1) Каким боком FAA к Маску -
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/...-starship/
2) На форуме НК (Новости космонавтики) процитировали комментарий бывшего госслужащего из FAA:
https://twitter.com/Space_Jared/status/1...6167384064
This is an excellent overview from @SciGuySpace about the situation with the SpaceX licensing issues. I would like to add some additional commentary to this as a former Deputy Chief and Acting Chief of Staff in the office.
To start with, it is highly unusual for a launch license or an experimental permit to be issued on the "day of" for a launch. I can think of only a handful of times it has occurred.
I would note that most of the time, launch companies prefer to have their licenses or experimental permits in hand and ready to go before setting a hard launch date. There are many reasons for that, but certainly Thursday is a good example of why.
For example, I doubt ULA or Virgin Orbit/Galactic or Blue Origin have ever had this issue...
Additionally, as far as I am aware, the FAA has never "Denied" a launch license or experimental permit that would trigger an appeal process. Typically FAA will put the approval on hold and wait for the applicant to cure the application rather than deny it.
There are a lot of reasons why the FAA does this, but the short answer is that it is much easier to cure an application and just get on with the launch than it is to deny it and then go through the appeal process. After all, FAA is in the business of licensing launches.
Finally, it is important to remember than every launch licensed by FAA comes with indemnification from the taxpayer. FAA isn't just licensing to protect public safety, they are licensing on behalf of the taxpayer to ensure we won't have to pick up the tab if something goes wrong.
This indemnification puts the taxpayer on the hook for potentially BILLIONS of dollars if a SpaceX vehicle destroys a bunch of property. Congress still has to approve the payments, but what is the point of having indemnification if Congress doesn't back it up.
When I was at FAA, I never thought folks at AST were intentionally slowing anything. They take their job seriously and are trying to ensure that things happen safely and that the industry succeeds. They have a statutory mandate to encourage, facilitate, and promote the industry.
The process can always be better, of course, but I think it is a mistake for the industry to publicly beat up on the agency that is working hard to carry out the laws and authorities that Congress has entrusted to it to faithfully execute.
Hi there. The Indemnification regime has three tiers. The Launcher is required to have insurance up to a certain amount referred to as the Maximum Probable Loss (MPL) calculation. This is a formula set by FAA. They publish the MPL publicly for each launch vehicle.
The second tier is covered by the taxpayer up to about $1.5 billion but it is adjusted for inflation, so it could be more now... the third tier is the responsibility of the launcher. The first tier has never been breached as far as I am aware.
Well, I find it very unlikely that any launch company, nevermind a company like SpaceX, would violate launch rules. But even if they did, I doubt the residents of south Texas would be comfortable assuming the risk of a giant piece of rocket destroyed their home.
По сути это набор фраз типа "такого раньше не было", "как бы чего не свалилось" и тп.
3) Комментарии с форума НК:
"
нарушением было уже само то, что Старшип полетел... Но озвучивать эту претензию FAA не хочет - не поймут"
"
Не имеет значение, какие бюрократические моменты нарушены, зато дает хороший импульс для развития морского старта"
"
Взрыв - это не нарушение, а аномалия. Нарушение - это если бы он сознательно отклонился от согласованного плана полета. Было такое или нет, неизвестно. О нарушении сообщила The Verge, ссылаясь на каких-то анонимных "двух человек". Может просто заказная антимасковская статья"
"
Основная претензия - он слишком быстро работает, мы не успеваем на кофе-брейк"
4) Пример работы FAA хорошо описан здесь -
https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/co...toru_feud/
"When someone says no, it’s often because they’re not empowered to say yes. In many organizations, the only person who can say yes is the one atop the food chain. When I was in graduate school, I was desperate for a ride on NASA’s zero-gravity (parabolic flight) airplane. I tried everything to get aboard (including volunteering as a medical guinea pig), but could never get permission. So I took things to the next level, partnering with two friends to start a commercial company (Zero-G) to offer this same service.
