@@artemkras I'm assuming, he's the only one that waves with both arms and then puts a giant double-hand heart up in the air above his head while he's on a man lift.
I thought securing the multi-launch license was more of Space-X creating a contingency plan in case Launch 4 failed in similar fashion to Launch 3; however, since Launch 4 checked off all its goals the multi-launch license was no longer needed, hence changing the flight profile for Flight 5
Exactly. No one expected flight 4 to go as perfectly as it did, so SpaceX considered the possibility that they might have to redo that launch. But after they nailed the booster water landing, there was no need to repeat that profile anymore. Yet Jack keeps trying to blame SpaceX for essentially being too fast and innovative. Like it's their fault they won't need to redo flight 4. And it's not just Jack. The entirety of NSF crew always try to absolve FAA and other regulatory bodies of any issues in their processes. I used to be in that camp, because every time SpaceX fans complained about FAA it turned out to be not their fault. So I usually sided with FAA. But not this time. This time they're actually at fault here too. And if we're trying to get people to listen to us when SpaceX fans keep unfairly blaming FAA, we should also call out FAA in such occasions where they actually deserve some of the blame.
Flight 5 has plenty to learn from on the ship end. Tests of the Pez dispenser, engine re-light, and tiles can all be done without a booster catch. Success of this can mean a Flight 6 with both a booster catch and orbital trajectory.
Hot staging essentially uses the booster as a second launch pad. It might turn out to be a dumb idea, like counding on concrete to work as a launch pad when everyone, everywhere, had been using a flame trench since WW2.
Flight Five booster catch while pez dispenser etc are tested. If all goes well, flight 6 adds the starship test on tower two, or even set the booster off of tower one and also catch the ship on tower one.
Problem with the fines is after the paperwork was corrected they said no changes are required for the deluge system. They all knew what SpaceX were doing, this was all done in public after all.
Thanks for the thorough walk through of the regulatory part. We all want to see Starship to fly, but a bit of critical considerations are always good.....
People like to get upset when things don't go fast, but they don't recognize that all of these rules and regulations EXIST FOR A REASON. SpaceX is by far the most dangerous spaceflight development company in terms of its casual regard for safety and willingness to blow up rocket after rocket. You don't get to skip safety inspections and proper procedures just because you're impatient!
Anyone who’s worked in government knows that their goal is “the process”. They get paid to manage “the process”. They aren’t rewarded for completing the goal. “The Process” is a bureaucratic nightmare on purpose. The longer “The Process”, the more power and money they make. Been there--Done that. My apologies. I’ve worked on both sides of that fence.
@@iamaduckquack I disagree, a two month disruption is a big deal with ANY business which also adds to cost that we as tax payers have to cover. His operation is far far cheaper than what NASA can do, why F with that? They do not pull this crap on NASA rocket launches that do not even recover their rockets...
I think you are technically right that even if you take drinking water and push it through a flame trench, its not as potable anymore. But if SpaceX does not have to do anything different after getting the certification then they were essentially correct. Nothing is different. They have documentation that they were even sampling the area as well. They were even sending (according to SpaceX) the samples. If nothing changes, then they were right that what they are doing was procedurally correct. I have a feeling that Texas knew they were doing the flame trench but it was either a CYA situation or a one part of the organization didn't know what the other part of the organization was doing, and it relied on SpaceX to know the rules.
Also the point of "I wouldn't want to drink the water after it has been hit with the raptor exhaust" isn't really relevant. I also wouldn't want to drink water from a puddle anyways, it doesn't need to be potable to not harm the environment.
There are two types of inspectors. The first is the guy who says no and then looks for rules and regulations to back him up and prohibit it. The second type is the guy who says let's see if we can find a way to make it work. Might still be a no, but might be less of one. Or might find a way around. Too many inspectors are the first type because it gives them more power. It's that power that is important to them, not the eventual success of the project.
@@alvaroribeiro4222 My dad is one of those inspectors, although for a different industry and he has actually said something along the same lines as the commenter. No company does everything perfectly according to the law, it's not possible.
You don't get to just say "eh, we can make it work by skipping these inspections" when it comes to something that can KILL PEOPLE. Rockets can KILL and HAVE KILLED PEOPLE. This isn't them making up shit to be punitive; SpaceX is blatantly ignoring regulations, skipping proper procedure, and then has the audacity to try to play victim when they're caught. Just because you get there quickly doesn't mean that you get to cut in line and skip the paperwork - that's NOT HOW THIS WORKS.
I understand why people are annoyed that they won’t launch another Starship until November (I am too.), but we also need to understand that even though they build these things quick, they aren’t cheap. So why would they waste another Starship booster doing a splashdown when they COULD catch it and potentially recover it?
These are test vehicles. They are to far ahead technically to keep using old tech. I am supprized they don't jump right to some of the new stuff. As far as using old, why is ship 26 still around? Didn't even get used once.
THANK YOU, for providing an indepth and objective perspective on the topic of the delay of flight 5 instead of just accept the writing of SpaceX at face value and implicitly pointing to some political conspiracy for the reason of the delay.
หลายเดือนก่อน +2
I'm pretty sick of the "It's crazy!", "Makes no sense!" TH-cam thumbnails, for sure.
@NASASpaceflight, thanks for the balanced coverage. I'm as excited as anyone by Starship and want flight 5 to launch as soon as possible, but there are too many channels brainlessly regurgitating Musk/SpaceX's tired line of 'SpaceX: good / Government: bad". Nobody likes having to wait, but it does seem like SpaceX is being a little disingenuous with their statements, when these agencies are just doing their jobs of keeping the environment (and by extension people) safe. I for one am glad to see you showing journalistic integrity by approaching both parties for comment and presenting a fair and balanced view. Keep up the good work.
Exactly. It's clear that they meant that they can produce a vehicle ready for flight faster then they can get the paperwork. They can do this because they are building multiple at the same time.
I was thinking the same thing. They get one finished every couple months. It’s also not like they could start the paper work for each ship at the very start of production. They change so much as they go that the permit wouldn’t apply to the finished product.
Absolutely. Written by an asshole - sooooo NOT the usual NSF stuff. Shilling for FAA? And whoever came up with "their own enemy" piece of crap should shit him/herself for shame.
Wow a never made before comment. So original. Yes rain is untreated but it's nature, you know? Nature does what it wants. It has since before us and will once we're long gone. The deluge isn't natural and while treated water may go in the tank it sure as heck isn't after it's been contaminated by rocket exhaust and whatever else gets mixed in. @@mikegardner107
Highly unlikely. Storms aren't human and can't complete paperwork. Seems weird to have to explain this, but thus is the state of education in America today.
Regulatory issues can be sooooooo frustrating. This process really needs to be streamlined to allow rapid advancements in getting to space. The new space companies do not operate like legacy rocket companies. Keep up the great work NSF!
Regulation is the restriction of innovation. In the experimental phase regulation should be limit to the direct risks of the project rather large scale of commercialization. Why after Nov 6? Why it so coincident?
Yea, using chopsticks isn't such a complicated skill to perfect as it looks at first. It'll just set down softly in an upright position while chopstick arms gently secure it from falling over preventing explosion and environmental catastrophe on it's employees and their families housed nearby.
@@Mattguyverrwho is this "they" and why do they care? Using your logic, one would think this "they" would want SpaceX to succeed as it is tied to a government agency with multiple contracts that are in the government's interest. Also, Blue Origin is not a publicly traded company.
@@Worldofourown2024 Employees and their families won't be nearby. No one would be nearby. For a launch, the entire area around the pad for miles is evacuated first
It’s about time SpaceX hires an environmental consultant, an environmental law expert and put on the field an environmental engineer. Also an occupational and Safety officer. It would have saved a lot of time and money.
That already happens. Apparently some aerospace companies spend 10% of their budget on communication and paperwork related to regulatory bodies. But there are so many of them, with so many overlapping and sometimes contradictory regulations, that it is hard to know ahead of the time what regulations you are breaking when building something. Like with the vertical tanks breaking regulations on cargo trains.
Uhhh, it seemed like the enviromental law expert went to the TCEQ who said it was okay to use the deluge system with their current licence, and then one day, the EPA came and said, "fuck that, the TCEQ folks don't know what they are saying". Apparently the TCEQ wanted to argue their point in a court, but SpaceX just accepted to pay the fines to move things along (the EPA Agreement Order says that SpaceX neither accepts nor denies the factual allegations regarding the absence of the right permit). The TCEQ ended up fining SpaceX since it all had to be consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the law. It just sounds like regular fair disagreement between a state regulatory agency and it's federal counterpart, especially considering it's Texas - the state where they love to say "Don't tread on me!" and hate the federal government with a passion. I do have to wonder if SpaceX has a legal basis for a lawsuit against the TCEQ for forcing them to violate a federal regulation citing their interpretation of the same.
