Sponsored by Ekster! Pick up your Ekster wallet using my link partner.ekster.com/marcushouse and use the code HOUSE at checkout for an additional discount!
Looks like English caption track is.... well I'm not sure what language that is..... but it's not English LOL.... just figured you'd appreciate knowing that lol Love your videos and your voice in particular is quite pleasant on the ears LOL
@siepkotack2864 I don't have a scope yet..... anything Astro on my channel was just simply my phone... at least so far.... I got a tracking mount a few weeks ago but I haven't got a scope to put on it yet
I worked for the FAA for 4 5 years our Division's unofficial motto was "Compliance through Bankruptcy" and our inspectors were rewarded/praised for finding violations that led to civil penalties against the company. They were the ultimate embodiment of "show me the man and I'll show you the crime". I was a GS-14 (J-Band), but I quit because I wouldn't be corrupted and was intolerant of the FAA's blatant political bias. The less influence they have over the space industry, the better.
Unless you're Boeing, then you can launch a spacecraft full of people you know is malfunctioning into space. Even dock it with ISS despite thruster failures risking more lives and a 150 billion dollar space station. If you're Boeing FAA will do absolutely nothing. No fines, grounding, no investigation, not even constructive criticism.
I have been following the space race off and on since the beginning when I was a kid back in the 50's mostly just seeing the launch and recoveries and not seeing all the things involved in making it all happen. There is so much involved to get there it is mind blowing. Much thanks to Marcus and the many others that show and explain the many things involved in making it all happen. The details and expense of it all is amazing, thanks Marcus.
I was four when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. I can still remember it. I remember my dad telling me that in a few short years, we would be going to Mars. LOL I used to wonder why we haven't been able to accomplish today what we did with sixties technology during the Apollo program. Watching SpaceX deal with the FAA has answered that for me.
1:03 I like how the worker cuts the panel off and it just falls and he stops working and looks down at it for several seconds like he didn't mean to have it fall all the way down haha.
Hi matey, USA needs to create a new arm of faa or a new space launch only regulator. If they think it's hectic now, wait until all space companies are launching weekly. That is the way it's moving, too. They are used to running on an NASA time line wich is usually years not months. It needs to get sorted before things go wrong when they are overloaded with requests in future.
Usa doesn't deserve spacex I can't believe your regulation and red tape. History will show America shooting itself in the foot when China gets to the moon first. Yes I know that once great America got there before but the way your going your gonna come last.
I agree. I do think a lot of what's going on right now is a plot by the DOD to sort of take over the Starship project. A year ago no one knew if that rocket could ever even get into outer space. Now after 4 flight tests, we know it can and we know it can survive reentry. The military potential of such a rocket for launching spy satellites, ultra fast logistics, and putting other hardware into space is so great, there's no way the military isn't interested in having power over the project. I really think there's an actual conspiracy going on. Just like how Musk was crazy enough to create the most powerful rocket, he's also crazy enough to not fall for such a scheme.
What other companies, Bezos is only doing it because Elon is doing it. The moment Elon is not around anymore this whole space age will collapse sooner than it did after 1969.
Ideally, in not too distant future, FAA will license/certify launcher and spacecraft _types,_ rather than individual launches, as it does today with aircraft. But not even SpaceX has reached that level of readiness yet. Falcon 9 might be close.
Marcus, you're the original, imo, and your enthusiasm for the topic is always evident, even when the week was boring or you're not full health. Your coverage of all of the launch world is appreciated and I look forward to it as part of my weekend relaxation schedule.
When I get too busy in my day to screensave live flights into my personal files, I can rely on Marcus to fill the Folders. Also Next Spaceflight and Everyday Astronaut are good for details of the mission as well. It's great to have dedicated space channels helping each other out.
I was just reading Arthur C. Clarke's wonderful nonfiction book, The Promise of Space. He extols the virtues of geosynchronous orbits and goes an about all the uses to which it will be put. And he talks about a whole bunch of other stuff that is everyday business and industry. I don't think he mentioned private space travel, tho'. I HIGHLY recommend that book as a glimpse of how the future looked to forwards looking people back in the 1960s and '70s. I was a kid when my grandfather gave me that book in 1974 and it blew my mind. Now the space news you cover that's really happening blows my mind! Good job!
Marcus, I would like to reiterate acknowledgement and appreciation not only for the excellent, impressive and informative weekly videos but especially for your consistent acknowledgement and appreciation (and links!), for all your sources and community resources. I wish half the other TH-camrs were half as diligent as you in referencing their lifeblood sources.
Companies funding the FAA would cause an ethical dilemma as the FAA would start seeing the organizations it audits as its benefactors. Not good when it's about audits and applying laws and safety protocols.
Its a government authority. It HAS NO outside funding. It's major flaw is that it is tasked by the government to oversee ALL aerospace flights... that means ALL the commercial airplane companies. It has its hands full while being grossly underfunded. If SpaceX were intelligent, they AND the other space companies would be lobbying the government for the creation of a seperate SPACEflight Authority. Then it would not be held up having to deal with airplane issues.
Saturday isn't Saturday without an MH roundup. The problem with safety paperwork is if you trim anything and then there's a fatal accident, who takes the blame?... which is why no one has ANY incentive in trimming this bloat down to size. We also have a problem with regulations solutionising. When they do that it causes no end of problems because if you want to do anything in a new way it needs a ton of oversight. If regulations are written based on performance, then you "just" prove you do indeed have sufficient performance and you're good.. no need to go to great lengths to explain why you're not doing things the "approved" way. (been there done that... arrrrrrrrgh!!!!!!) Solutionising is something an external body could directly search for and weed out. That really could make a difference.
We could take a minute to make sure we don't do irreparable damage to a fragile ecosystem before we let a private company break laws to meet a self reported time-line goal.
@@hotrodandrube9119just remember, there is a very good chance that these same people also want to the government to ban Boeing from operating because their stuff is “too dangerous” 😝 I really, really wish people could see the double standard of their own statements..
@@hotrodandrube9119 they already got an environmental clearance and assessment before the first starship ever launched. I'm all for protecting the environment, but at this point, it seems like the heads of this investigation at the FAA have a personal vendetta against SpaceX. This is hurting the progression of humanity, not just SpaceX.
A mobile launch mount makes a great deal of sense. It allows SpaceX to remove it after each launch, inspect and repair damage at the tower, and replace it with another. They can then move the used mount to somewhere they can thoroughly inspect, repair, and test it before reuse. They could then have at least three mounts so there's always one ready to go even if one has to be taken out of service for major repairs. It also allows upgrades to be done without interrupting activities at the tower.
After working for the FAA for almost 24 years, it is hard for me to take the FAA side in this discussion. They are a huge bureaucracy that moves at a snails pace. And I wonder why they are involved in so much of Space X's business.Why isn't NASA the agency that handles these things?
I assume that the FAA was responsible for flight test clearance and thus have more experience dealing with ground-based concerns in addition to atmospheric flight path concerns. In another consideration, NASA is mostly aiming for physical execution of missions and facilities, where the FAA is more public facing deconfliction.
And they were (rightly) deeply scarred by that experience. I think SpaceX is paying the price of their "never again" attitude. I don't blame them for not giving any corporation - including SpacX - an inch.
cost recovery fees are not 'funding'. It all in how you set it up. Fees are set up front and they apply equally. Proponents cannot shove more money in to get their way.
Whether they're justified or not, the fact it took the FAA over a year to decide they were gonna fine SpaceX for the Falcon 9 things shows just how slow and antiqued the FAA's procedures are. Space is becoming something of both interest and relevance to a growing number of people and countries across the world and running things like it's still the 60's just isn't gonna fly. They really need to update how and why they do things
Elon Musk can come back to South Africa and bring SpaceX with him. We won't delay them. Our infrastructure is just sh!t, so he'll might have to do some investments there as well 😅
I worked for the FAA and know for a fact that they can move very quickly with civil penalties if they want to. What the do is hold "knowledge" of violations until they need to use them against a company, a good example being when a company's CEO endorses a political opponent.