But getting permission to start this service took a while—11 years, to be exact. Over the next decade we battled an army of FAA lawyers who all insisted that large-scale commercial zero-g operations were not possible under the federal aviation regulations, despite the fact that NASA had been operating parabolic flights for over 30 years. They kept demanding that I show them where in the regulations it says an airplane is allowed to fly parabolic arcs. I had only one answer: “Show me where it says I can’t.” Quite simply, none of these midlevel bureaucrats had the power to say yes. Finally, a decade later, my request made it all the way up to the FAA administrator, Marion Blakey, an amazing woman who had the right answer: “Of course you should be able to do this—let’s figure out how.”
Back in 2007, I decided that world’s foremost expert on gravity deserved the opportunity to experience zero gravity, so I offered Professor Stephen Hawking a parabolic flight. He accepted, and we issued a press release. This is when our friends at the FAA—whose unofficial motto is clearly “we’re not happy until you’re not happy"—reminded us that our operating license permitted us to fly only "able-bodied” passengers, and Hawking, being totally paralyzed and wheelchair bound, did not qualify.
But to hell with Murphy. I decided to fix the problem. First, we had to determine who—in the FAA’s mind—decides that someone is able-bodied? Second, if we could get that someone to declare Hawking “able-bodied,” we still had to derisk our moonshot and ensure his safety.
After wading through lawyers, we determined that only Hawking’s personal physicians and perhaps experts from the space-medicine world were qualified to make that call. So after purchasing malpractice insurance policies for a few of these folks, we were able to submit three letters to the FAA stating, without question, that Hawking was fit for a flight.
To address the second challenge, we decided that four physicians and two nurses would accompany him on the trip, then assembled a flying emergency room on board the airplane and flew a lengthy practice flight, training the medical team for everything from a heart attack to broken bones. We also decided (and announced to the public) that we’d fly a single 30-second parabola, and maybe, if everything went perfectly, a second one.
At least that was the plan. The problem with the plan was Hawking. Not only did he endure that first parabola, he had—as he told me—the best time of his life. So we flew another and another and still he wanted more. In total, we made eight arcs with him aboard. Then, on the heels of this success, we had the amazing opportunity to fly six wheelchair-bound teenagers into zero gravity. These were kids who had never walked a day in their lives, yet they got to soar like superman on that flight. The moral of the story: Stuff goes wrong. Expect it, learn from it, fix it—that’s how remarkable happens."
1) Каким боком FAA к Маску -
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/...-starship/
2) На форуме НК (Новости космонавтики) процитировали комментарий бывшего госслужащего из FAA:
https://twitter.com/Space_Jared/status/1...6167384064
This is an excellent overview from @SciGuySpace about the situation with the SpaceX licensing issues. I would like to add some additional commentary to this as a former Deputy Chief and Acting Chief of Staff in the office.
To start with, it is highly unusual for a launch license or an experimental permit to be issued on the "day of" for a launch. I can think of only a handful of times it has occurred.
I would note that most of the time, launch companies prefer to have their licenses or experimental permits in hand and ready to go before setting a hard launch date. There are many reasons for that, but certainly Thursday is a good example of why.
For example, I doubt ULA or Virgin Orbit/Galactic or Blue Origin have ever had this issue...
Additionally, as far as I am aware, the FAA has never "Denied" a launch license or experimental permit that would trigger an appeal process. Typically FAA will put the approval on hold and wait for the applicant to cure the application rather than deny it.
There are a lot of reasons why the FAA does this, but the short answer is that it is much easier to cure an application and just get on with the launch than it is to deny it and then go through the appeal process. After all, FAA is in the business of licensing launches.
Finally, it is important to remember than every launch licensed by FAA comes with indemnification from the taxpayer. FAA isn't just licensing to protect public safety, they are licensing on behalf of the taxpayer to ensure we won't have to pick up the tab if something goes wrong.
This indemnification puts the taxpayer on the hook for potentially BILLIONS of dollars if a SpaceX vehicle destroys a bunch of property. Congress still has to approve the payments, but what is the point of having indemnification if Congress doesn't back it up.
When I was at FAA, I never thought folks at AST were intentionally slowing anything. They take their job seriously and are trying to ensure that things happen safely and that the industry succeeds. They have a statutory mandate to encourage, facilitate, and promote the industry.
The process can always be better, of course, but I think it is a mistake for the industry to publicly beat up on the agency that is working hard to carry out the laws and authorities that Congress has entrusted to it to faithfully execute.