While I understand the regulatory process is necessary to prevent companies from intentionally destroying the environment and hurting people for the sake of maximizing profits, which has happened many times in the past. There has to be a good balance between ensuring the safety of people and the environment while not stifling innovation. Even if SpaceX had handled the regulatory side of things perfectly, I guarantee delays due to regulations would have still happened simply based on regulatory bodies and the government seeming keen to prefer over-regulation and the snail's pace in molasses in December kind of speed they typically work at.
Also the point of "I wouldn't want to drink the water after it has been hit with the raptor exhaust" isn't really relevant. I also wouldn't want to drink water from a puddle anyways, it doesn't need to be potable to not harm the environment.
@user-hk3ej4hk7m to be fair, spaceX were the ones to first bring up 'but the water is potable' as an argument... I totally agree with you, but SpaceX very much tried to suggest because it starts off potable they shouldn't need the same sort of discharge license as other industries
When a country become sufficiently starved of innovation by regulation, such that anything can be stalled by an offended party, its demise is assured. Lawfare is the biggest threat to humanities progress. It's what you get when you choose to elect lawyers to do the one thing you were hoping for but never got.
The Dutch invented wooden shoes to get around leather tax and split doors to get around another tax, the Irish made small windows to get around paying too higher tax and there are many examples of such innovations to get around regulations as well. But back then, life was indeed more simplified and today it is so over the top, your so right. Demise is assured.
หลายเดือนก่อน
I'd argue that forsaking the wellbeing of humanity and protection of our environment for the sake of profit will actually lead to our collective demise. Who is to judge what is actual "humanities progress"? Are you certain pushing for the ability to launch tons of metal and propellant into our atmosphere and orbit per day is of actual benefit to humans, enough that we should let companies run rampant achieving it? I'm not so sure. I'm a huge fan of the technology SpaceX is developing, but I'm not so convinced about the ultimate motives. In Serbia, where I live, multinational corporations and several foreign governments are currently conspiring with the goverment of Serbia and pushing for large scale mining of lithium from a region that is incredibly agriculturally rich and is one of the largest sources of pristine water for the entire region. Any sane and responsible person would give up all the electric cars and devices before allowing the mine to happen.
This isn't the FAA being "offended" - it's SpaceX deliberately ignoring the LAW. You don't get to just skip proper procedures and ignore regulations because you're impatient and want to go faster. These regulations exist because *they are written in blood* - not following them can get people killed, and in the past it HAS. Every other aerospace company is able to follow the laws just fine and wait in line; right now, it's only SpaceX that's trying to cut in line, and then they get upset when they're told "no, you don't get special treatment."
Oil fields have their own mire of environmental regulations, likely even more of them than spaceflight. Also, flame stacks point upwards; they don't blast directly downward forcing contaminants deep into the ground.
At the rate this booster catch approval is going, SpaceX could launch Flight 5 with the ocean splashdown, do a suborbital test of the Pez dispenser, have a re-light test, test the upgraded tiles, then, if all is successful, apply for an orbital trajectory on Flight 6. Approval for it and the booster catch could then occur around the same time. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of very good.
that's also the problem, they can't even get to their IFT4 license because "it has to get the same review treatment" as the new license since they asked for a new one.... it's so goddamn ridiculous
"Why doesn't SpaceX fly the same profile?" Because SpaceX isn't a jobs project. These flights are needed to advance the design and operations. Doing the same flight after a reasonably successful flight is of no benefit. Clearly you haven't thought this through.
theres still plenty of upgrades they could test like the new heat shield tiles, the new payload door, new filtration system, etc etc with the current flight profile.
@@Syritis How can they test heat shield tiles, intended to be returning from orbital velocity on a sub orbital trajectory? The filtration system can be tested with static fires. That leaves the door. You expect them to spend all that money to test a single component. Do you know what rapid iteration means?
@@BabyMakRYes i think they are going for more data here, but they actually could test the heatshield tiles on a sub orbital trajectory because the ship is sooo close to orbit that it is basically going orbital speeds. Just like on IFT4. And the filtration system only appears to be troublesome on relight after the flip of the booster
@@BabyMakR thats a big facepalm. that sub orbital trajectory is 95% the speed of actual orbit, but after a de orbit burn, its the god damn same. the filtration system can't be fully tested on the ground since that would require a 4 minute long static fire not would it include any tumbling or rotating of the stages, (go see CSI Starbase's videos) so yes, they can test the door among the many MANY other changes they've made using the current flight license while waiting for approval for the catch attempt
I guess the question is - what would Spacex learn from launching on the OFT 4 profile? They would learn quite a bit about the new ship heat protection system. But if they are going to launch on the old licence wouldn’t it make sense to wait till the first Block 2 ship is ready for launch and jump to that. I know we’re some way off from Block 2 being ready but Spacex is nothing if not fast when they choose to be! Just a thought.
OK, first of all when a hot staging ring was added to Starship (which was a significant change), no one was consulted and approval was given because debris and ship would land in the GoM, the whole GoM was approved for debris drop/landing, not a small part but the whole gulf. There was no additional environmental impact required. But now, changing the drop location suddenly requires a re-evaluation, your argument or justification of the FAA doesn't hold water (pun intended).
I think main question regarding to selecting flight profile now, is if flying current stack on licensed trajectory, and doing catch later is faster. Like, late november isnt really far away when you think about it in spaceflight perspective, and i have doubts that they would manage to prepare another rocket within 2 months, so perhaps just waiting it out is a faster option to get to the catch attempt. On the contrary however, one can argue that reflying flight 4 trajectory will be more beneficial After all, flight 4 landings werent picture perfect, booster had engine failures on landing, and roumors say it exploded shortly after it, and ship, yeah, it barely made it If spacex was to refly same flight profile they could possibly refine the landing of the booster before catch attempt, which by itself is quite risky and they do put their launch tower on the line I gues spacex just wants to get to the catch as soon as possibile, though personally i feel like its a bit of a 'go fever', and it would be more beneficial in a long run to refly same trajectory and do the catch on flight 6. Catching the booster isnt the only important thing in starship program, and on F5 they could still observe the new heatshield. Additionally they could perhaps do some in space testing, lets not forget, they are still only climbing the bottom of the mountain that is HLS development, still long ways to go to ship-ship propellant transfer, long term orbit storage, and the lander itself
Here are two schedules for your consideration. Both involve the same ship trajectory, and would have the same ship mission objectives. Schedule A: Wait for FAA catch approval, launch Flight 5 as planned in late November (if, then; it could be in December or January) Schedule B: Launch Flight 5 in late September on original booster trajectory. Gather data from Flight 5, then apply for orbital trajectory on Flight 6. Such approval should occur around the time of catch approval, if not a month or two, later, but you have a bunch of data to iterate ships with, sooner. Which is superior?
There is no way SpaceX would've published that if they didn't believe they were being wronged. There are also a ton of red flags from the other companies too so that's what makes me lean towards SpaceX on this one
I don't think anyone is accusing SpaceX of lying. But FAA probably believes it's done everything right too. At the end of the day, what matters is facts. And usually the burden of showing evidence for those facts is on the one who feels wronged.
because they haven't.... they changed the heat tiles, they changed the payload door (although I don't know if that's ready in Ship 30), and there must be other stuff to be checked other than catching the booster.
@@peternjoroge508 diogoemon mentioned ship side changes, but also keep in mind flight 4 was very far 4 perfection with booster loosing engines on splashdown and allegedly exploding shortly after, and the ship barely surviving reentry There is still a room for improvement and they could practice booster landing before catch attempt
The hot stage thing bothers me, and the fact that everything could reset to another 2 months anywhere during the process. If they said few weeks or a month, I might believe nothing nefarious was going on. But with all the BO crying, I can't help but feel some palm greasing could be going on.
Blue Origin and ULA submitted comments about restricting Starship's launch cadence to the FAA in July, so they're likely not exactly sad about Starship's current status.
Would it have been more beneficial to focus on payload (starlink etc) deployment rather than the catch attempt? This question assumes deployment could occur under the current licence. That way multiple ships could launch and gather new data while SpaceX worked with the FAA to obtain the new "catch-modified" licence.
THANK YOU JACK! You’re the only TH-camr I’ve watched who presented a fair argument that SpaceX could have been misleading in their post. Thank you for being a trustworthy news outlet!
There was nothing fair about this commentator… he took the side of the government in each case although he didn’t know the facts. Pumping potable water through steel pipes is not an ‘industrial process’. No reasonable person thinks the SpaceX water discharges are polluted or pose any environmental threat to the pad area, far less than a short summer shower. This is ridiculous anti-Elon Federal BS.