"There are many, MANY ways to go after Elon Musk." Biden said with a smirk shortly after Twitter purchase. And they have, all kinds of unprecedented shenanigans, the worst of which was the Neo-Marxist activist Delaware judge cancelling Elon's Tesla contract that we the shareholders overwhelmingly approved, but many other nonsensical "investigations" and treachery including arbitrary default on Starlink internet contract for rural Americans.
Thank you for us another insightful and entertaining video, Marcus. Your news vid is the one I wait for, since catches stuff others miss and you try work with other youtubers to bring the news to us on things space!
Funny. I have been subscribed for years and always on my feed Saturday mornings (it is part of my Saturday routine) however, I had to subscribe again. Marcus, you do amazing work with your weekly reports. All the right info without going to in-depth or repeating yourself. Bravo sir.
The issue with the "contamination" in the water shouldnt even have anything to do with the FAA, its not a safety issue, whatever the contamination is from the water deluge is nothing compared to the space shuttle.
ThankU Marcus GreatContent. Keeping US ALL Perfectly Up To Date In The Best Possible Way We Could All Wish To Be Kept Up To Date In. There’s Always So Much Great Stuff Goings On At All Linked SpaceX Ares with All SpaceX Fans World Wide. We’re like A county of Folks Our selves. ThANKS AGAIN MARCUS. Take Care Sir.
No, you don't want industry funding the agency that regulates it. FAA just needs to be re-imagined to meet the evolving nature of commercial spaceflight.
Agency capture is already a very real thing. Just look at the FAA and Boeing. Beyond that there are dozens of fatal accidents throughout aerospace history where purposeful FAA inaction caused fatal accidents.
I think people have misunderstood my comment. The FAA would invoice companies for the certification/approval time to prioritise certain projects. Can still cause a conflict of interest if not designed correctly. The FAA would need strict safeguards in place to ensure there was no bias in the reporting or action. But things could get done quickly and they can employ more staff to deal with just SpaceX.
@@MarcusHouse definitely. A spokesperson or maybe the man himself over at the FAA said himself that they are understaffed and working overtime to review SpaceX's goings. Why not hire more staff?
The FAA doesn't even need to be re-imagined, SpaceX just needs to be forced to learn to submit their applications in a timely manner. This is not an FAA problem, this is a SpaceX problem. No other private launch company struggles this much with regulatory compliance and time management. BlueOrigin, Rocketlab, ULA, etc. all manage to comply with FAA regulations and hand in their paperwork early enough for the FAA to do its job.
If the FAA gets to fine companies for actions that anticipate an FAA approval, then FAA gets a reward every time they act slowly. This is counter to the objective. The goal for FAA should be to speed up their process. Why would they do this if they profit by being slow?
Fines go to the US Treasury, the FAA budget is appropriated by Congress and doesn’t fluctuate based on fines levied. The fact this has so many likes is scary.
Love your channel I like the content I love your photos the way you present the information is so much of a better platform and presentation than the other space channels out there so thank you Marcus and keep up the great work
Exactly. Like, notify the FAA so they can keep air traffic clear, but a specialized agency should manage space traffic. It's not like we're going to start seeing less...
I love what SpaceX is doing (even if I'm not a fan of their CEO) but they have been somewhat cavalier with the rules for the sake of expediency. No matter how important or popular you think you are, nobody should be above the rules designed to keep us all safe.
The flame trench will be a single end trench just like the one at Massey. The other end of the trench will allow the delivery of the booster on to the flame trench; again, just like the one at Massey.
4:32 from a civil engineering point of view, the other reason that end doesn't have sheet pole, is that end is likely coming up to ground level. So I would think that all the diversion will go in the one direction. Much like they do at Massey's.
Marcus there is no way a govt dept responsible for approvals can be funded by the organisation seeking approval. Can imagine how many conflict of interest arguments could arise along with people claiming it is nothing more than a bribe to do the applicant's bidding.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! ROFL! how the do you think the FDA and CDC work? they are sponsored by the very companies they are supposed to be regulating.
Agency capture is already a very real thing. Just look at the FAA and Boeing. Beyond that there are dozens of fatal accidents throughout aerospace history where purposeful FAA inaction caused fatal accidents.
i'm surprised everytime they fire the vacuum raptors at sea level, i know its not that different in scale to the RS-25 or even the F1, but i keep thinking about flow separation and it brings me just a bit closer to the edge of my seat ^°^
I think what we need in the US is our own government space oversight agency separate from the FAA so that we have a dedicated space launch safety administration. The FAA is so busy with everything aviation and space. Just like we split the Air Force from the space force…it’s that time.
SpaceX cannot legally fund anything at the FAA, this would present a huge conflict of interest and at the very least, present a perception of favored status for all things SpaceX. Can you imagine if corporations were allowed to fund positions with the FBI, SEC, EPA, etc.
@ThatOpalGuy Actually it was Fannie May and Freddie Mac which are semi-government entities who deliberately created investment securities that were deceptive at best, if not absolutely fraudulent! That plus regulations requiring banks to make loans to people that were incapable of making payments! It was a wholly government created collapse!
Marcus, Love your videos!! The front flaps are tapered on the back side which might make it have less length attached to the main body, this should reduce the amount of plasma being forced around the hinge point during reentry.
The answer to the FAA problem is simple. Remove SPACE from its purview. Then its "limited resources" can be deployed to aviation. Then by presidential decree (who ever gets the job) create a new "Office of Space Development" - not a NASA bureaucracy but a lean mean small team to oversee and PROMOTE the commercial development of space. Not to be the "enemy" but the "helping hand. One office, 10 people max, all experts in their fields but not beholden to anyone except the President and the people. A team so small and responsive that SpaceX or any company can make ONE CALL and get a yes or no over the phone. If not, you better all pack your chopsticks and your foreign currency because Chinese food is all that will be available in space....It has taken the Chinese only two years to copy/engineer the Falcon 9 technology that took SpaceX 20 years to develop....so every month the FAA delays is another years advantage they score....if you were really paranoid you could imagine the Chinese are orchestrating the FAA's go slow....
Agree on the separate agency. The Federal Space Agency. FSA? The problem is that any government agency will be bloated, inefficient and corrupt and full of DEI hires. It will still be a problem.
@@mabbook China has flaws in much, but it's capable of stealing things, which is a flaw and apparently a feature. As for One Office, it's a nice idea. Boxing out large areas to deconflict all risks isn't a simple undertaking.
A regulator does not Promote. The job of the regulator is to keep proponents in check. The regulator can be 100% behind a program and still hold it to account. Space is incredibly dangerous not just for those on board, but to everyone and everything around them.
@@missinglink5159 At the point of orbit it makes more sense to have an internationally advised body. And yeah, that's gonna be weird too. But we will be dealing with launches from the Moon and incoming from Mars, and Orbital station to station, and the sooner we consider how to deconflict, the more we can consider how to break our own rules!
Thank you so much for the no BS informative space news video Marcus. I love all of this so much. Minus the government getting in the way. Its so amazing we're entering a new space age however far behind the FAA is. At some point something will give and policies will have to change but unfortunately at their pace and not SpaceX's. RRRRR! Like working with my dang sister's kids pet monkey Bob.
For the FAA delay issue, I would first determine the cause: 1. Is it staffing 2. Is it priority 3. Is it outdated polices or procedures that no longer apply 4. Is it a combination or something else As far as funding, if the cause is staffing, the money should come from an entity other than the one being investigated to avoid influence.
Most of their current funding comes from air traffic taxes and fees. They should be allocated only to plane travel and a dedicated space regulator should be stood up with the FAA out of the picture. They've too many conflicting responsibilities.
Biden has been sandbagging Musk in general. It is politics. (remember Tesla was not even invited to the EV conference several years ago. Elon is African/American, but the wrong color.
Oversight only functions with the “no dog in the fight” rule, correct funding and quality staff fully independent of the sector they are reviewing - and teeth of course..
The FAA needs to evolve to a “let it pass and progress, until any investigation finds something wrong”. This would allow them to do their thing, but not hold up the industry. Give a company a 3 strikes and your grounded kind of leeway. Imagine where space x would be today without waiting for the FAA. Probably already at flight 8 and done fuel transfers.
