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 …
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.
>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.
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.
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.
"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.......
This post has been deleted by its author
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.
> 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.
"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.
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
"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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
"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.
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
"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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