@@warrenwhite9085if your "pottable water" travels through non sanitized piping, and then is hit by literal rocket exhaust, which aside from obvious CO2, C, and other wild species present in rocket exhaust, also contains NO2 which comes from exhaust plume interactions with atmosphere Would you consider it pottable? Oh and there was also a report that stated it had quite a decent dose of mercury, good luck getting rid of that with a pot
Asshole argument, that is, total bullshit. NSF shot themselves up their own ass. I was wondering why Tim Dodd gets tours of Starship factory and talk to Elon while NSF does not - I think I can see why.
Government Delays If my state's Bureau of Investigation cannot complete its firearm background check within three days, the seller can transfer the firearm to the purchaser. The state government has a hard deadline. The citizen is not at the mercy of incompetent government bureaucrats. Something similar needs to be done for SpaceX. If the FAA cannot complete its investigation within 15 days, then SpaceX is free to launch. This gives the government a hard deadline. Elon has stated that he should not be able to build an entire space rocket faster than the government bureaucracy can move a piece of paper from one desk to another. He is right. Government needs to respond to the needs of business, not the other way around.
Its well and good to critique SpaceX's press releases. However, regulatory agencies are also valid targets for criticism. An even-handed critique would question the story provided by these agencies and seek basic facts. One of which might be, "What is the environmental impact of LOX and what measures were implemented at the time to mitigate it?"
Also, Jack reacts to the "literal drinking water" line but not the next line which states "Outflow water has been sampled after every use of the system and consistently shows negligible traces of any contaminants..." I think that it is unfair to highlight the first line and ignore the meaning that SpaceX clearly intended - that the water was sampled, tested, and known to be free of significant levels of contaminants. Critique the statement they actually made.
One incident in which they dumped LOX. Are they continuing to dump LOX onto the ground / into the ground water? Venting LOX is common on every rocket that uses LOX. Why is it only a problem now?
@@mikegardner107 No, LOX is not regularly vented by rockets that use it, what is vented is oxygen gas which mixes readily with the surrounding air. Would you stick your hand in a vat of LOX? Don't you think that 30,000+ gallons of it might have an effect on the temperature and O2 concentration of the water that it enters? Do you think that maybe a sudden change in temperature and oxygen concentration might cause problems for the wildlife in that water?
The water was already going into catch basins, samples taken, analyzed, all before discharge. It was just a different "Industrial Discharge" permit, requiring the *_same operating procedures._* SpaceX probably can reuse the water, and that would require treatmenht to the same standards as potable drinking water. Expensive to do, and duplicating the Brownsville water treatment plant. SMH.
They're never going to relaunch Booster 12 anyway, as they gotta/should tear it apart afterwards to see what the catch did to it, even if the catch is successful so just move on to in-space burn demonstration, payload deployment or in-space refilling that is necessary for StarShip to ever leave LEO. Maybe Booster 32 has a chance to not become a waste of time, material and effort.
I may well have misinterpreted this, but getting fined for dumping oxygen and water, for real? In the state of Texas no less. I get the need for regulations and why they are important, but when you see China just dump stages without a care, it makes you wonder who is going to make the most significant progress the soonest. Sure SpaceX need to comply and I think they really do try to, but surely it's also in the American nations interest to support such a forward-thinking company at the highest level of support? I mean, Boeing have just demonstrated just what an amazing company SpaceX is by trying to compete. 2024 Earth is great, but man it's still got issues.
It was LOX... oxygen in liquid state, which means it was around -297 degrees Fahrenheit. If you've seen the science lab experiment where they freeze and shatter the flower... think more along those lines. Not quite the same as just releasing some "perfectly normal oxygen gas". - Das
@@NASASpaceflight it's going to go into the air very rapidly by evaporation- the only damage would be to the metal plate used forthe deluge system. I have an extremely hard time believing it had any negative impact on the environment
@@NASASpaceflight Wow Das, thank you! Didn't expect that response. Yeah I didn't mean to simplify it as 'just an oxygen dump', but presumably atmospherically, the temperature change would quickly find an equilibrium? I just don't see an oxygen dump at most temperatures being an issue, moreover, there's way worse stuff going on, surely? Thanks so much for all your hard work keeping us informed x
@@bobdalton2062 One consequence you are considering of dumping a large volume of LOX into an environment is the effect it has on wildlife. The super cold nature of LOX could be a serious threat to wildlife in the area of the discharge.
@@NASASpaceflightWhat size area did the LOX cover? What size area of the wetlands did the LOX cover? LOX boils off rapidly. How long was it in contact with the area it covered? Does this continue to happen with every spin prime test?
SpaceX did build 8 vertical storage tanks nor bothering to check the regulations which ultimately resulted in them not be able to use 1/3 of them so not having the right permit for the deluge system that was built as an after thought seems par for the course at this point. spacex boasts about how many employees they have in south texas yet somehow not one of them bothered to check the regulations, it just bonkies
We know SpaceX was testing the water for pollutants around the deluge. Who were they giving it to ? Texas of course. I believe SpaceX when they said Texas environmental org was there from the first test. Why not since the first flight caused crazy ecological damage. So as an org if you have the Texas org on site, you'd think you cool to proceed. This probably came to light when they sent those high mercury readings and the EPA got involved. And while the law is the law, if SpaceX can make a rocket that holds 3.4 million kg of liquid oxygen and methane, its clear they can make a storage tank. I suspect at some point they'll get themselves certified to make them.
Better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. Who knows what kind of bureaucratic hell would have happened had SpaceX asked for environmental permission.
So, what kind of industrial wastewater are we looking at? CO2, H2O, and what? What kind of impurities are in super-cooled cryogenic methane and oxygen? That (probably hydrant water) deluge is surely a lot more drinkable than the deluge that floods the marsh during every storm. And while LOX will definitely freeze any swamp critters it touches, who is really worried about oxygen being released into the atmosphere?
the wetland isn't supposed to have potable water, its its own ecology and anything spacex does will change that ecology, the EPA is there to figure out if it's change will be insignificant or destructive. it's literally their job
I really appreciate the balanced approach you take in your info presentations. The interplay between a large company and its regulatory agencies is a delicate dance that requires both parties to be open and rational and this doesn't seem to be happening. I like that you didn't default into "SpaceX fanboy" mode but presented us with a well-rounded and professional assessment of the situation. SpaceX needs to stop whining and start launching within their pre-set agreements/licenses -- and working productively with their regulatory agencies to succeed.
This was a little "too balanced". All SpaceX wants is to let them launch when there is no public safety issue, rather than holding them back with environmental issues. If any environmental damage occurs just fine SpaceX after.
@@Rettend then SpaceX would just pay fine after fine after fine, and the issues would never get resolved. You can’t just buy your way out of everything.
@@Rettend "If any environmental damage occurs just fine SpaceX after." Ah yes, the wisdom of this comment compels us all to place authority over regulatory agencies on Rettend.
Punishable by fine just mean legal for a cost. They probably knew they had the wrong permit, but the cost for delaying to get compliant was higher than the possible fines. They banked on having enough time between test flights to get resolution but misjudged the beaurocracy.
Oh for fucks sake, literally every rocket company has to follow the same rules as SpaceX. This notion that the government is out to get SpaceX is just Reddit brained nonsense
SpaceX asked and received license for multiple attempts of IFT-4. IFT-4 succeeded so well on all objectives that there is no need to repeat it just for entertainment or to keep employees busy or burn fuel. SpaceX is ready to try the next level and existing license does not allow it.
Speculation, but I’m theorizing that it’s a money issue for SpaceX more than anything. I mean, yeah, it’s not insanely expensive compared to something like SLS, but 100-200 million dollars per launch isn’t something to overlook.
@9:25 The problem is FAA regulation is not designed to enable SpaceX's rapid iterative development process. What's the point of using the same launch profile and not change which means the development will be stuck in its present state? Do we expect the booster to always hover and splashdown in the ocean? That's what SLS, ULA, Ariane rockets do except they don't hover. They just crash into the ocean.
Why? Florida has the same issue, in fact all of the east facing coasts have the same issue. The west coast less so, but that's a silly place to launch from unless you want polar orbits.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Inane response. But I thought you were the party of "progress"? The government is stopping progress, watch and see as Rome ][ falls
This is a most detailed and balanced update, that properly covers the delay and reasons for the delay in obtaining a launch / catch license, as well as explaining that they already have a license if they want to launch - something that seems to have been forgotten by some.. It is why I continue to trust NSF to deliver well researched news and information for whoever they are covering in space flight.
And yet fanboys are blind to it all and still think regulations should be abolished. They'd be the first to complain when things turn bad very very quickly.
not really. There's a lot of very vibey arguments to try to minimise the issue. Accusations that spacex was being unreasonable for not using the previous multi launch license is disingenuous, as those licenses are primarily so that if a launch fails, they can attempt the same mission again, but since flight 4 was a success, that was unnecessary and the natural move for spacex is to move on in some way. Also the idea that changing the potential area can increase the odds of a spacecraft hitting a whale or something is absurd, and trying to defend the FAA by saying more information was added in august is again vibey and idsingenuous. All they did was state the obvious facts known to anyone up to date in a way that is lensed in the FAAs favour and i don't think we can call that reasonable, since they're very clearly penpushing to anyone who has eyes to see.