Regarding the FAA issues. The irony in that they don’t have enough people to catch up to the speed of SpaceX … but somehow they have the resources needed to fine SpaceX…🤔
Their priorities are focused on who they can shake down for some extra cash. Advancing space flight isn't any of their concern. They're becoming (maybe they always were) bureaucratic thugs.
Another fine report on Space News by Marcus House! Thank you! Why is SpaceX Starbase starting to look like Tomorrowland at Disneyland? Where is the TWA Moon Rocket?
How about this guys (and women): Should Trump, after taking office, remove oversight of Space Related Safety and Regulation from the FAA and create a Space Agency to assume those duties that the FAA appears to be completely incompetent or inadequate to accomplish in a timely manner. The FAA can continue to monitor Aircraft (as in Craft that travel in the Air) and activities above the Karman Line or Space would be the responsibility of the Space Agency a New Agency staffed with people versed in Space related functions and needs. With this overhaul of the oversight of Space and Intra-solar System, the responsibility of timely and appropriate oversight is placed in the hands of an Agency without other duties that are apparently interfering with timely responses to Space related needs. This would also decrease or even eliminate the internecine conflicts that seem to occur more than too frequently. What to you think?
@@jaredray7034 I agree with you absolutely, but as it is, the FAA is muddling it up horribly. The options are: 1. Have no regulations on space launches by everyone everywhere 2. Fire all the FAA employees who are "managing the Space Industry and replace them with Space knowledgeable staff? 3. Tke 5 years of investigation to find out WHY the FAA is screwing up managing the Space Industry in such a biased manner (which they will deny) and fire the perpetrators? or 4. Create a new Space Agency and monitor their staffing carefully to limit the problems (liklihood of this working 0/100 long term) I don't know the best way to manage this problem, but it is a problem and has to be addressed in some manner, but how? I am very much open to suggestions.
Hey Marcos, Thanks for the last episode and with the preparation of the boosters with all his new techniques I am already looking forward to the next launch We were also recently kicked out of the subscription and I missed you so I quickly went looking and we signed up again. We watch with you from Europe our subtitles are always on the Russian subtitles while in the Netherlands we just speak Dutch how is that possible because this is a structural problem Good luck with your channel
Based on my experience with cryogenic flammable liquids, venting is part of the process required BEFORE the tank can be filled in order to acclimate the tank material to extremely low temps. As you may know, cryogenic liquid temperatures are hundreds of degrees below zero and will cause the tank material to shrink when suddenly exposed to those temps which can cause failure if not cooled slowly.
I suspect part of the problem with how slowly the FAA processes paperwork is something most people have likely never heard of "suspenses". A suspense is the maximum time allowed for a bureaucrat to complete their part of the process, whatever it might be. In theory suspenses are supposed to move things along. In practice a suspense date becomes the date, hopefully, when that part of the process is complete. If a bureaucrat has a 30-day suspense to turn in some paperwork you can bet your last penny it will not be turned in in till 5 minutes to quitting time on the 30th day - if not some time the NEXT day! Bureaucrats face no negative consequences for failure to meet a suspense date. Add up all the suspense periods for a given process and something which by rights ought to take a week or so gets slow-rolled to MONTHS! Bureaucrats have ZERO incentive to produce period, much less to do things in a genuinely timely manner. Best hope heaven isn't run by bureaucrats. If so you'll spend 2/3rds of eternity waiting to walk through the pearly gates!!
Our government agencies, including the FAA, have been doing things the same way for decades. The trouble with this approach is that, like the airline industry, these approaches have got to change with the times. But the US government isn't about to change for anyone. Lord knows they need to, for the sake of the advancements in aerospace.
The solution to the issue with the FAA is to limit the FAA to focus on domestic and commercial aviation. All launch licensing needs to be moved to NASA so that and end-to-end history can be seen by those responsible for the licensing. The FAA is just one of the most bureaucratic, politically motivated, back biting organizations that I have ever work with in the federal government. I was the program director for a very large contract to modernize the FAA infrastructure. They cancelled the contract after only 18 months without having allowed us to do even a pilot effort due to the agency inability to agree on the most fundamental changes. The FAA program manager told me that they simply weren't ready to do the things that we had shown them could be done to improve airport monitoring from radars to runway lights. Our company made a hard choice and decided to never bid on FAA related contracts going forward.
Hoppy's made out of 12.5mm stainless so it definitely didn't have those panels on for extra protection. They put the panels and a nose cone on to make it look "liquid silver" for a photo op. The nose cone fell off shortly after in a storm.
I would love to see star hopper moved into a SpaceX museum in 20 years! After all there is enough content and milestones for the ages already but 20 years from now god knows what will have happened…
The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) at the FAA needs to be revamped. I read they expect to have only 157 employees by the end of 2024. The AST is seeking additional funding in 2025 to expand its staff. If there’s enough money to hire over 80,000 new IRS employees, it seems there should be room in the budget to at least double or triple the AST’s workforce. Just saying. We can't let the bureaucracy in Washington D.C. hold back critical progress in such an important and growing industry. Commercial space exploration is the future, and the U.S. needs to be at the forefront-this means providing agencies like the AST with the resources they need to ensure safety, innovation, and leadership. Let's not let red tape get in the way of where we need to go!
This was my comment to NSF's video re the FAA: I haven't been wondering why Starliner hasn't been "grounded" (for want of a better word) by the FAA, but I am now wondering how your explanations to those who were apply to Starship, which is still under development not only for commercial operations, but also for NASA for the HLS as part of the Artemis program. Why is the FAA even responsible for Starship launches at this time, given that it is as yet uncertified for commercial operations? It does seem like NASA should be taking the responsibility for Starship development flights,, and that the FAA should only take over once it has been certified. What do you think?
Yes, exactly. I've been thinking about exactly this this morning. Would be sweet to have NASA take the responsibility for flight approval away from the FAA for Starship development launches. Just like they've done for Starliner. Might be differences there considering it is not Starliner that flies itself but ULA, but I have this exact question.
As Indian viewer, ₹2- thousand crore was allocated for ISRO upcoming missions by the Indian Government and the chandrayaan 4 lunar sample mission design was revealed...
The FAA engineering review process was very efficient and enlightened. Under pressure from companies like Boeing it was expanded vastly into a corporate self-service system. Which destroyed the ranks of the FAA’s skilled workforce and of course corrupted the system. We got here through Boeing’s corruption. That’s why we can’t have nice things.
The FAA is really about having power / leverage over the companies seeking approval. After all, our congressmen love their revolving door, and post public-service kick backs.
Big claim with zero evidence. The FAA has done more for SpaceX than you could possibly imagine. They've actually been having SpaceX's back more often than not. Remember the full environmental impact study? Well look it up. The FAA said that it wasn't required and that saved SpaceX a good two years.
Yeah i think the best thing to sum any govt job is that u should do it better and if doing it better is getting fired because u want to do it a more efficient way or change it to be more streamline then I think its worth losing ones job to make progress with something important.
Being retired from Aviation, IMHO, the 'mind-set' of the FAA is still stuck in the mid 1950's. They're not able, (or willing?) to keep up with the major advances in aviation, that have occurred in the past 50+ years.
IMO, aside from being a severely flawed agency, the FAA isn't equipped to deal with commercial space launches. I think NASA should be the administration that approves commercial space launches and the FAA should stick to dealing with commercial aviation. The FAA would still need to be overhauled because there's obviously a huge problem with the way they do things.
Right! I liked the videos they made but now days I see the thumbnails and I’m like ya that has absolutely nothing to do with the video. And every video doesn’t need a look into channel metrics
I think the solution is perform a complete investigation and analysis of the FAA operation and regulations - and NOT by another government agency! Make the entire process transparent and see what stands up to public scrutiny. The FAA keeps whining about resource and funding shortages but I suspect there are huge inefficiencies in their processes. It would probably result is a recommendation to split the jurisdiction into separate space and aviation agencies. The FAA has a long history of slowness, failures, inconsistencies and incompetence regarding aviation. Not surprising it can't handle space.
