back to article SpaceX faces $663K FAA fine for Musk's alleged launch impatience

Elon Musk's impatience has led to the US Federal Aviation Administration proposing $633,009 in civil penalties against his SpaceX operation for allegedly violating its launch licenses last year.  The proposed penalties are for two incidents a couple of months apart that, from what the FAA's press release suggests, make it look …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Move launch site out of USA

    If your failures only kill a few 100 foreigners the FAA will support you

    1. Malcolm Weir

      Re: Move launch site out of USA

      Can't do National Security launches outside the USA. And despite being privately developed, boosters are considered "Dual Use" munitions (i.e. they could be missiles), so an export permit is... unlikely.

      And SpaceX needs the eastern and western ranges to support the launches.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Move launch site out of USA

        >so an export permit is... unlikely.

        What 'export' ? The boosters can be made in Taiwan with German machine tools and Chinese carbon fibre. The software can be written anywhere in the world.

        When Boeing-Lockheed-Cyberdyne had a monopoly on space-rated kit then you could export control this stuff - now it's like trying to export control Linux.

        Even politically I suspect SpaceX has a stronger hand. Boeing might have more senators on payroll but if SpaceX says we aren't interested in DoD as a customer - you can go back to paying for $Bn/launch at ULA. The DoD, and it's allies, lose Starlink and have to go back to Inmarsat truck-size antennae and large expensive drones, or only fight a modern war somehwere with Verison coverage.

        1. Richard 12 Silver badge

          Re: Move launch site out of USA

          Exporting the designs is still exporting.

          Or you know, they could just follow the regulations. They're not onerous.

          I mean, all they needed to do was a go/no-go roll-call two hours before launch, just like they said they would. If they can't be arsed to do that then they absolutely shouldn't be launching anything at all anywhere.

          Rushing gets people killed.

  2. steamnut

    Payback

    I wonder how much SpaceX is charging for the change to the next crew mission?

    There will now be two spare seats to spare Boeing's and NASA's blushes further. Like all contracts the extra profit is made with "variations". I would bet that the FAA fine is more than covered.

    Musk has the upper hand here so the FAA/NASA/Boeing will have to suck it up else those extra astronauts might have to rely on the Russians to bring them home.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Payback

      I'm guessing a few $M get added to the costs of a few off-the-books launches for other government customers

    2. Malcolm Weir

      Re: Payback

      Rent for facilities at Cape Canaveral and Vandenburg Space Force Bases just went up...

    3. Irongut Silver badge

      Re: Payback

      How much extra will SpaceX charge to fly fewer astronauts than usual?

      They shouldn't be charging anything extra for half the usual number of crew. Except maybe in the United States of Grift.

      1. alisonken1

        Re: Payback

        The customer buys the launch, not the seats.

        Whether they use all the seats available to them doesn't matter as far as price per launch goes.

        Unless it's a rideshare - then the launch customer can adjust their customer price, but not the launch price.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: Payback

          "Unless it's a rideshare - then the launch customer can adjust their customer price, but not the launch price."

          You SpaceUber could introduce surge pricing?

  3. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

    The FAA should have power to block all launches till fines are paid.

    Does SpaceX pay its fines? Or is it like Twitter, and waits for the bailiffs to show up?

    If the latter, then the FAA is dependent on Musk if they want to send bailiffs into orbit to impound some of his satellites...

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: The FAA should have power to block all launches till fines are paid.

      "Does SpaceX pay its fines? Or is it like Twitter, and waits for the bailiffs to show up?"

      You title says it all. Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg Space Force Base are military installations so SpaceX could easily be locked out of having more than a maintenance crew on site. At minimum, the fines should be put in escrow if SpaceX decides to appeal or they don't get licenses back. I'm sure the Russians would love to take some more US money to add flights to ISS.

      There's no point in confiscating Starlink satellites but ground stations.......

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

          Re: The FAA should have power to block all launches till fines are paid.

          I don't think the US lets him take his technology anywhere else. Rocket technology, especially that developed for orbital delivery, has a lot of alternative military uses, so it's heavily controlled.

          Pure speculation: His only option would be a country that has a relevant arms development/sharing treaty with the US, which they could (and IMO would) disallow.

        2. Irongut Silver badge

          Re: The FAA should have power to block all launches till fines are paid.

          > They could lock him out. But he could move his operation out of the US,

          Sorry but the US military require their national security payloads to be launched from their own country. Funny that.

          They also classify rockets as military use meaning they would prevent your BF from moving his operations outside the USA.

          Your grandpappy's roofing bullshit has no relevance to national security or rocket launches and we don't give a shit.

          1. Mishak Silver badge

            launched from their own country

            Though they did manage to get into the position where the boosters were using Russian engines (Vulcan is supposed to fix that, but is running late).