@@iamaduckquack by half my arguments you mean one specific one, and we can be sure because we know what they 'discovered' because by discovered you mean they changed the region in which the shit was gunna potentially land. Now assuming there are not islands of whales just sitting around, the probability of hitting them will not change mathematically - but i do appreciate the dismissiveness.
One yes I would drink the water two I have been to Texas and water coming out of the sky is most definitely gone through an industrial oil facility process
"Get Jack's shirt" the nsf shop advertisement says... 😮 Really? _Jack's_ very shirt?! What a pity I'd need size S so it wouldn't fit me😜 Btw: wen kilt, Jack? 😂
The Space Race, remember your poll from June 13 saying that IFT 5 will most likely lift off in JULY? Yeah, I do 😂😂😂 I voted for “September+” only because there was no “October+” lol 😂😂😂
Hey Jack, a lot of thanks for the great summary on all the licensing stuff. For me it get's a lot clearer on all the interactions between the various parties involved. I wish any TH-camr would work with the same accuracy. Yeah, I'm aware that this costs a lot of time thus taking longer over all. But in the end the content and its accuracy counts ! Oh, by the way: This all of course applies to all the work of any members of the NSF staff !
I don't think SpaceX sprung any surprises on the FAA. They have been working closely with the FAA throughout the Starship development program. This is political. It's about Elon and who he supports as President. Fisheries needs 60 days to assess the additional impact on fish? I don't think so.
Progress. Repeat of successful IFT4 wastes booster & starship, unknowns not resolved(tower landing, essential to rapid flights). Environmental concerns in a swamp seems obvious for an electric car company owner. Deluge waste sounds like rain, methane & O2 burn to form water & CO2, unless the exhaust is vaporizing the tower & pad, thought the deluge would prevent that? You have great ideas Jack! Wouldn't watch your show otherwise!
Well IFT4 was far from perfect, one could argue it barely made it to success, there is still a lot to learn, they could improve booster landing so that engines dont explode during it, or test the new heatshield on the ship
Thankyou for the criticism! We all love when it flies asap but too much sucking isnt good either, especially the pipe of elon musk which turned even crazier in recent past
> Why doesn’t SpaceX fly … using the same profile as Flight 4? I suspect the reason SpaceX wanted to get the Flight 4 licence to cover multiple flights was that they didn’t expect Flight 4 to go so well. I think they thought they’d probably need to repeat the same profile a few times. They don’t need to repeat that flight now, but that doesn’t mean the multi-flight licence was a bad idea… As for “why not just fly anyway” - well they wouldn’t learn much more than they already have, and bear in mind they spent a lot of time and effort refurbishing the TPS (other cover sheets are available 😉) - so don’t waste the hardware on something so similar when you can get it to provide bucket loads more data from a catch profile.
There is plenty to learn. They haven't tested the door since flight 3, they could test the new TPS, they could test an in space raptor relight, that's just off the top of my head.
I'd drink it haha. Back when I was building parking lots I absolutely loved it when the big ol water truck came by on a blistering hot day. Sometimes they are in a bit of a rush with a lot of stops that day, but I was always able to at least catch some water in my hard hat for drinking, with the added flavour of my own disgusting head sweat.
Dude. I think SpaceX's complaint about government paperwork being a drag isn't about one specific instance but about all the paperwork in total that has to be done and all the hoops that have to be jumped through. SpaceX, I'm sure, knows how long the paperwork takes and how long it takes to build a ship... they're the ones that do it. If you've every dealt with the federal government you know exactly what they're talking about.
A well-rounded and unbiased description of events. We want SpaceX to succeed, but to do so, it must take everyone with concerns about environmental damage due to a potential launch cadence with two towers, seriously. Every launch will have an impact, with the dissipation of water and chemicals accounted for. Global warming, greenhouse gases, and punching holes in the ozone, are concerns the general public have, regarding multiple rocket launches, so provide the data to allay these fears right at the start, before things really get going...
Thank you! We always make sure to dig around in the back to ensure that what we're presenting is factual. Das has done a great job digging through documents
As far as I remember from several sources, the raptor engine setup for combustion is a little off stoichiometric proportions and methane rich to avoid damages to the combustion chamber. Therefore we can probably expect a low proportion of soots from the exhaust. But remember the insane amount of propellant burnt every second from 33 raptor engines. I expect a non negligible amount of soots/pollutants in the exhausts even if it would be nothing compared to kerosene based engines like the merlins
Very good overview. It's great to see passionate space fans be truthful and not fanboys. No company, person or government is flawless. Want faster government, pay your fair share of taxes! That includes the companies and wealthy. Want more responsible companies, raise the fines. Want better iteration in space tech, learn to work together better. TY NSF for all you do. Ethical passionate coverage. It's why I'm still a member.
Because they were never in the remit of the FAA, no safety issue, therefore the FAA has no remit to stop launches once it's been cleared up. Starship is a whole other game for bureaucracy to play with.
Your prelude is correct but the underlying assumption is not. Falcon mishaps were out of the "purview" of FAA so to say. They did not reallllly have anything to stop SpaceX. However, what people are saying now about FAA about slowing down SpaceX is just top tier BS. Half of them have no idea about how the process really works. SpaceX already has a launch license for the IFT4 configuration so it can launch in that config if it wants, tomorrow. But, SpaceX wants to do a catch. So whats wrong with that you say? Well, to begin with its going to catch a steel skyscraper which is going to come back to the launch site. This in itself has to be assessed for a ton of hazards and possible mishaps. For example, what happens if the engines don't fire during the landing burn. We already know there could be issues. Just see CSI starbase. Secondly, SpaceX themselves gave FAA information regarding the hot staging ring. Probably related to its location where it crashes. What if those tolerances are not what SpaceX originally thought? The deluge water release after a launch has to be assessed for hazardous chemicals and groundwater contam. The reality is that there are a lot of things that FAA needs to consider. Its not like they have amazing and ultra pro max expert engineers like SpaceX so it has to makedo with what it has. Yes, the process is slow but it HAS TO BE DONE. SpaceX bitching about the delay doesn't make it amy fast. It is in some way better that they can now do more work in the meantime. I have seen a ton of other channels where people are just bitching about FAA without having any idea how serious a launch license is.
SpaceX has superior succes!!!!!! What will happen to SpaceX if Harris becomes president? Further harassment by the FAA? A woke SpaceX? Don't forget: Dem's are a very vengeful bunch of folks.
@@nirbhay_raghav You are such a dishonest person. You know absolutely NOTHING about the internals of the process here and are just insisting "it must be this way" because you made a bunch of assumptions about what's happening and decided they're correct. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong - I AM saying you definitely don't know what you're talking about and nobody should take you seriously whether you're right or whether you're wrong.
Turns out, if you build a giant industrial facility in the middle of a coastal wildlife refuge, you have to give a tiny, federally mandated portion of a crap about said wildlife refuge, even if you are, at least theoretically, rich.
awesome that you guys digged so deep to find all the information and looking at everything with a critical eye instead of just repeating spacexs and musks statements!
hurricane prep.. transistor radio & batteries. this would be perfect in countries that are not pushing to switch off FM radio where batteries last weeks for DAB etc where batteries.. don't
Why is NSF so set on bashing SpaceX for all of these issues? They had the "go" from the FAA so even if they didn't have some minor paper work in order, it makes sense not to delay a 100 million dollar launch for potentially months over something that you would only get a negligible fine. No need to make it bigger than it is. It also wasn't mentioned that they had extensive third party testing on the released water that deemed it unproblematic, thus the "drinking water" comment. And sure, technically they could launch now given the license they have received, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it shouldn't take so long for a license modification. Agencies shouldn't stifle progress just for the sake of following their procedures if something is as important and costly as Starship. Kind of a case of not seeing the forest for all the trees.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [TEASER MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VC689EgdSIw/mqdefault.jpg)
3:04 did anybody else notice the worker giving a heart sign to the camera. LOL
I saw this comment before that time stamp so yes I noticed it 😂
Same guy?
@@artemkras I'm assuming, he's the only one that waves with both arms and then puts a giant double-hand heart up in the air above his head while he's on a man lift.
@@SteveSiegelin Fair point! Guess there aren’t too many double-hand-heart-signing, man-lift-waving, 4th-wall-breaking legends out there! 😂
Judging by the NSF logo, he’s giving the heart sign to Mary, and I’d happily join in! )
When they attempt the chop stick catch that will be more epic than the first starship launch.
Yet another first in rocket history.
FFA are being held hostage by Bald head Blue Origin
@@premsuman3819 Not the Future Farmers of America! This time, Bezos has gone too far.
more epic than the whole rocketery events
@@SpaceWearer-ir3uw yeah. Plus the general public is not even away of it.