On the flame trench: As a construction engineer - I believe what is going to happen.... . . . . They can remove the soil with sheet piles all around, just need a crane to remove the soil - that's how it is done for building construction sites. They are probably going to have the thrust shoot out in one direction (where there are no sheet piles). They are probably going to have a concrete wall on 3 sides - the 4th side will probably be a slope leading up to ground level (where there are no sheet piles). Similar to the Massey test site.
FAA is broken... they have the resources to levy fines against SpaceX but yet they lack said resources to review and approve or disapprove licensing and and regulatory requests! Additional funding is not the answer... Total restructuring is the answer!
Why wouldn't the FAA levy fines against a company that violated it's rules and regulations! That's literally part of their job. They have worked very well with SpaceX and also ruled in their favor many times. But to expect a rubber stamp if not realistic.
Linking funding of government regulation directly to the regulated rarely works out like one would think. So many incentive structures that can be corrupted. Look at bad police departments, US Food and Drug Administration, The FFA and Boeing, … the list goes on. I’m not sure there is a right solution, perhaps just a solution with an acceptable amount of corruption.
'incentive structure' just stop right there. Cost recovery fees are not 'incentives'. If it costs 2M bucks in costs to the government to review an approval by SpaceX, then SpaceX is billed 2M to be paid prior to the approval is given. SpaceX cannot shove more money at the regulator. This model has worked just fine for decades in a great deal of other areas of private development with cost recovery fees from the regulators.
In regards to flap design - I think it makes sense the aft flaps are the same - in the interview between Tim and Elon, I recall Elon saying that on the way down it was only the aft flaps that held the attitude. To make sure the mass of the engine don't flip forward - and that the front flaps are only there for the flip maneuver. - If they thought the front flaps made too much drag on the way down it makes sense that they would either: A. Move them further up, so they are in "the shade" - I hope this makes sense.. English is not my primary language. B. Increase the size of the aft flaps. Since they went with option A - the aft flaps would be more effective now, as there is less drag to counter, and there is no need to make them bigger ;)
It’s not that the FAA needs more staff and hours. They need more competence and less bureaucracy. Adding more staff will most likely slow things down more. It’s optimizing for the right high-performing staff.
Great video, as always!! Did you notice that the reentry on the Galileo mission was the highest energy of any recovery mission? Stage one came in blazing. 🔥 Which is why the feed cut out. Elon even said something to the effect they were testing the bounds of recovery.
I think the FAA has the license process backwards. Rather spell out a set of rules to follow, specify acts to avoid. Your rocket launch should not kill or harm humans, or damage the property of others, or contaminate the environment with harmful substances in excess of documented level. In the event the launch causes harm, the company must have the financial resources to make restitution.
Rather than say what u cannot do they should say what the group is focused on achieving. Classic beauracracy limiting and ponderously detailed. Focuses on punishments rather than rewards
All for logic decision processes, but rule compliance has one not to underestimated benefit: or you comply = everything is great, or you do not comply = you know what you need to fix. And if the rules have had sufficient revisions to make sense, this results in a very easy to regulate and manageable decision process. Problem is that Starship is charting new territories, and falling into rules that have not been probably verified and sometimes do not make any sense. Offcourse this will result in discussion, but this discussion should iron out flaws in the rule sets. Just like how cars used to have someone walking in front of the car with a flag isn't a thing anymore Trying to asses for damages (real or not) later on risks running into liability minefield, especially when each instance or event needs to be judged against such broad concepts as 'no harm or damage', where it would be better to spend that energy in refining rules instead. Let alone when this needs to be done with multiple organisations each with their own interpretation of rules.
@@rtzx12570 , the primary purpose of government is to prevent harm. Government should not tell citizens what to do; but, rather what to avoid doing in order to prevent harm. So the threat of punishment is appropriate.
@@Tuning3434 , SpaceX has sufficient financial incentive to avoid doing harm. They have the expertise in their field. The FAA does not have the expertise in their field and needs to invent it as SpaceX develops new technology. The objective is to develop the new technology at a reasonable cost. The FAA slowing down the process is an unnecessary expense which should be borne by government, not SpaceX.
![“อ.เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม” มาตามคำเรียกร้อง แหกศาสตร์ฮวงจุ้ย เตือนสติอย่างมงาย | แฉ 7 พ.ย. 67 [1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5fc4S3xBNfc/mqdefault.jpg)
Sponsored by Ekster! Pick up your Ekster wallet using my link partner.ekster.com/marcushouse and use the code HOUSE at checkout for an additional discount!
Looks like English caption track is.... well I'm not sure what language that is..... but it's not English LOL.... just figured you'd appreciate knowing that lol
Love your videos and your voice in particular is quite pleasant on the ears LOL
What telescope(s) do you have?
@siepkotack2864 I don't have a scope yet..... anything Astro on my channel was just simply my phone... at least so far.... I got a tracking mount a few weeks ago but I haven't got a scope to put on it yet
Ok
they should sue the faa for being too slow
I spent my career in aviation. The FAA’s motto has always been “We’re not happy until you’re not happy.”
Ahh, I see you've met the Vogons.
I worked for the FAA for 4 5 years our Division's unofficial motto was "Compliance through Bankruptcy" and our inspectors were rewarded/praised for finding violations that led to civil penalties against the company. They were the ultimate embodiment of "show me the man and I'll show you the crime". I was a GS-14 (J-Band), but I quit because I wouldn't be corrupted and was intolerant of the FAA's blatant political bias. The less influence they have over the space industry, the better.
😂😂😂
Unless you're Boeing, then you can launch a spacecraft full of people you know is malfunctioning into space. Even dock it with ISS despite thruster failures risking more lives and a 150 billion dollar space station. If you're Boeing FAA will do absolutely nothing. No fines, grounding, no investigation, not even constructive criticism.
@@lcdrjsmasterson I appreciate your POV on this. Thanks for sharing it here.
It's great that they're showing some love to the Starhopper. I can totally see it becoming a nostalgic exhibit in the SpaceX museum someday.
A nice historical exhibit - the first rocketship with fins and landing pads! 2019
I have been following the space race off and on since the beginning when I was a kid back in the 50's mostly just seeing the launch and recoveries and not seeing all the things involved in making it all happen. There is so much involved to get there it is mind blowing. Much thanks to Marcus and the many others that show and explain the many things involved in making it all happen. The details and expense of it all is amazing, thanks Marcus.
I was four when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. I can still remember it. I remember my dad telling me that in a few short years, we would be going to Mars. LOL I used to wonder why we haven't been able to accomplish today what we did with sixties technology during the Apollo program. Watching SpaceX deal with the FAA has answered that for me.
1:03 I like how the worker cuts the panel off and it just falls and he stops working and looks down at it for several seconds like he didn't mean to have it fall all the way down haha.
😂
The way he jolted back like "oh crap" has me rollin'.
Omg hahahaha😂
@@-joe-davidson I figured haha. It was just funny the way it was cut to pretend that it might've been an accident 😅
I think it was intentional, but it appears to have either flow or bounced where he didn’t want it. You can see it tugged his cord.
Hi matey, USA needs to create a new arm of faa or a new space launch only regulator. If they think it's hectic now, wait until all space companies are launching weekly. That is the way it's moving, too. They are used to running on an NASA time line wich is usually years not months. It needs to get sorted before things go wrong when they are overloaded with requests in future.
Usa doesn't deserve spacex I can't believe your regulation and red tape. History will show America shooting itself in the foot when China gets to the moon first. Yes I know that once great America got there before but the way your going your gonna come last.
Add more bureaucratic layers of regulation? Do you have any idea what you're asking for?
I agree. I do think a lot of what's going on right now is a plot by the DOD to sort of take over the Starship project. A year ago no one knew if that rocket could ever even get into outer space. Now after 4 flight tests, we know it can and we know it can survive reentry. The military potential of such a rocket for launching spy satellites, ultra fast logistics, and putting other hardware into space is so great, there's no way the military isn't interested in having power over the project. I really think there's an actual conspiracy going on. Just like how Musk was crazy enough to create the most powerful rocket, he's also crazy enough to not fall for such a scheme.
