.
HOWEVER, if processes remain the same and they just have more resources to go through and review demands, the execution should speed up. See it like this: if 1 person has to do the job of 5 people. Everything takes longer.