I thought securing the multi-launch license was more of Space-X creating a contingency plan in case Launch 4 failed in similar fashion to Launch 3; however, since Launch 4 checked off all its goals the multi-launch license was no longer needed, hence changing the flight profile for Flight 5
Exactly. No one expected flight 4 to go as perfectly as it did, so SpaceX considered the possibility that they might have to redo that launch. But after they nailed the booster water landing, there was no need to repeat that profile anymore. Yet Jack keeps trying to blame SpaceX for essentially being too fast and innovative. Like it's their fault they won't need to redo flight 4.
And it's not just Jack. The entirety of NSF crew always try to absolve FAA and other regulatory bodies of any issues in their processes. I used to be in that camp, because every time SpaceX fans complained about FAA it turned out to be not their fault. So I usually sided with FAA. But not this time. This time they're actually at fault here too. And if we're trying to get people to listen to us when SpaceX fans keep unfairly blaming FAA, we should also call out FAA in such occasions where they actually deserve some of the blame.
Flight 5 has plenty to learn from on the ship end. Tests of the Pez dispenser, engine re-light, and tiles can all be done without a booster catch. Success of this can mean a Flight 6 with both a booster catch and orbital trajectory.
Hot staging essentially uses the booster as a second launch pad. It might turn out to be a dumb idea, like counding on concrete to work as a launch pad when everyone, everywhere, had been using a flame trench since WW2.
Flight Five booster catch while pez dispenser etc are tested. If all goes well, flight 6 adds the starship test on tower two, or even set the booster off of tower one and also catch the ship on tower one.
@@mikegardner107 There would be no hurry to test catch the ship if it reaches orbit. There could be ample time to remove the booster.
Problem with the fines is after the paperwork was corrected they said no changes are required for the deluge system. They all knew what SpaceX were doing, this was all done in public after all.
Thanks for the thorough walk through of the regulatory part. We all want to see Starship to fly, but a bit of critical considerations are always good.....
Agree. Really liked NSF analysis and questioning.
People like to get upset when things don't go fast, but they don't recognize that all of these rules and regulations EXIST FOR A REASON. SpaceX is by far the most dangerous spaceflight development company in terms of its casual regard for safety and willingness to blow up rocket after rocket. You don't get to skip safety inspections and proper procedures just because you're impatient!
60 days for consultation seems excessive. 😢
The election is in 50 days. They need to know who wins before deciding whether SpaceX/Elon may continue.
2 months is nothing in the grand scheme of time. Blink and it'll be Christmas before you go known it.
Anyone who’s worked in government knows that their goal is “the process”. They get paid to manage “the process”. They aren’t rewarded for completing the goal. “The Process” is a bureaucratic nightmare on purpose. The longer “The Process”, the more power and money they make.
Been there--Done that. My apologies. I’ve worked on both sides of that fence.
Yes it is excessive with intent! If this democrat admin thought Musk we on their side of politics, he would not have this extra red tape.
@@iamaduckquack I disagree, a two month disruption is a big deal with ANY business which also adds to cost that we as tax payers have to cover.
His operation is far far cheaper than what NASA can do, why F with that? They do not pull this crap on NASA rocket launches that do not even recover their rockets...
I think you are technically right that even if you take drinking water and push it through a flame trench, its not as potable anymore. But if SpaceX does not have to do anything different after getting the certification then they were essentially correct. Nothing is different. They have documentation that they were even sampling the area as well. They were even sending (according to SpaceX) the samples. If nothing changes, then they were right that what they are doing was procedurally correct.
I have a feeling that Texas knew they were doing the flame trench but it was either a CYA situation or a one part of the organization didn't know what the other part of the organization was doing, and it relied on SpaceX to know the rules.
Also the point of "I wouldn't want to drink the water after it has been hit with the raptor exhaust" isn't really relevant. I also wouldn't want to drink water from a puddle anyways, it doesn't need to be potable to not harm the environment.
There are two types of inspectors. The first is the guy who says no and then looks for rules and regulations to back him up and prohibit it. The second type is the guy who says let's see if we can find a way to make it work. Might still be a no, but might be less of one. Or might find a way around. Too many inspectors are the first type because it gives them more power. It's that power that is important to them, not the eventual success of the project.
Oh ok, the safety and success of the aviation industry isn't important to them. You people are dangerous.
the duning krugger effect is strong on you
@@alvaroribeiro4222 My dad is one of those inspectors, although for a different industry and he has actually said something along the same lines as the commenter. No company does everything perfectly according to the law, it's not possible.
You're missing the point. It's about overregulation and too much bureaucracy stifling progress.
You don't get to just say "eh, we can make it work by skipping these inspections" when it comes to something that can KILL PEOPLE. Rockets can KILL and HAVE KILLED PEOPLE. This isn't them making up shit to be punitive; SpaceX is blatantly ignoring regulations, skipping proper procedure, and then has the audacity to try to play victim when they're caught. Just because you get there quickly doesn't mean that you get to cut in line and skip the paperwork - that's NOT HOW THIS WORKS.
I understand why people are annoyed that they won’t launch another Starship until November (I am too.), but we also need to understand that even though they build these things quick, they aren’t cheap. So why would they waste another Starship booster doing a splashdown when they COULD catch it and potentially recover it?
And if they do catch it, they’re likely to disassemble it.
@@mustang607 no thats not how spaceX rolls they are likely to use it again. This is not Boeing or nasa
People are annoyed by government agencies delaying the launch including attempted booster catch, not by SpaceX.
If SpaceX had their own country, they would make all decisions and not care. In our Country they have to follow the law.
These are test vehicles. They are to far ahead technically to keep using old tech. I am supprized they don't jump right to some of the new stuff. As far as using old, why is ship 26 still around? Didn't even get used once.
THANK YOU, for providing an indepth and objective perspective on the topic of the delay of flight 5 instead of just accept the writing of SpaceX at face value and implicitly pointing to some political conspiracy for the reason of the delay.
I'm pretty sick of the "It's crazy!", "Makes no sense!" TH-cam thumbnails, for sure.
Wow! Thanks for some awesome views here. Incredible! Very much looking forward to the next test.
@NASASpaceflight, thanks for the balanced coverage. I'm as excited as anyone by Starship and want flight 5 to launch as soon as possible, but there are too many channels brainlessly regurgitating Musk/SpaceX's tired line of 'SpaceX: good / Government: bad". Nobody likes having to wait, but it does seem like SpaceX is being a little disingenuous with their statements, when these agencies are just doing their jobs of keeping the environment (and by extension people) safe. I for one am glad to see you showing journalistic integrity by approaching both parties for comment and presenting a fair and balanced view. Keep up the good work.
There are multiple ships being built at the same time. So "It takes a year" is intellectually dishonest.
Exactly. It's clear that they meant that they can produce a vehicle ready for flight faster then they can get the paperwork. They can do this because they are building multiple at the same time.
For sure. NSF is sounding a bit douchebaggery!
I was thinking the same thing. They get one finished every couple months. It’s also not like they could start the paper work for each ship at the very start of production. They change so much as they go that the permit wouldn’t apply to the finished product.
@andrewcatlin3590 Ships 29, 30, and 31 are substantially similar, as are Boosters 10-13.
Absolutely. Written by an asshole - sooooo NOT the usual NSF stuff. Shilling for FAA? And whoever came up with "their own enemy" piece of crap should shit him/herself for shame.
I wonder if FAA is going to demand an environmental impact report from the storm for all of that water it dumped without a license.
Untreated water. I wonder how that changed the salt level of the marsh. It happens every time it rains.
Wow a never made before comment. So original. Yes rain is untreated but it's nature, you know? Nature does what it wants. It has since before us and will once we're long gone.
The deluge isn't natural and while treated water may go in the tank it sure as heck isn't after it's been contaminated by rocket exhaust and whatever else gets mixed in. @@mikegardner107
Highly unlikely. Storms aren't human and can't complete paperwork. Seems weird to have to explain this, but thus is the state of education in America today.
They've already issued a fine to Poseidon. To be followed by a 60-day consultation period and open comment from the affected residents.
you didn't bother watching the video did you?
Regulatory issues can be sooooooo frustrating. This process really needs to be streamlined to allow rapid advancements in getting to space. The new space companies do not operate like legacy rocket companies. Keep up the great work NSF!
Regulation is the restriction of innovation. In the experimental phase regulation should be limit to the direct risks of the project rather large scale of commercialization. Why after Nov 6? Why it so coincident?
These delays can really slow down a company that uses iterative design cycles during prototyping.
They want Bozos to land Glenn first for investors.
@@Mattguyverr Have a feeling we are going to see a massive fireball on that ship when it lands or tries to land. Not a big fan of Bozo.