What other companies, Bezos is only doing it because Elon is doing it. The moment Elon is not around anymore this whole space age will collapse sooner than it did after 1969.
Ideally, in not too distant future, FAA will license/certify launcher and spacecraft _types,_ rather than individual launches, as it does today with aircraft. But not even SpaceX has reached that level of readiness yet. Falcon 9 might be close.
I really love these summaries. No bullshit, no clickbait and all the important infos on the space industry.
Keep up the amazing work!
And no music!
Marcus, you're the original, imo, and your enthusiasm for the topic is always evident, even when the week was boring or you're not full health. Your coverage of all of the launch world is appreciated and I look forward to it as part of my weekend relaxation schedule.
Heart hear!
OSG
(Original Space Gangster)
Thank you! ❤️
Mr. Marcus is the best! Thank you.
When I get too busy in my day to screensave live flights into my personal files, I can rely on Marcus to fill the Folders. Also Next Spaceflight and Everyday Astronaut are good for details of the mission as well. It's great to have dedicated space channels helping each other out.
Space is hard!!! And the FAA is here to make sure that never changes!!!
I was just reading Arthur C. Clarke's wonderful nonfiction book, The Promise of Space. He extols the virtues of geosynchronous orbits and goes an about all the uses to which it will be put. And he talks about a whole bunch of other stuff that is everyday business and industry. I don't think he mentioned private space travel, tho'. I HIGHLY recommend that book as a glimpse of how the future looked to forwards looking people back in the 1960s and '70s. I was a kid when my grandfather gave me that book in 1974 and it blew my mind. Now the space news you cover that's really happening blows my mind! Good job!
I really loved the world coming together to play music. What a cool way to test equipment.
Marcus, I would like to reiterate acknowledgement and appreciation not only for the excellent, impressive and informative weekly videos but especially for your consistent acknowledgement and appreciation (and links!), for all your sources and community resources. I wish half the other TH-camrs were half as diligent as you in referencing their lifeblood sources.
Companies funding the FAA would cause an ethical dilemma as the FAA would start seeing the organizations it audits as its benefactors. Not good when it's about audits and applying laws and safety protocols.
Yup conflict of interest for sure.
Companies? The American taxpayers? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
FAA already has that problem. It's the agency's dual mandate that has been the problem since it was founded.
I don't know about that, it can't possibly be any worst than looking at it through the "political" lenses.
Its a government authority. It HAS NO outside funding. It's major flaw is that it is tasked by the government to oversee ALL aerospace flights... that means ALL the commercial airplane companies. It has its hands full while being grossly underfunded. If SpaceX were intelligent, they AND the other space companies would be lobbying the government for the creation of a seperate SPACEflight Authority. Then it would not be held up having to deal with airplane issues.
Appreciate you guys’ care in distinguishing between speculation and demonstrable facts. Thanks.
I look forward to the newest video from Marcus House EVERY week, until it magically pops up every Saturday. Thank you! 👏👏
Saturday isn't Saturday without an MH roundup. The problem with safety paperwork is if you trim anything and then there's a fatal accident, who takes the blame?... which is why no one has ANY incentive in trimming this bloat down to size. We also have a problem with regulations solutionising. When they do that it causes no end of problems because if you want to do anything in a new way it needs a ton of oversight. If regulations are written based on performance, then you "just" prove you do indeed have sufficient performance and you're good.. no need to go to great lengths to explain why you're not doing things the "approved" way. (been there done that... arrrrrrrrgh!!!!!!) Solutionising is something an external body could directly search for and weed out. That really could make a difference.
It should take less time to do the paperwork to launch a rocket than it does to build the actual rocket. 😂
We could take a minute to make sure we don't do irreparable damage to a fragile ecosystem before we let a private company break laws to meet a self reported time-line goal.
That is not the FAA job when the EPA i think are the people who do it@@hotrodandrube9119
They should learn to write in short hand.
@@hotrodandrube9119just remember, there is a very good chance that these same people also want to the government to ban Boeing from operating because their stuff is “too dangerous” 😝
I really, really wish people could see the double standard of their own statements..
@@hotrodandrube9119 they already got an environmental clearance and assessment before the first starship ever launched. I'm all for protecting the environment, but at this point, it seems like the heads of this investigation at the FAA have a personal vendetta against SpaceX. This is hurting the progression of humanity, not just SpaceX.
A mobile launch mount makes a great deal of sense. It allows SpaceX to remove it after each launch, inspect and repair damage at the tower, and replace it with another. They can then move the used mount to somewhere they can thoroughly inspect, repair, and test it before reuse. They could then have at least three mounts so there's always one ready to go even if one has to be taken out of service for major repairs. It also allows upgrades to be done without interrupting activities at the tower.
Star Hopper was 5 years ago!! Wow, how time has flown.
I was actually surprised it was so recent given the amount of progress since then.
After working for the FAA for almost 24 years, it is hard for me to take the FAA side in this discussion. They are a huge bureaucracy that moves at a snails pace. And I wonder why they are involved in so much of Space X's business.Why isn't NASA the agency that handles these things?
I assume that the FAA was responsible for flight test clearance and thus have more experience dealing with ground-based concerns in addition to atmospheric flight path concerns. In another consideration, NASA is mostly aiming for physical execution of missions and facilities, where the FAA is more public facing deconfliction.
Not NASAs role. The biggest question is why is NASA able to circumvent the FAA.
@@KnugLidi It isn't. They just don't fly very often.
"There are many, MANY ways to go after Elon Musk." Biden said with a smirk shortly after Twitter purchase. And so they have.
@@Mrbfgray damn right anyone paying the slightest bit of attention knows the Fascist Biden-Harris Regime is punishing Elon for supporting Trump.
The FAA was quite happy to let Boeing self regulate until they were forced to do their jobs after the two 737 crash’s
And they were (rightly) deeply scarred by that experience. I think SpaceX is paying the price of their "never again" attitude. I don't blame them for not giving any corporation - including SpacX - an inch.
Yea that's the last time they tried something "radical to make the regulatory process faster". That turned out real well.
The key problem with the FAA funding coming from companies they oversee is that money flow controls things you need to be independent about...
cost recovery fees are not 'funding'. It all in how you set it up. Fees are set up front and they apply equally. Proponents cannot shove more money in to get their way.
Whether they're justified or not, the fact it took the FAA over a year to decide they were gonna fine SpaceX for the Falcon 9 things shows just how slow and antiqued the FAA's procedures are. Space is becoming something of both interest and relevance to a growing number of people and countries across the world and running things like it's still the 60's just isn't gonna fly. They really need to update how and why they do things
Elon Musk can come back to South Africa and bring SpaceX with him. We won't delay them.
Our infrastructure is just sh!t, so he'll might have to do some investments there as well 😅
I worked for the FAA and know for a fact that they can move very quickly with civil penalties if they want to. What the do is hold "knowledge" of violations until they need to use them against a company, a good example being when a company's CEO endorses a political opponent.
@@jacqueslandman8044 Can he just buy himself a royalty title and toss the government?
"There are many, MANY ways to go after Elon Musk." Biden said with a smirk shortly after Twitter purchase. And they have, all kinds of unprecedented shenanigans, the worst of which was the Neo-Marxist activist Delaware judge cancelling Elon's Tesla contract that we the shareholders overwhelmingly approved, but many other nonsensical "investigations" and treachery including arbitrary default on Starlink internet contract for rural Americans.
You've heard of appeals, and seen how they can delay things for years.
Thank you for us another insightful and entertaining video, Marcus. Your news vid is the one I wait for, since catches stuff others miss and you try work with other youtubers to bring the news to us on things space!
always great job and thank you!
Funny. I have been subscribed for years and always on my feed Saturday mornings (it is part of my Saturday routine) however, I had to subscribe again. Marcus, you do amazing work with your weekly reports. All the right info without going to in-depth or repeating yourself. Bravo sir.