            1. MachDiamond Silver badge

              Re: launched from their own country

              "Though they did manage to get into the position where the boosters were using Russian engines"

              The launch of the inaugural Vulcan/Centaur was with Blue Origin BE-4 engines. The Atlas V was using Russian RD-180 engines, but that stock is nearly depleted if it isn't gone already. The RD-180 is a dang good engine with lots of history. It made sense to use them until Russia started going back to absorbing their neighbors in an empire building venture.

  4. Martin-73 Silver badge
    Holmes

    Should be prison time for musk

    that'd teach the arrogant little f*cker to obey the law

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Should be prison time for musk

      It would certainly help with American innovation in space.

      If every unmanned launch needs approval from a dozen local, state and federal agencies and faces legal action from a dozen local, state and federal agencies that will certainly incentivize companies to launch from America rather than India or China

    2. Orv Silver badge

      Re: Should be prison time for musk

      Fining him less than 1% of his net worth certainly won't do it.

  5. BasicReality

    "Safety drives everything we do at the FAA, including a legal responsibility for the safety oversight of companies with commercial space transportation licenses"

    No, it really doesn't. These are paperwork issues, all of these launches were perfectly safe. The FAA really needs to be removed from this whole process.

    1. IGotOut Silver badge

      Yawn. Same old BasicReality post.

      Government bad

      Unions bad

      Unregulated Private Enterprise Good.

      1. BasicReality

        It's pretty simple really. Follow the constitution and limit the federal government. Most things should be left to the state and local governments. Yes, unions harming companies that provide jobs is generally a bad thing. No, we shouldn't un-regulate everything, but we should cut back severely on the regulations we have. In most cases, they aren't needed.

        1. TheBruce

          Guessing you don't understand how USA federal republic works.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "BasicReality" has been a straight-down-the-line regurgitator of stereotype US right wing/culture war talking points from the account's very first appearance 2 or 3 months back.

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      "These are paperwork issues, all of these launches were perfectly safe."

      Really? You've been given access to the technical documentation and have had the chance to do site visits to make sure that everything has been implemented correctly?

      Paperwork requiring government sign off is a PIA, no argument there. What has to be done is getting it started well in advance and pushing to get progressive check offs so only a little bit is left to inspect and approve once the work is done and the cleaners have been and gone. Waiting until 30 days before and sending an "unless otherwise directed" missive ala the Rouge Warrior doesn't cut the mustard. Real space companies have departments to deal with this carp.

      I file flight plans as soon as I have made a commitment to fly days in advance. I don't wait until the morning of only to find out that if I left an hour before I'd miss a TFR. Since it's campaigning/fund raising season in the US and I'm not too far from a major city, it can be a concern. I can also let a customer know of any issue in advance as well so we can make other arrangements if needed.

      1. BasicReality

        "Really? You've been given access to the technical documentation and have had the chance to do site visits to make sure that everything has been implemented correctly?"

        Simple common sense, the flights happened, where are the news stories about something going wrong? Nothing happened, other than some idiot at the FAA not being happy over paperwork.

        1. tfewster
          Facepalm

          https://schlockmercenary.fandom.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries

          43. If it's stupid and it works, it's still stupid and you're lucky.

        2. Paul Herber Silver badge

          I'll raise you one Titan submersible. But I'm too late.

    3. usbac

      The FAA has certainly showed their focus on safety when it comes to their oversight of Boeing!

      I'm sorry, they really don't have much credibility with safety these days...

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        "The FAA has certainly showed their focus on safety when it comes to their oversight of Boeing!"

        Some idiot thought it would be more efficient for Boeing to do their own oversight. It's not even an original concept and has never worked in the past.

    4. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
      Facepalm

      You appear to believe that the FAA just makes up all these regulations for the fun of it

      1. Brian 3

        It's more like they seem to ENFORCE them for the fun of it. As in, when it's convenient for them to do so, or when the target is a plebian. Same like the FBI, ATF and the rest of the federal agencies, including the FTC. Look at how the country has become utterly lawless for corporations - they just do as they please and settle years after for a % of the profits, no admission of guilt! And when shit hits the fan, golden parachutes for all the villains while the large mutual funds of our money are gutted of value.

    5. Irongut Silver badge

      @BasicReality Elon doesn't love you and you will never be together.

    6. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "No, it really doesn't. These are paperwork issues, all of these launches were perfectly safe."

      Says every drunk/drugged driver who got arrested even though there was no accidents or deaths involved.

      Skipping the safety protocols and getting away without an accident isn't ok unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the protocol is useless and get the rule makers to agree to change the rules. Then in the future you can skip those protocols, but not before. You still get fined for breaking the rules when the rules are in place.

  6. I am David Jones Silver badge
    Facepalm

    And the next time?