Yea, using chopsticks isn't such a complicated skill to perfect as it looks at first. It'll just set down softly in an upright position while chopstick arms gently secure it from falling over preventing explosion and environmental catastrophe on it's employees and their families housed nearby.
@@Mattguyverrwho is this "they" and why do they care? Using your logic, one would think this "they" would want SpaceX to succeed as it is tied to a government agency with multiple contracts that are in the government's interest. Also, Blue Origin is not a publicly traded company.
@@Worldofourown2024 Employees and their families won't be nearby. No one would be nearby. For a launch, the entire area around the pad for miles is evacuated first
It’s about time SpaceX hires an environmental consultant, an environmental law expert and put on the field an environmental engineer. Also an occupational and Safety officer. It would have saved a lot of time and money.
amen, for all the employees the elon boasts about having in south texas you'd think he'd have several of these guys employed.
That already happens. Apparently some aerospace companies spend 10% of their budget on communication and paperwork related to regulatory bodies. But there are so many of them, with so many overlapping and sometimes contradictory regulations, that it is hard to know ahead of the time what regulations you are breaking when building something. Like with the vertical tanks breaking regulations on cargo trains.
Uhhh, it seemed like the enviromental law expert went to the TCEQ who said it was okay to use the deluge system with their current licence, and then one day, the EPA came and said, "fuck that, the TCEQ folks don't know what they are saying". Apparently the TCEQ wanted to argue their point in a court, but SpaceX just accepted to pay the fines to move things along (the EPA Agreement Order says that SpaceX neither accepts nor denies the factual allegations regarding the absence of the right permit). The TCEQ ended up fining SpaceX since it all had to be consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the law.
It just sounds like regular fair disagreement between a state regulatory agency and it's federal counterpart, especially considering it's Texas - the state where they love to say "Don't tread on me!" and hate the federal government with a passion. I do have to wonder if SpaceX has a legal basis for a lawsuit against the TCEQ for forcing them to violate a federal regulation citing their interpretation of the same.
While I understand the regulatory process is necessary to prevent companies from intentionally destroying the environment and hurting people for the sake of maximizing profits, which has happened many times in the past. There has to be a good balance between ensuring the safety of people and the environment while not stifling innovation. Even if SpaceX had handled the regulatory side of things perfectly, I guarantee delays due to regulations would have still happened simply based on regulatory bodies and the government seeming keen to prefer over-regulation and the snail's pace in molasses in December kind of speed they typically work at.
Also the point of "I wouldn't want to drink the water after it has been hit with the raptor exhaust" isn't really relevant. I also wouldn't want to drink water from a puddle anyways, it doesn't need to be potable to not harm the environment.
@user-hk3ej4hk7m to be fair, spaceX were the ones to first bring up 'but the water is potable' as an argument... I totally agree with you, but SpaceX very much tried to suggest because it starts off potable they shouldn't need the same sort of discharge license as other industries
When a country become sufficiently starved of innovation by regulation, such that anything can be stalled by an offended party, its demise is assured.
Lawfare is the biggest threat to humanities progress. It's what you get when you choose to elect lawyers to do the one thing you were hoping for but never got.
The Dutch invented wooden shoes to get around leather tax and split doors to get around another tax, the Irish made small windows to get around paying too higher tax and there are many examples of such innovations to get around regulations as well. But back then, life was indeed more simplified and today it is so over the top, your so right. Demise is assured.
I'd argue that forsaking the wellbeing of humanity and protection of our environment for the sake of profit will actually lead to our collective demise. Who is to judge what is actual "humanities progress"? Are you certain pushing for the ability to launch tons of metal and propellant into our atmosphere and orbit per day is of actual benefit to humans, enough that we should let companies run rampant achieving it? I'm not so sure. I'm a huge fan of the technology SpaceX is developing, but I'm not so convinced about the ultimate motives. In Serbia, where I live, multinational corporations and several foreign governments are currently conspiring with the goverment of Serbia and pushing for large scale mining of lithium from a region that is incredibly agriculturally rich and is one of the largest sources of pristine water for the entire region. Any sane and responsible person would give up all the electric cars and devices before allowing the mine to happen.
This isn't the FAA being "offended" - it's SpaceX deliberately ignoring the LAW. You don't get to just skip proper procedures and ignore regulations because you're impatient and want to go faster. These regulations exist because *they are written in blood* - not following them can get people killed, and in the past it HAS. Every other aerospace company is able to follow the laws just fine and wait in line; right now, it's only SpaceX that's trying to cut in line, and then they get upset when they're told "no, you don't get special treatment."
I would like to see everybody with an oil flame stack in Texas fined for contaminating the water in the air
Ahh a muskbro, neat.
Oil fields have their own mire of environmental regulations, likely even more of them than spaceflight. Also, flame stacks point upwards; they don't blast directly downward forcing contaminants deep into the ground.
At the rate this booster catch approval is going, SpaceX could launch Flight 5 with the ocean splashdown, do a suborbital test of the Pez dispenser, have a re-light test, test the upgraded tiles, then, if all is successful, apply for an orbital trajectory on Flight 6. Approval for it and the booster catch could then occur around the same time.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of very good.
that's also the problem, they can't even get to their IFT4 license because "it has to get the same review treatment" as the new license since they asked for a new one.... it's so goddamn ridiculous
"Why doesn't SpaceX fly the same profile?" Because SpaceX isn't a jobs project. These flights are needed to advance the design and operations. Doing the same flight after a reasonably successful flight is of no benefit. Clearly you haven't thought this through.
Who are you addressing that comment to?
theres still plenty of upgrades they could test like the new heat shield tiles, the new payload door, new filtration system, etc etc with the current flight profile.
@@Syritis How can they test heat shield tiles, intended to be returning from orbital velocity on a sub orbital trajectory? The filtration system can be tested with static fires. That leaves the door. You expect them to spend all that money to test a single component. Do you know what rapid iteration means?
@@BabyMakRYes i think they are going for more data here, but they actually could test the heatshield tiles on a sub orbital trajectory because the ship is sooo close to orbit that it is basically going orbital speeds. Just like on IFT4. And the filtration system only appears to be troublesome on relight after the flip of the booster
@@BabyMakR thats a big facepalm. that sub orbital trajectory is 95% the speed of actual orbit, but after a de orbit burn, its the god damn same. the filtration system can't be fully tested on the ground since that would require a 4 minute long static fire not would it include any tumbling or rotating of the stages, (go see CSI Starbase's videos)
so yes, they can test the door among the many MANY other changes they've made using the current flight license while waiting for approval for the catch attempt
Starship bath water
That HWY 4 needs to be raised.. I drove it a couple of times and saw some sections are too low.
It really does
Ohmygoodness!!! Think of the environmental impact of doing *_THAT!_* SMH. 🤦♀
While they're doing that, perhaps they can raise Brownsville too.
Maybe they could lay some Hyperloop pipes on it then build a new road on top!
I guess the question is - what would Spacex learn from launching on the OFT 4 profile? They would learn quite a bit about the new ship heat protection system. But if they are going to launch on the old licence wouldn’t it make sense to wait till the first Block 2 ship is ready for launch and jump to that. I know we’re some way off from Block 2 being ready but Spacex is nothing if not fast when they choose to be! Just a thought.
They can't launch a Block2 ship on the old licence. Too many changes. That would cause another 60 day delay.
Massey’s test tank 16 shot man on the crane gives 💜sign to camera person! I ❤that! Thanks for the update!
Jack, Mary & all the others at NSF at StarBase. Please stay safe. The NEWS can wight.
Look after yourself.
No real progress is possible under a standard where you have to prove every step in advance to people who don't even understand your mission.
OK, first of all when a hot staging ring was added to Starship (which was a significant change), no one was consulted and approval was given because debris and ship would land in the GoM, the whole GoM was approved for debris drop/landing, not a small part but the whole gulf. There was no additional environmental impact required. But now, changing the drop location suddenly requires a re-evaluation, your argument or justification of the FAA doesn't hold water (pun intended).
It seems like the FAA regulatory process is designed more for companies like Boeing than for SpaceX.
Even Boeing, ULA and Blu Origin are pissed with the FAA.
What's so hard to understand? They want their hardware to come back and be re-used as opposed to scrapping them into the ocean.
they're constantly changing the hardware so I don't think they will reuse anytime soon even if they catch it.
I think main question regarding to selecting flight profile now, is if flying current stack on licensed trajectory, and doing catch later is faster.
Like, late november isnt really far away when you think about it in spaceflight perspective, and i have doubts that they would manage to prepare another rocket within 2 months, so perhaps just waiting it out is a faster option to get to the catch attempt.
On the contrary however, one can argue that reflying flight 4 trajectory will be more beneficial
After all, flight 4 landings werent picture perfect, booster had engine failures on landing, and roumors say it exploded shortly after it, and ship, yeah, it barely made it
If spacex was to refly same flight profile they could possibly refine the landing of the booster before catch attempt, which by itself is quite risky and they do put their launch tower on the line
I gues spacex just wants to get to the catch as soon as possibile, though personally i feel like its a bit of a 'go fever', and it would be more beneficial in a long run to refly same trajectory and do the catch on flight 6.