Thank you! 😍
The issue with the "contamination" in the water shouldnt even have anything to do with the FAA, its not a safety issue, whatever the contamination is from the water deluge is nothing compared to the space shuttle.
Yeah that should totally be the EPA or something similar not the FAA
@@codymartin9218yup exactly, it's much like how we had to wait on fish and wildlife to finish their review.
ThankU Marcus GreatContent. Keeping US ALL Perfectly Up To Date In The Best Possible Way We Could All Wish To Be Kept Up To Date In. There’s Always So Much Great Stuff Goings On At All Linked SpaceX Ares with All SpaceX Fans World Wide. We’re like A county of Folks Our selves. ThANKS AGAIN MARCUS. Take Care Sir.
Thank you! Glad you are loving what we do! ❤
While I do think the FAA needs more resources, SpaceX funding the FAA would be a massive conflict of interest. Not a good solution.
Thanks for the very balanced discussion of the FAA issues Marcus. It is really important to cover both sides.
ALWAYS one of my regular watches each week. Top channel, keep up the good work!
Super resourceful episode aiming to address POV from all side. Marvelous episodes!!! Thanks Marcus
Thanks for the video Marcus.
The FULL video of Sarah Gillis and worldwide musicians playing is definitely worth experiencing!
No, you don't want industry funding the agency that regulates it. FAA just needs to be re-imagined to meet the evolving nature of commercial spaceflight.
Agency capture is already a very real thing. Just look at the FAA and Boeing. Beyond that there are dozens of fatal accidents throughout aerospace history where purposeful FAA inaction caused fatal accidents.
Gives off "we've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" vibes
I think people have misunderstood my comment. The FAA would invoice companies for the certification/approval time to prioritise certain projects. Can still cause a conflict of interest if not designed correctly. The FAA would need strict safeguards in place to ensure there was no bias in the reporting or action. But things could get done quickly and they can employ more staff to deal with just SpaceX.
@@MarcusHouse definitely. A spokesperson or maybe the man himself over at the FAA said himself that they are understaffed and working overtime to review SpaceX's goings. Why not hire more staff?
The FAA doesn't even need to be re-imagined, SpaceX just needs to be forced to learn to submit their applications in a timely manner. This is not an FAA problem, this is a SpaceX problem. No other private launch company struggles this much with regulatory compliance and time management. BlueOrigin, Rocketlab, ULA, etc. all manage to comply with FAA regulations and hand in their paperwork early enough for the FAA to do its job.
Good Info! Keep up the good work Marcus!
If the FAA gets to fine companies for actions that anticipate an FAA approval, then FAA gets a reward every time they act slowly. This is counter to the objective.
The goal for FAA should be to speed up their process. Why would they do this if they profit by being slow?
That’s not how fines work…
Fines go to the US Treasury, the FAA budget is appropriated by Congress and doesn’t fluctuate based on fines levied.
The fact this has so many likes is scary.
The goal of the FAA is to keep people safe, regardless of SpaceX's desired schedule.
@@SeraphArmaros they're not worried about people they're worried about critters in the environment
@@bobdalton2062 That's fine too. We have an obligation to protect habitats in this country.
Great Video! As always! Thank you very much Marcus and team! 😊
Automatic like feature for Marcus House locked and enabled! Thanks
Love your channel I like the content I love your photos the way you present the information is so much of a better platform and presentation than the other space channels out there so thank you Marcus and keep up the great work
The FAA is the wrong organization to cover space travel. FAA is to administer aviation.
You still need to pass through "their territory" to get to space. Also if you're landing, your "aviating" .
Exactly. Like, notify the FAA so they can keep air traffic clear, but a specialized agency should manage space traffic. It's not like we're going to start seeing less...
I love what SpaceX is doing (even if I'm not a fan of their CEO) but they have been somewhat cavalier with the rules for the sake of expediency. No matter how important or popular you think you are, nobody should be above the rules designed to keep us all safe.
What do you think rocket launches are, if not "aviation"?
WRONG. its funny how confidently you said that though
The flame trench will be a single end trench just like the one at Massey. The other end of the trench will allow the delivery of the booster on to the flame trench; again, just like the one at Massey.
4:32 from a civil engineering point of view, the other reason that end doesn't have sheet pole, is that end is likely coming up to ground level. So I would think that all the diversion will go in the one direction. Much like they do at Massey's.
Marcus there is no way a govt dept responsible for approvals can be funded by the organisation seeking approval. Can imagine how many conflict of interest arguments could arise along with people claiming it is nothing more than a bribe to do the applicant's bidding.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! ROFL!
how the do you think the FDA and CDC work? they are sponsored by the very companies they are supposed to be regulating.
I totally agree but a lot are, one I know of is msha it regulates the mining industry and is funded primarily through fines.
Boeing. Enough said
The FDA and pharma are hardcore in bed with each other.
Agency capture is already a very real thing. Just look at the FAA and Boeing. Beyond that there are dozens of fatal accidents throughout aerospace history where purposeful FAA inaction caused fatal accidents.
Always excellent reports, keep up the good work!!!!
i'm surprised everytime they fire the vacuum raptors at sea level, i know its not that different in scale to the RS-25 or even the F1, but i keep thinking about flow separation and it brings me just a bit closer to the edge of my seat ^°^
18:19, small correction, ~30 sats in total. Not 28 in each 3 planes. Great video as always though!
Great journalism showing the pros and cons on the SpaceX-FAA discussion!
Great weakly review. The edit and pace are perfect. Look forward to each weekly review.
Good job, thanks. Keep growing!
My ex wife said that to me :(
If SpaceX changed its name to Boeing, I'm sure that it would get FAA approval immediately.
And if Elon bent the knee to the correct political party.
@@Stormcrow_1 That is exactly 100% the full, entire, and correct answer! Someone high up in the FAA somehow thinks they are "saving democracy"...
Boeing is such a stain on aerospace. The big issue isn't why SpaceX can't but why Boeing still is.
But then the doors would fall off ... hey
And no fines! 😂 They could even crash with hundreds of people in board.....
I think what we need in the US is our own government space oversight agency separate from the FAA so that we have a dedicated space launch safety administration. The FAA is so busy with everything aviation and space. Just like we split the Air Force from the space force…it’s that time.
SpaceX cannot legally fund anything at the FAA, this would present a huge conflict of interest and at the very least, present a perception of favored status for all things SpaceX. Can you imagine if corporations were allowed to fund positions with the FBI, SEC, EPA, etc.
Thanks again for all your work, Marcus! 🖖
Funding of the regulatory body by the industry that it aims regulate have given us the sub-prime mortgage crisis back in late 2000s. Not a good idea.
the sub prime crisis was the fault of banks and investment firms. certainly zero regulations would have avoided that, right?
@ThatOpalGuy
Actually it was Fannie May and Freddie Mac which are semi-government entities who deliberately created investment securities that were deceptive at best, if not absolutely fraudulent!
That plus regulations requiring banks to make loans to people that were incapable of making payments!
It was a wholly government created collapse!
😎As always This is the channel to watch for your SPACE NEWS!😎
Nice overview Marcus, thx :). Always looking forward to saturday, you never disappoint!
Marcus, Love your videos!! The front flaps are tapered on the back side which might make it have less length attached to the main body, this should reduce the amount of plasma being forced around the hinge point during reentry.
Yep. Should make a big difference.
The answer to the FAA problem is simple. Remove SPACE from its purview. Then its "limited resources" can be deployed to aviation. Then by presidential decree (who ever gets the job) create a new "Office of Space Development" - not a NASA bureaucracy but a lean mean small team to oversee and PROMOTE the commercial development of space. Not to be the "enemy" but the "helping hand. One office, 10 people max, all experts in their fields but not beholden to anyone except the President and the people. A team so small and responsive that SpaceX or any company can make ONE CALL and get a yes or no over the phone. If not, you better all pack your chopsticks and your foreign currency because Chinese food is all that will be available in space....It has taken the Chinese only two years to copy/engineer the Falcon 9 technology that took SpaceX 20 years to develop....so every month the FAA delays is another years advantage they score....if you were really paranoid you could imagine the Chinese are orchestrating the FAA's go slow....
