It’s getting farcical now the lengths at which detractors are trying every lever to delay progress. Incredibly disappointing not just for space flight but for the inevitable erosion in trust for good regulation.
Dovahcrap on
>The Starship and Super Heavy vehicles for Flight 5 have been **ready to launch since the first week of August.**
>Unfortunately, instead of focusing resources on critical safety analysis and collaborating on rational safeguards to protect both the public and the environment, the licensing process has been repeatedly derailed by issues ranging from the frivolous to the patently absurd.
>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**.Â
This is really disappointing. I was hoping for August, or at least September, but late November? That’s a bummer, but it is what it is.
Jazano107 on
So frustrating to have such long delays
I obviously don’t want there to be no regulation but Jesus this is so slow and over reaching, China will get back to the moon first at this rate
reddit-suave613 on
SpaceX could have easily followed the same regulations thousands of companies do each day. They didn’t, they lied and polluted multiple times. I’m looking forward to seeing them squirm in court.
They don’t have themselves, and their hubris to blame.
Key_Good_4820 on
Why are there so many people constantly defending SpaceX for every minor issue. Move fast and break things kind of strategy should be regulated, especially in space. We don’t know fully if the complaints from the FAA are even frivolous or not, so let’s try to view this from a neutral light.
Personally, I think that space travel shouldn’t be rushed. Space agencies should ensure that the spacecraft is more intact than Starliner before launch.
Steve490 on
*It’s understandable that such a unique operation would require additional time to analyze from a licensing perspective. Unfortunately, instead of focusing resources on critical safety analysis and collaborating on rational safeguards to protect both the public and the environment, the licensing process has been repeatedly derailed by issues ranging from the frivolous to the patently absurd. At times, these roadblocks have been driven by false and misleading reporting, built on bad-faith hysterics from online detractors or special interest groups who have presented poorly constructed science as fact.*
*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.*
Decronym on
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[FAA](/r/Space/comments/1fdl177/stub/lmgtszb “Last usage”)|Federal Aviation Administration|
|[H2](/r/Space/comments/1fdl177/stub/lmgrznp “Last usage”)|Molecular hydrogen|
| |Second half of the year/month|
|[UDMH](/r/Space/comments/1fdl177/stub/lmgnrwv “Last usage”)|[Unsymmetrical DiMethylHydrazine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsymmetrical_dimethylhydrazine), used in hypergolic fuel mixes|
|Jargon|Definition|
|——-|———|—|
|[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1fdl177/stub/lmginlr “Last usage”)|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|hypergolic|A set of two substances that ignite when in contact|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
This blog post feels really immature. They’ll get to launch eventually and get to prove their safety and reliability over time. Why try to force preferential treatment by mud slinging in public?
Goregue on
It is obvious that the regulatory process could be made more efficient, but antagonizing a federal agency that is just doing its job is not the way to solve that.
9 Comments
It’s getting farcical now the lengths at which detractors are trying every lever to delay progress. Incredibly disappointing not just for space flight but for the inevitable erosion in trust for good regulation.
>The Starship and Super Heavy vehicles for Flight 5 have been **ready to launch since the first week of August.**
>Unfortunately, instead of focusing resources on critical safety analysis and collaborating on rational safeguards to protect both the public and the environment, the licensing process has been repeatedly derailed by issues ranging from the frivolous to the patently absurd.
>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**.Â
This is really disappointing. I was hoping for August, or at least September, but late November? That’s a bummer, but it is what it is.
So frustrating to have such long delays
I obviously don’t want there to be no regulation but Jesus this is so slow and over reaching, China will get back to the moon first at this rate
SpaceX could have easily followed the same regulations thousands of companies do each day. They didn’t, they lied and polluted multiple times. I’m looking forward to seeing them squirm in court.
They don’t have themselves, and their hubris to blame.
Why are there so many people constantly defending SpaceX for every minor issue. Move fast and break things kind of strategy should be regulated, especially in space. We don’t know fully if the complaints from the FAA are even frivolous or not, so let’s try to view this from a neutral light.
Personally, I think that space travel shouldn’t be rushed. Space agencies should ensure that the spacecraft is more intact than Starliner before launch.
*It’s understandable that such a unique operation would require additional time to analyze from a licensing perspective. Unfortunately, instead of focusing resources on critical safety analysis and collaborating on rational safeguards to protect both the public and the environment, the licensing process has been repeatedly derailed by issues ranging from the frivolous to the patently absurd. At times, these roadblocks have been driven by false and misleading reporting, built on bad-faith hysterics from online detractors or special interest groups who have presented poorly constructed science as fact.*
*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.*
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[FAA](/r/Space/comments/1fdl177/stub/lmgtszb “Last usage”)|Federal Aviation Administration|
|[H2](/r/Space/comments/1fdl177/stub/lmgrznp “Last usage”)|Molecular hydrogen|
| |Second half of the year/month|
|[UDMH](/r/Space/comments/1fdl177/stub/lmgnrwv “Last usage”)|[Unsymmetrical DiMethylHydrazine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsymmetrical_dimethylhydrazine), used in hypergolic fuel mixes|
|Jargon|Definition|
|——-|———|—|
|[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1fdl177/stub/lmginlr “Last usage”)|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|hypergolic|A set of two substances that ignite when in contact|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
—————-
^(4 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1fcbwic)^( has 18 acronyms.)
^([Thread #10561 for this sub, first seen 10th Sep 2024, 16:55])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
This blog post feels really immature. They’ll get to launch eventually and get to prove their safety and reliability over time. Why try to force preferential treatment by mud slinging in public?
It is obvious that the regulatory process could be made more efficient, but antagonizing a federal agency that is just doing its job is not the way to solve that.