Hi there. The Indemnification regime has three tiers. The Launcher is required to have insurance up to a certain amount referred to as the Maximum Probable Loss (MPL) calculation. This is a formula set by FAA. They publish the MPL publicly for each launch vehicle.
The second tier is covered by the taxpayer up to about $1.5 billion but it is adjusted for inflation, so it could be more now... the third tier is the responsibility of the launcher. The first tier has never been breached as far as I am aware.
Well, I find it very unlikely that any launch company, nevermind a company like SpaceX, would violate launch rules. But even if they did, I doubt the residents of south Texas would be comfortable assuming the risk of a giant piece of rocket destroyed their home.
По сути это набор фраз типа "такого раньше не было", "как бы чего не свалилось" и тп.
3) Комментарии с форума НК:
"
нарушением было уже само то, что Старшип полетел... Но озвучивать эту претензию FAA не хочет - не поймут"
"
Не имеет значение, какие бюрократические моменты нарушены, зато дает хороший импульс для развития морского старта"
"
Взрыв - это не нарушение, а аномалия. Нарушение - это если бы он сознательно отклонился от согласованного плана полета. Было такое или нет, неизвестно. О нарушении сообщила The Verge, ссылаясь на каких-то анонимных "двух человек". Может просто заказная антимасковская статья"
"
Основная претензия - он слишком быстро работает, мы не успеваем на кофе-брейк"
4) Пример работы FAA хорошо описан здесь -
https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/co...toru_feud/
"When someone says no, it’s often because they’re not empowered to say yes. In many organizations, the only person who can say yes is the one atop the food chain. When I was in graduate school, I was desperate for a ride on NASA’s zero-gravity (parabolic flight) airplane. I tried everything to get aboard (including volunteering as a medical guinea pig), but could never get permission. So I took things to the next level, partnering with two friends to start a commercial company (Zero-G) to offer this same service.
But getting permission to start this service took a while—11 years, to be exact. Over the next decade we battled an army of FAA lawyers who all insisted that large-scale commercial zero-g operations were not possible under the federal aviation regulations, despite the fact that NASA had been operating parabolic flights for over 30 years. They kept demanding that I show them where in the regulations it says an airplane is allowed to fly parabolic arcs. I had only one answer: “Show me where it says I can’t.” Quite simply, none of these midlevel bureaucrats had the power to say yes. Finally, a decade later, my request made it all the way up to the FAA administrator, Marion Blakey, an amazing woman who had the right answer: “Of course you should be able to do this—let’s figure out how.”
Back in 2007, I decided that world’s foremost expert on gravity deserved the opportunity to experience zero gravity, so I offered Professor Stephen Hawking a parabolic flight. He accepted, and we issued a press release. This is when our friends at the FAA—whose unofficial motto is clearly “we’re not happy until you’re not happy"—reminded us that our operating license permitted us to fly only "able-bodied” passengers, and Hawking, being totally paralyzed and wheelchair bound, did not qualify.
But to hell with Murphy. I decided to fix the problem. First, we had to determine who—in the FAA’s mind—decides that someone is able-bodied? Second, if we could get that someone to declare Hawking “able-bodied,” we still had to derisk our moonshot and ensure his safety.
After wading through lawyers, we determined that only Hawking’s personal physicians and perhaps experts from the space-medicine world were qualified to make that call. So after purchasing malpractice insurance policies for a few of these folks, we were able to submit three letters to the FAA stating, without question, that Hawking was fit for a flight.
To address the second challenge, we decided that four physicians and two nurses would accompany him on the trip, then assembled a flying emergency room on board the airplane and flew a lengthy practice flight, training the medical team for everything from a heart attack to broken bones. We also decided (and announced to the public) that we’d fly a single 30-second parabola, and maybe, if everything went perfectly, a second one.
At least that was the plan. The problem with the plan was Hawking. Not only did he endure that first parabola, he had—as he told me—the best time of his life. So we flew another and another and still he wanted more. In total, we made eight arcs with him aboard. Then, on the heels of this success, we had the amazing opportunity to fly six wheelchair-bound teenagers into zero gravity. These were kids who had never walked a day in their lives, yet they got to soar like superman on that flight. The moral of the story: Stuff goes wrong. Expect it, learn from it, fix it—that’s how remarkable happens."
5) The first private ISS crew in the history of humankind has been assembled