I agree with the first part but just so we are clear China isn’t anywhere close to SpaceX.
Agree on the separate agency. The Federal Space Agency. FSA? The problem is that any government agency will be bloated, inefficient and corrupt and full of DEI hires. It will still be a problem.
@@mabbook China has flaws in much, but it's capable of stealing things, which is a flaw and apparently a feature. As for One Office, it's a nice idea. Boxing out large areas to deconflict all risks isn't a simple undertaking.
A regulator does not Promote. The job of the regulator is to keep proponents in check. The regulator can be 100% behind a program and still hold it to account. Space is incredibly dangerous not just for those on board, but to everyone and everything around them.
@@missinglink5159 At the point of orbit it makes more sense to have an internationally advised body. And yeah, that's gonna be weird too. But we will be dealing with launches from the Moon and incoming from Mars, and Orbital station to station, and the sooner we consider how to deconflict, the more we can consider how to break our own rules!
Thank you so much for the no BS informative space news video Marcus. I love all of this so much. Minus the government getting in the way. Its so amazing we're entering a new space age however far behind the FAA is. At some point something will give and policies will have to change but unfortunately at their pace and not SpaceX's. RRRRR! Like working with my dang sister's kids pet monkey Bob.
For the FAA delay issue, I would first determine the cause:
1. Is it staffing
2. Is it priority
3. Is it outdated polices or procedures that no longer apply
4. Is it a combination or something else
As far as funding, if the cause is staffing, the money should come from an entity other than the one being investigated to avoid influence.
Most of their current funding comes from air traffic taxes and fees. They should be allocated only to plane travel and a dedicated space regulator should be stood up with the FAA out of the picture. They've too many conflicting responsibilities.
Biden has been sandbagging Musk in general. It is politics. (remember Tesla was not even invited to the EV conference several years ago. Elon is African/American, but the wrong color.
@Codysdab A dedicated space regulator(s) makes sense. I don't know how the FAA is organized but, it appears by results they don't have them.
I worked for the FAA for 5 years, and I can tell you that it's none of those things - it's political.
It's political, strictly the FAA appointed head is angry that Musk supported Trump and bought Twitter.
Marcus will done sir. Thank you.
Hi Marcus, thanks so much for these intelligent updates. I look forward to Saturdays like never before.
Oversight only functions with the “no dog in the fight” rule, correct funding and quality staff fully independent of the sector they are reviewing - and teeth of course..
Don't they already pay launch license fees? If they launch more, aren't they paying mire in total fees? Then why not enough staff and more speed?
The FAA needs to evolve to a “let it pass and progress, until any investigation finds something wrong”.
This would allow them to do their thing, but not hold up the industry.
Give a company a 3 strikes and your grounded kind of leeway.
Imagine where space x would be today without waiting for the FAA. Probably already at flight 8 and done fuel transfers.
Regarding the FAA issues. The irony in that they don’t have enough people to catch up to the speed of SpaceX … but somehow they have the resources needed to fine SpaceX…🤔
Processing applications and regulatory enforcement are different departments.
Laws & regulations don’t disappear because of budget cuts.
Their priorities are focused on who they can shake down for some extra cash. Advancing space flight isn't any of their concern. They're becoming (maybe they always were) bureaucratic thugs.
Another fine report on Space News by Marcus House! Thank you! Why is SpaceX Starbase starting to look like Tomorrowland at Disneyland? Where is the TWA Moon Rocket?
Hey! hey! Kofi, watching from Ghana 🇬🇭. Great content!
many thanks marcus well done mate
How about this guys (and women): Should Trump, after taking office, remove oversight of Space Related Safety and Regulation from the FAA and create a Space Agency to assume those duties that the FAA appears to be completely incompetent or inadequate to accomplish in a timely manner. The FAA can continue to monitor Aircraft (as in Craft that travel in the Air) and activities above the Karman Line or Space would be the responsibility of the Space Agency a New Agency staffed with people versed in Space related functions and needs. With this overhaul of the oversight of Space and Intra-solar System, the responsibility of timely and appropriate oversight is placed in the hands of an Agency without other duties that are apparently interfering with timely responses to Space related needs. This would also decrease or even eliminate the internecine conflicts that seem to occur more than too frequently. What to you think?
I am Loath to create any more bloated, bureaucratic organizations. We ought to reduce the number of regulatory agencies, not increase them.
@@jaredray7034 I agree with you absolutely, but as it is, the FAA is muddling it up horribly. The options are: 1. Have no regulations on space launches by everyone everywhere 2. Fire all the FAA employees who are "managing the Space Industry and replace them with Space knowledgeable staff? 3. Tke 5 years of investigation to find out WHY the FAA is screwing up managing the Space Industry in such a biased manner (which they will deny) and fire the perpetrators? or 4. Create a new Space Agency and monitor their staffing carefully to limit the problems (liklihood of this working 0/100 long term)
I don't know the best way to manage this problem, but it is a problem and has to be addressed in some manner, but how? I am very much open to suggestions.
Hey Marcos,
Thanks for the last episode and with the preparation of the boosters with all his new techniques I am already looking forward to the next launch
We were also recently kicked out of the subscription and I missed you so I quickly went looking and we signed up again.
We watch with you from Europe our subtitles are always on the Russian subtitles while in the Netherlands we just speak Dutch how is that possible because this is a structural problem
Good luck with your channel
Was waiting for it. Thanks Marcus! Right on time.
👍
Based on my experience with cryogenic flammable liquids, venting is part of the process required BEFORE the tank can be filled in order to acclimate the tank material to extremely low temps. As you may know, cryogenic liquid temperatures are hundreds of degrees below zero and will cause the tank material to shrink when suddenly exposed to those temps which can cause failure if not cooled slowly.
I suspect part of the problem with how slowly the FAA processes paperwork is something most people have likely never heard of "suspenses". A suspense is the maximum time allowed for a bureaucrat to complete their part of the process, whatever it might be. In theory suspenses are supposed to move things along. In practice a suspense date becomes the date, hopefully, when that part of the process is complete. If a bureaucrat has a 30-day suspense to turn in some paperwork you can bet your last penny it will not be turned in in till 5 minutes to quitting time on the 30th day - if not some time the NEXT day! Bureaucrats face no negative consequences for failure to meet a suspense date. Add up all the suspense periods for a given process and something which by rights ought to take a week or so gets slow-rolled to MONTHS! Bureaucrats have ZERO incentive to produce period, much less to do things in a genuinely timely manner. Best hope heaven isn't run by bureaucrats. If so you'll spend 2/3rds of eternity waiting to walk through the pearly gates!!
Our government agencies, including the FAA, have been doing things the same way for decades. The trouble with this approach is that, like the airline industry, these approaches have got to change with the times. But the US government isn't about to change for anyone. Lord knows they need to, for the sake of the advancements in aerospace.
The solution to the issue with the FAA is to limit the FAA to focus on domestic and commercial aviation. All launch licensing needs to be moved to NASA so that and end-to-end history can be seen by those responsible for the licensing. The FAA is just one of the most bureaucratic, politically motivated, back biting organizations that I have ever work with in the federal government. I was the program director for a very large contract to modernize the FAA infrastructure. They cancelled the contract after only 18 months without having allowed us to do even a pilot effort due to the agency inability to agree on the most fundamental changes. The FAA program manager told me that they simply weren't ready to do the things that we had shown them could be done to improve airport monitoring from radars to runway lights. Our company made a hard choice and decided to never bid on FAA related contracts going forward.
Nasa isn’t a regulatory agency and they don’t wish to be one.
The office of commercial Spaceflight already exists it just needs to be independent.
Hoppy's made out of 12.5mm stainless so it definitely didn't have those panels on for extra protection. They put the panels and a nose cone on to make it look "liquid silver" for a photo op. The nose cone fell off shortly after in a storm.