    I hope the fines for repeat offences quickly become painfully high otherwise it just broadcasts the FAA’s impotence.

  7. Nifty

    Now I'm feeling nostalgic for the only offline time I had - on a plane.

  8. Paul 87

    Nice to see those massive fines issued that'll really lead to changes in policy.....

    (they won't they're basically a rounding error on a purchase order)

  9. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Ahh they've joined Swarm

    Ahh, they've joined the ranks of Swarm -- who in January 2018 proceeded with some satellite launches despite not having the FCC licenses for it. They applied for FCC licenses, they were denied on the basis of the satellites being so small they could not be tracked if they became debris (rather than just making sats physically bigger, it can be possible to make the satellite more reflective so it shows up better visually and on radar). But they did neither one, they went ahead and launched anyway. So this is FAA permits instead, but SpaceX has joined those hallowed ranks of unpermitted launches.

  10. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    There was a time when I found Musk disappointing. He made a determined effort and successfully ended that by lowering my expectations to rock bottom. SpaceX is taking giant leaps down the some road.

    SN8 could have been communications failure. Steps were taken in 2021 so that excuse would never fly again.

  11. Overflowing Stack

    Troubled Starship?

    What's troubled about it, it's only the FAA standing in the way and it does look politically motivated.

    IFT 4 was a massive success, the second launch tower has been built and the factory that is going to crank these rockets out at 1 per week potentially, is nearly complete.

    The FAA is directly slowing down NASA's space program as well as advancements in global communication. Sat to Cell phone really needs the new starlink sats and for this Starship is needed. Sat to phone will save 1000s of lives from people currently unable to request help when out of cell tower range.

    Yeah, Musk has said some questionable things and I wish he'd stay out of general politics, but the engineering and science achievements he and more importantly the people who work for him have done is mind blowing.

    Don't let your dislike of Musk cloud your judgement to the work he is doing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Troubled Starship?

      We regulate pharmaceuticals, aircraft, hospitals, spacecraft and banks - among other things - because they have the potential to do a lot of damage if things go wrong.

      Don't let your misunderstanding of regulation cloud your judgement to the risks he takes.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Troubled Starship?

        Not to mention, but the corporate "What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine, and I'll take some of his, hers, and this other guy's too" crowd has in fact done such damage in the past, directly leading to many of the regulations some people love to complain about.

        Don't like all that regulation? Convince those amoral assmonkeys to stop assmonkeying. Oh, hey, guess what, THAT'S WHAT ALL THOSE REGULATIONS (mostly) DO.

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Troubled Starship?

        >We regulate pharmaceuticals, aircraft, hospitals, spacecraft and banks

        That harm people when things go wrong.

        But if your alternative is a government funded space program that needs an astronaut form every state (to ensure funding) costs $Bn/launch and then shuts down all launches for 5y ears and has a presidential commission everytime there is a failure - we might just fall behind.

        1. graeme leggett Silver badge

          Re: Troubled Starship?

          Strawman argument.

          No one is saying shouldn't have private spaceflight companies. But we do want them to follow the rules. Some days it may be a rule which on reflection seems less pertinent but if they start ignoring the rules they think are unimportant, they will likely develop a culture of ignoring rules full stop.

        2. Richard 12 Silver badge

          Re: Troubled Starship?

          So when a Starship lands on your house at a few times the speed of sound, that'll be absolutely fine with you?

          Didn't think so.

          Don't be a moron. Regulations and enforcement are absolutely necessary. Nearly all of them are written in the blood of victims.

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Troubled Starship?

      "IFT 4 was a massive success,"

      Beg pardon.

      Engines out. Starship melted on the way back down. No/little fuel in the tanks with zero payload. Skipped relighting the Raptor engines in space. The only incremental success was a lack of two big explosions. Contrast that with the first launch of the Vulcan/Centaur.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Troubled Starship?

        The first four IFT launches have cost less than one Vulcan/Centaur and even if you include the next one the series will still be less

        Musk is a twat, but trying to defend by comparing with projects which have turned into pork-barrel senatorial/corporate welfare systems is not a good idea

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Troubled Starship?

          "The first four IFT launches have cost less than one Vulcan/Centaur and even if you include the next one the series will still be less"

          I think you are thinking of SLS. The Vulcan/Centaur is the replacement for Atlas V and Delta II. SpaceX has spent some billions on Starship thus far and it burning about $2bn/year with nothing to show in terms of functionality. Elon had to admit that at best, Starship v1 may only be good for 50t, but nobody in the industry believes it will haul that much. V2/V3 are still in the works, more engines and taller to hold more fuel. Stage 0 will also need to be beefed up or they'll be rebuilding the OLM each time too.

  12. ravenviz Silver badge

    This is how private space is going to cause accidents.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like