Catching the booster isnt the only important thing in starship program, and on F5 they could still observe the new heatshield. Additionally they could perhaps do some in space testing, lets not forget, they are still only climbing the bottom of the mountain that is HLS development, still long ways to go to ship-ship propellant transfer, long term orbit storage, and the lander itself
Here are two schedules for your consideration. Both involve the same ship trajectory, and would have the same ship mission objectives.
Schedule A: Wait for FAA catch approval, launch Flight 5 as planned in late November (if, then; it could be in December or January)
Schedule B: Launch Flight 5 in late September on original booster trajectory. Gather data from Flight 5, then apply for orbital trajectory on Flight 6. Such approval should occur around the time of catch approval, if not a month or two, later, but you have a bunch of data to iterate ships with, sooner.
Which is superior?
There is no way SpaceX would've published that if they didn't believe they were being wronged.
There are also a ton of red flags from the other companies too so that's what makes me lean towards SpaceX on this one
I don't think anyone is accusing SpaceX of lying. But FAA probably believes it's done everything right too. At the end of the day, what matters is facts. And usually the burden of showing evidence for those facts is on the one who feels wronged.
@@snakevenom4954 keep in mind its a corporation, they will never publically admit to unlawful wrong doings, its bad PR
The ratio of referees to builders is way out of wack in the US. Administrative Agency’s are slowing down progress!
Why should they use their existing launch license if they have already tested everything they need to test without a catch?
because they haven't.... they changed the heat tiles, they changed the payload door (although I don't know if that's ready in Ship 30), and there must be other stuff to be checked other than catching the booster.
@@peternjoroge508 diogoemon mentioned ship side changes, but also keep in mind flight 4 was very far 4 perfection with booster loosing engines on splashdown and allegedly exploding shortly after, and the ship barely surviving reentry
There is still a room for improvement and they could practice booster landing before catch attempt
The hot stage thing bothers me, and the fact that everything could reset to another 2 months anywhere during the process. If they said few weeks or a month, I might believe nothing nefarious was going on. But with all the BO crying, I can't help but feel some palm greasing could be going on.
Except BO hasn't been crying much at all of late so you'll have to come up with another conspiracy theory!
Blue Origin and ULA submitted comments about restricting Starship's launch cadence to the FAA in July, so they're likely not exactly sad about Starship's current status.
You think they changed the regulation to 2 months from a previous shorter period just to fuck SpaceX?
Would it have been more beneficial to focus on payload (starlink etc) deployment rather than the catch attempt? This question assumes deployment could occur under the current licence. That way multiple ships could launch and gather new data while SpaceX worked with the FAA to obtain the new "catch-modified" licence.
Yes. And don’t forget in-orbit relight!
THANK YOU JACK! You’re the only TH-camr I’ve watched who presented a fair argument that SpaceX could have been misleading in their post. Thank you for being a trustworthy news outlet!
There was nothing fair about this commentator… he took the side of the government in each case although he didn’t know the facts.
Pumping potable water through steel pipes is not an ‘industrial process’.
No reasonable person thinks the SpaceX water discharges are polluted or pose any environmental threat to the pad area, far less than a short summer shower.
This is ridiculous anti-Elon Federal BS.
@@warrenwhite9085if your "pottable water" travels through non sanitized piping, and then is hit by literal rocket exhaust, which aside from obvious CO2, C, and other wild species present in rocket exhaust, also contains NO2 which comes from exhaust plume interactions with atmosphere
Would you consider it pottable?
Oh and there was also a report that stated it had quite a decent dose of mercury, good luck getting rid of that with a pot
Asshole argument, that is, total bullshit. NSF shot themselves up their own ass. I was wondering why Tim Dodd gets tours of Starship factory and talk to Elon while NSF does not - I think I can see why.
Since when does it’s take a year to get a starship ready. I want a fact check on that 😅
The process is the punishment. CMM
SpaceX, and other companies, were involved in the decisions updating the FAA review process. They chose this.
@@jackdonaghyjr Sure they did. They wanted to pay the fines and wanted delays like this.
@@TroyRubert not surprised you can't see the forest from the trees. If you're going to display your lack of perspective, at least troll better.
@@jackdonaghyjr I'm not a troll. Don't take my word for it. Do you think nothing changes when a new admin comes in?
awesome video. Very informative.
Government Delays
If my state's Bureau of Investigation cannot complete its firearm background check within three days, the seller can transfer the firearm to the purchaser. The state government has a hard deadline. The citizen is not at the mercy of incompetent government bureaucrats.
Something similar needs to be done for SpaceX. If the FAA cannot complete its investigation within 15 days, then SpaceX is free to launch. This gives the government a hard deadline.
Elon has stated that he should not be able to build an entire space rocket faster than the government bureaucracy can move a piece of paper from one desk to another. He is right. Government needs to respond to the needs of business, not the other way around.
Its well and good to critique SpaceX's press releases. However, regulatory agencies are also valid targets for criticism. An even-handed critique would question the story provided by these agencies and seek basic facts. One of which might be, "What is the environmental impact of LOX and what measures were implemented at the time to mitigate it?"
Also, Jack reacts to the "literal drinking water" line but not the next line which states "Outflow water has been sampled after every use of the system and consistently shows negligible traces of any contaminants..." I think that it is unfair to highlight the first line and ignore the meaning that SpaceX clearly intended - that the water was sampled, tested, and known to be free of significant levels of contaminants. Critique the statement they actually made.
One incident in which they dumped LOX. Are they continuing to dump LOX onto the ground / into the ground water? Venting LOX is common on every rocket that uses LOX. Why is it only a problem now?
@@mikegardner107 No, LOX is not regularly vented by rockets that use it, what is vented is oxygen gas which mixes readily with the surrounding air.
Would you stick your hand in a vat of LOX? Don't you think that 30,000+ gallons of it might have an effect on the temperature and O2 concentration of the water that it enters? Do you think that maybe a sudden change in temperature and oxygen concentration might cause problems for the wildlife in that water?
@@Logan4661 I saw no reports of frozen solid squirrels or armadillos. Once LOX warms up it is oxygen.
@@Tom-yx7lr So basically your argument is that there shouldn't be any problem because you are ignorant?
I'm guessing they will need a water containment area. A "moat" so they can re-use the water.
The water was already going into catch basins, samples taken, analyzed, all before discharge.
It was just a different "Industrial Discharge" permit, requiring the *_same operating procedures._*
SpaceX probably can reuse the water, and that would require treatmenht to the same standards as potable drinking water. Expensive to do, and duplicating the Brownsville water treatment plant. SMH.
They're never going to relaunch Booster 12 anyway, as they gotta/should tear it apart afterwards to see what the catch did to it, even if the catch is successful so just move on to in-space burn demonstration, payload deployment or in-space refilling that is necessary for StarShip to ever leave LEO. Maybe Booster 32 has a chance to not become a waste of time, material and effort.
I may well have misinterpreted this, but getting fined for dumping oxygen and water, for real? In the state of Texas no less. I get the need for regulations and why they are important, but when you see China just dump stages without a care, it makes you wonder who is going to make the most significant progress the soonest. Sure SpaceX need to comply and I think they really do try to, but surely it's also in the American nations interest to support such a forward-thinking company at the highest level of support? I mean, Boeing have just demonstrated just what an amazing company SpaceX is by trying to compete. 2024 Earth is great, but man it's still got issues.
It was LOX... oxygen in liquid state, which means it was around -297 degrees Fahrenheit. If you've seen the science lab experiment where they freeze and shatter the flower... think more along those lines. Not quite the same as just releasing some "perfectly normal oxygen gas". - Das
@@NASASpaceflight it's going to go into the air very rapidly by evaporation- the only damage would be to the metal plate used forthe deluge system. I have an extremely hard time believing it had any negative impact on the environment
@@NASASpaceflight Wow Das, thank you! Didn't expect that response. Yeah I didn't mean to simplify it as 'just an oxygen dump', but presumably atmospherically, the temperature change would quickly find an equilibrium? I just don't see an oxygen dump at most temperatures being an issue, moreover, there's way worse stuff going on, surely? Thanks so much for all your hard work keeping us informed x
@@bobdalton2062 One consequence you are considering of dumping a large volume of LOX into an environment is the effect it has on wildlife. The super cold nature of LOX could be a serious threat to wildlife in the area of the discharge.
@@NASASpaceflightWhat size area did the LOX cover? What size area of the wetlands did the LOX cover? LOX boils off rapidly. How long was it in contact with the area it covered? Does this continue to happen with every spin prime test?
