> In May 2023, SpaceX submitted a request to revise its communications plan related to its license to launch from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. The proposed revisions included adding a new launch control room at Hangar X and removing the T-2 hour readiness poll from its procedures. On June 18, 2023, SpaceX used the unapproved launch control room for the PSN SATRIA mission and did not conduct the required T-2 hour poll. The FAA is proposing $350,000 in civil penalties ($175,000 for each alleged violation).
> In July 2023, SpaceX submitted a request to revise its explosive site plan related to its license to launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The proposed revision reflected a newly constructed rocket propellant farm. On July 28, 2023, SpaceX used the unapproved rocket propellant farm for the EchoStar XXIV/Jupiter mission. The FAA is proposing a $283,009 civil penalty.
> SpaceX has 30 days to respond to the FAA after receiving the agency’s enforcement letters.
These are routine Falcon 9 launches, not starship.
Government agencies need SLAs. If FAA does not respond to the revision request within X days, it should be considered approved.
Governments have a long history of using delay as a weapon. This is why the founders included right to a speedy trial. Obviously that doesn't apply here as it is not a criminal prosecution but it shows that this was a known mechanism for corrupt governments to abuse their power.
> If FAA does not respond to the revision request within X days, it should be considered approved.
I don't think that sort of process is good for anything involving safety. The safety of the general public should trump all here.
Look at the Boeing situation and tell me with a straight face that less oversight plus automatic approval on deadline exhaustion would have helped there. If anything, it would have been worse.
For things not involving safety it's not a terrible idea.
It is both unreasonable and counterproductive here.
We have to ask ourselves, "Why is the FAA doing what it's doing?". Despite most of the complaining I'm hearing, the role of the FAA isn't to be a startup destroying killjoy that just wants to entrench the existing players. There are legitimate concerns for safety here, especially in commercial aviation and space travel, and those safety issues ought to wait for a proper review.
This is a clash between "growth every quarter" and "people not in graves because of pursuit of profit and damn the consequences", and I would rather have the latter than the former.
The issue on the other side is that the FAA has no incentive to move quickly. There is no negative consequence to FAA officials if they sit at their desks, shuffle papers around (with minor revisions or changes in approvals in each draft), and complain about being understaffed. In fact, that is the best thing for them to do, as they’re likely to get a bigger budget and more staff if they complain a lot and delay approvals; then they can keep doing the same thing again.
You can look at the incentives from the other direction: we probably don't want a system where any FAA regulations can be effectively repealed simply by lobbying Congress to not increase FAA funding as needed. If the FAA can't or won't do their job properly, the fix should take the form of positive action from higher levels of government, not a passive fail-deadly default.
Not only that, it incentivizes applications to be as dense and technical as possible instead of as clear and understandable as possible as a way to burn down the time that the FAA has to review something so their review is incomplete.
We cannot, should not, and dare not let a long application process allow applicants to side step review by abusing the process.
Required ADS-B and collision avoidance tech is another. Many lives could be saved, instead they mandated fire extinguishers in all planes which have likely saved zero lives.
> I don't think that sort of process is good for anything involving safety. The safety of the general public should trump all here.
All the more reason for them to respond in a timely manner. If they're struggling to keep up with enforcing safety regulations I think we need to streamline the process, get them more funding or both.
They very much do have to respond within X days as determined by law. If the application takes more than 120 days they must inform the applicant what the issue preventing approval is and they must issue a determination by 180 days [1]. Crazy to think that the people writing this stuff might sometimes have already thought of that idea from HN commenter #3937408.
> If FAA does not respond to the revision request within X days, it should be considered approved.
this is obviously absurd and completely ripe for abuse. Regulations are intended to protect the public interest, the government failing its duty in one aspect (timeliness) doesn't void its duties to public health and safety, protection of property, national security, etc.
The only thing you would accomplish by that is an auto-reply rejection without content, or a last minute rejection with “couldn’t approve within deadline so rejecting”.
Surprisingly to everyone the problem in this scenario is Elons Musks blatant disregard for the rules, not the fact that the rules don’t bend to his will fast enough.