I would love to see star hopper moved into a SpaceX museum in 20 years! After all there is enough content and milestones for the ages already but 20 years from now god knows what will have happened…
The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) at the FAA needs to be revamped. I read they expect to have only 157 employees by the end of 2024. The AST is seeking additional funding in 2025 to expand its staff. If there’s enough money to hire over 80,000 new IRS employees, it seems there should be room in the budget to at least double or triple the AST’s workforce. Just saying. We can't let the bureaucracy in Washington D.C. hold back critical progress in such an important and growing industry. Commercial space exploration is the future, and the U.S. needs to be at the forefront-this means providing agencies like the AST with the resources they need to ensure safety, innovation, and leadership. Let's not let red tape get in the way of where we need to go!
Thankyou Marcus for awesome updates
Thanks for watching!
This was my comment to NSF's video re the FAA:
I haven't been wondering why Starliner hasn't been "grounded" (for want of a better word) by the FAA, but I am now wondering how your explanations to those who were apply to Starship, which is still under development not only for commercial operations, but also for NASA for the HLS as part of the Artemis program. Why is the FAA even responsible for Starship launches at this time, given that it is as yet uncertified for commercial operations?
It does seem like NASA should be taking the responsibility for Starship development flights,, and that the FAA should only take over once it has been certified. What do you think?
Yes, exactly. I've been thinking about exactly this this morning. Would be sweet to have NASA take the responsibility for flight approval away from the FAA for Starship development launches. Just like they've done for Starliner. Might be differences there considering it is not Starliner that flies itself but ULA, but I have this exact question.
As Indian viewer, ₹2- thousand crore was allocated for ISRO upcoming missions by the Indian Government and the chandrayaan 4 lunar sample mission design was revealed...
The FAA engineering review process was very efficient and enlightened. Under pressure from companies like Boeing it was expanded vastly into a corporate self-service system. Which destroyed the ranks of the FAA’s skilled workforce and of course corrupted the system. We got here through Boeing’s corruption. That’s why we can’t have nice things.
The FAA is really about having power / leverage over the companies seeking approval. After all, our congressmen love their revolving door, and post public-service kick backs.
Big claim with zero evidence. The FAA has done more for SpaceX than you could possibly imagine. They've actually been having SpaceX's back more often than not. Remember the full environmental impact study? Well look it up. The FAA said that it wasn't required and that saved SpaceX a good two years.
Yeah i think the best thing to sum any govt job is that u should do it better and if doing it better is getting fired because u want to do it a more efficient way or change it to be more streamline then I think its worth losing ones job to make progress with something important.
A great update. Thank you
Being retired from Aviation, IMHO, the 'mind-set' of the FAA is still stuck in the mid 1950's. They're not able, (or willing?) to keep up with the major advances in aviation, that have occurred in the past 50+ years.
IMO, aside from being a severely flawed agency, the FAA isn't equipped to deal with commercial space launches. I think NASA should be the administration that approves commercial space launches and the FAA should stick to dealing with commercial aviation. The FAA would still need to be overhauled because there's obviously a huge problem with the way they do things.
way less clickbait than WAI
Right! I liked the videos they made but now days I see the thumbnails and I’m like ya that has absolutely nothing to do with the video. And every video doesn’t need a look into channel metrics
I think the solution is perform a complete investigation and analysis of the FAA operation and regulations - and NOT by another government agency! Make the entire process transparent and see what stands up to public scrutiny. The FAA keeps whining about resource and funding shortages but I suspect there are huge inefficiencies in their processes. It would probably result is a recommendation to split the jurisdiction into separate space and aviation agencies. The FAA has a long history of slowness, failures, inconsistencies and incompetence regarding aviation. Not surprising it can't handle space.
On the flame trench: As a construction engineer - I believe what is going to happen....
.
.
.
.
They can remove the soil with sheet piles all around, just need a crane to remove the soil - that's how it is done for building construction sites. They are probably going to have the thrust shoot out in one direction (where there are no sheet piles). They are probably going to have a concrete wall on 3 sides - the 4th side will probably be a slope leading up to ground level (where there are no sheet piles). Similar to the Massey test site.
FAA is broken... they have the resources to levy fines against SpaceX but yet they lack said resources to review and approve or disapprove licensing and and regulatory requests!
Additional funding is not the answer... Total restructuring is the answer!
Why wouldn't the FAA levy fines against a company that violated it's rules and regulations! That's literally part of their job. They have worked very well with SpaceX and also ruled in their favor many times. But to expect a rubber stamp if not realistic.
Always love your videos!!
Linking funding of government regulation directly to the regulated rarely works out like one would think. So many incentive structures that can be corrupted. Look at bad police departments, US Food and Drug Administration, The FFA and Boeing, … the list goes on. I’m not sure there is a right solution, perhaps just a solution with an acceptable amount of corruption.
In general giving more funds to a government agency just makes the problem worse because it is rewarding poor performance with money.
'incentive structure' just stop right there. Cost recovery fees are not 'incentives'. If it costs 2M bucks in costs to the government to review an approval by SpaceX, then SpaceX is billed 2M to be paid prior to the approval is given. SpaceX cannot shove more money at the regulator. This model has worked just fine for decades in a great deal of other areas of private development with cost recovery fees from the regulators.
@@KnugLidi Shouldn't the cost for a service be built into the fees charged for said service?
@@farmerdad01 You'd think. many regulators don't recover costs from those using the services, as the regulator is 'taxpayer' funded.
In regards to flap design - I think it makes sense the aft flaps are the same - in the interview between Tim and Elon, I recall Elon saying that on the way down it was only the aft flaps that held the attitude. To make sure the mass of the engine don't flip forward - and that the front flaps are only there for the flip maneuver. - If they thought the front flaps made too much drag on the way down it makes sense that they would either:
A. Move them further up, so they are in "the shade" - I hope this makes sense.. English is not my primary language.
B. Increase the size of the aft flaps.
Since they went with option A - the aft flaps would be more effective now, as there is less drag to counter, and there is no need to make them bigger ;)
Reform the FAA!!
It’s not that the FAA needs more staff and hours. They need more competence and less bureaucracy. Adding more staff will most likely slow things down more. It’s optimizing for the right high-performing staff.
Hey hey, Marcus House in the house!
Hay, Hay, Marcus Horse, in the stables.
Great video, as always!!
Did you notice that the reentry on the Galileo mission was the highest energy of any recovery mission? Stage one came in blazing. 🔥 Which is why the feed cut out. Elon even said something to the effect they were testing the bounds of recovery.
I think the FAA has the license process backwards. Rather spell out a set of rules to follow, specify acts to avoid. Your rocket launch should not kill or harm humans, or damage the property of others, or contaminate the environment with harmful substances in excess of documented level. In the event the launch causes harm, the company must have the financial resources to make restitution.
Rather than say what u cannot do they should say what the group is focused on achieving. Classic beauracracy limiting and ponderously detailed. Focuses on punishments rather than rewards
All for logic decision processes, but rule compliance has one not to underestimated benefit: or you comply = everything is great, or you do not comply = you know what you need to fix. And if the rules have had sufficient revisions to make sense, this results in a very easy to regulate and manageable decision process.
Problem is that Starship is charting new territories, and falling into rules that have not been probably verified and sometimes do not make any sense. Offcourse this will result in discussion, but this discussion should iron out flaws in the rule sets. Just like how cars used to have someone walking in front of the car with a flag isn't a thing anymore
Trying to asses for damages (real or not) later on risks running into liability minefield, especially when each instance or event needs to be judged against such broad concepts as 'no harm or damage', where it would be better to spend that energy in refining rules instead. Let alone when this needs to be done with multiple organisations each with their own interpretation of rules.
@@rtzx12570 , the primary purpose of government is to prevent harm. Government should not tell citizens what to do; but, rather what to avoid doing in order to prevent harm. So the threat of punishment is appropriate.
@@Tuning3434 , SpaceX has sufficient financial incentive to avoid doing harm. They have the expertise in their field. The FAA does not have the expertise in their field and needs to invent it as SpaceX develops new technology. The objective is to develop the new technology at a reasonable cost. The FAA slowing down the process is an unnecessary expense which should be borne by government, not SpaceX.