SpaceX did build 8 vertical storage tanks nor bothering to check the regulations which ultimately resulted in them not be able to use 1/3 of them so not having the right permit for the deluge system that was built as an after thought seems par for the course at this point. spacex boasts about how many employees they have in south texas yet somehow not one of them bothered to check the regulations, it just bonkies
Certified big corporation moment lmao
We know SpaceX was testing the water for pollutants around the deluge. Who were they giving it to ? Texas of course. I believe SpaceX when they said Texas environmental org was there from the first test. Why not since the first flight caused crazy ecological damage. So as an org if you have the Texas org on site, you'd think you cool to proceed. This probably came to light when they sent those high mercury readings and the EPA got involved.
And while the law is the law, if SpaceX can make a rocket that holds 3.4 million kg of liquid oxygen and methane, its clear they can make a storage tank. I suspect at some point they'll get themselves certified to make them.
Better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. Who knows what kind of bureaucratic hell would have happened had SpaceX asked for environmental permission.
Loved the rather critical take on the matter! Great journalism!
Indeed, that was unexpected.
Poor Dan, he never gets the respect he deserves...
I keep this ship floating lol
So, what kind of industrial wastewater are we looking at? CO2, H2O, and what? What kind of impurities are in super-cooled cryogenic methane and oxygen? That (probably hydrant water) deluge is surely a lot more drinkable than the deluge that floods the marsh during every storm. And while LOX will definitely freeze any swamp critters it touches, who is really worried about oxygen being released into the atmosphere?
the wetland isn't supposed to have potable water, its its own ecology and anything spacex does will change that ecology, the EPA is there to figure out if it's change will be insignificant or destructive. it's literally their job
I really appreciate the balanced approach you take in your info presentations. The interplay between a large company and its regulatory agencies is a delicate dance that requires both parties to be open and rational and this doesn't seem to be happening. I like that you didn't default into "SpaceX fanboy" mode but presented us with a well-rounded and professional assessment of the situation. SpaceX needs to stop whining and start launching within their pre-set agreements/licenses -- and working productively with their regulatory agencies to succeed.
Thank you!
Thanks for the feedback!
This was a little "too balanced". All SpaceX wants is to let them launch when there is no public safety issue, rather than holding them back with environmental issues. If any environmental damage occurs just fine SpaceX after.
@@Rettend then SpaceX would just pay fine after fine after fine, and the issues would never get resolved. You can’t just buy your way out of everything.
@@Rettend "If any environmental damage occurs just fine SpaceX after." Ah yes, the wisdom of this comment compels us all to place authority over regulatory agencies on Rettend.
The flooding highlights a serious risk to the site. There needs be some mitigations against rising sea levels.
Punishable by fine just mean legal for a cost. They probably knew they had the wrong permit, but the cost for delaying to get compliant was higher than the possible fines. They banked on having enough time between test flights to get resolution but misjudged the beaurocracy.
These 60-day review estimates with unlimited extensions don't sound like guidelines, but sound like threats.
That's what they are.
Oh for fucks sake, literally every rocket company has to follow the same rules as SpaceX. This notion that the government is out to get SpaceX is just Reddit brained nonsense
1:40 YES SOLAR PANEL DURING HURRICAIN is a must lol
SpaceX asked and received license for multiple attempts of IFT-4. IFT-4 succeeded so well on all objectives that there is no need to repeat it just for entertainment or to keep employees busy or burn fuel.
SpaceX is ready to try the next level and existing license does not allow it.
Good luck finding parts per million after that storm
Speculation, but I’m theorizing that it’s a money issue for SpaceX more than anything. I mean, yeah, it’s not insanely expensive compared to something like SLS, but 100-200 million dollars per launch isn’t something to overlook.
@9:25 The problem is FAA regulation is not designed to enable SpaceX's rapid iterative development process. What's the point of using the same launch profile and not change which means the development will be stuck in its present state? Do we expect the booster to always hover and splashdown in the ocean? That's what SLS, ULA, Ariane rockets do except they don't hover. They just crash into the ocean.
I'm sorry but how exactly is dumping pure oxygen considered polluting the environment? That makes literally 0 sense.
Liquid oxygen is -297 degrees Fahrenheit. - Das
Thank you
I do worry sometimes that if Starbase gets hit by a really severe hurricane then all of their hard work and progress could be wiped out in minutes
Why? Florida has the same issue, in fact all of the east facing coasts have the same issue. The west coast less so, but that's a silly place to launch from unless you want polar orbits.
Same
@@Codysdabflorida actually has infrastructure built to handle hurricanes. Brownsville and Starbase absolutely do not
@@CodysdabFlorida isn’t as exposed as Boca. Not an equal comparison.
@@JackABeyer what infrastructure does it need to survive? If so why has spacex not implemented it?
If we had the rules and regulations of USA today back in our Apollo days we never would've gone to the moon. Never. Not in 1969 or even 2029
So times change, get used to it!
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Inane response. But I thought you were the party of "progress"? The government is stopping progress, watch and see as Rome ][ falls
FAA is unbeknownst to them holding off SpaceX from flying until they can catch such successfully. Don't woryy it's worth the wait.
This is a most detailed and balanced update, that properly covers the delay and reasons for the delay in obtaining a launch / catch license, as well as explaining that they already have a license if they want to launch - something that seems to have been forgotten by some.. It is why I continue to trust NSF to deliver well researched news and information for whoever they are covering in space flight.
And yet fanboys are blind to it all and still think regulations should be abolished. They'd be the first to complain when things turn bad very very quickly.
not really. There's a lot of very vibey arguments to try to minimise the issue. Accusations that spacex was being unreasonable for not using the previous multi launch license is disingenuous, as those licenses are primarily so that if a launch fails, they can attempt the same mission again, but since flight 4 was a success, that was unnecessary and the natural move for spacex is to move on in some way.
Also the idea that changing the potential area can increase the odds of a spacecraft hitting a whale or something is absurd, and trying to defend the FAA by saying more information was added in august is again vibey and idsingenuous. All they did was state the obvious facts known to anyone up to date in a way that is lensed in the FAAs favour and i don't think we can call that reasonable, since they're very clearly penpushing to anyone who has eyes to see.
@@matthewmulvey8860 Thing is, we don't know what new information SX discovered so you simply can't make half of your arguments.
@@iamaduckquack by half my arguments you mean one specific one, and we can be sure because we know what they 'discovered' because by discovered you mean they changed the region in which the shit was gunna potentially land. Now assuming there are not islands of whales just sitting around, the probability of hitting them will not change mathematically - but i do appreciate the dismissiveness.
Mr. Musk demands profound patience of others but is incapable of displaying any himself.
If SpaceX is ever going to launch Starships as often as they intend to, I think they'll have to move quickly to offshore launches!
SpaceX needs to develop Kennedy as a redundant launch and landing site.
That’s in the works. Various red tape needs to be waded through, first.
This is definitely one of the better NSF updates. Not just SX fanboys stuff but excellent journalism. Keep it up!
This series is one of my favorites on your channel and it gets better and better. Nice job!
Starhopper: But in the event of a major hurricane I can float, right? Right? Anyone?
One yes I would drink the water two I have been to Texas and water coming out of the sky is most definitely gone through an industrial oil facility process
"Get Jack's shirt" the nsf shop advertisement says... 😮 Really? _Jack's_ very shirt?! What a pity I'd need size S so it wouldn't fit me😜
Btw: wen kilt, Jack? 😂
Never
@@JackABeyer ;-P
The Space Race, remember your poll from June 13 saying that IFT 5 will most likely lift off in JULY? Yeah, I do 😂😂😂 I voted for “September+” only because there was no “October+” lol 😂😂😂
Hey Jack, a lot of thanks for the great summary on all the licensing stuff. For me it get's a lot clearer on all the interactions between the various parties involved. I wish any TH-camr would work with the same accuracy. Yeah, I'm aware that this costs a lot of time thus taking longer over all. But in the end the content and its accuracy counts !
Oh, by the way: This all of course applies to all the work of any members of the NSF staff !
I don't think SpaceX sprung any surprises on the FAA. They have been working closely with the FAA throughout the Starship development program. This is political. It's about Elon and who he supports as President. Fisheries needs 60 days to assess the additional impact on fish? I don't think so.
Progress. Repeat of successful IFT4 wastes booster & starship,
unknowns not resolved(tower landing, essential to rapid flights).
Environmental concerns in a swamp seems obvious for an electric
car company owner. Deluge waste sounds like rain, methane & O2
burn to form water & CO2, unless the exhaust is vaporizing the tower
& pad, thought the deluge would prevent that?
You have great ideas Jack! Wouldn't watch your show otherwise!
Well IFT4 was far from perfect, one could argue it barely made it to success, there is still a lot to learn, they could improve booster landing so that engines dont explode during it, or test the new heatshield on the ship
you and me both would drink the water, LOL!
A big thank you for a fair and even-handed review of the facts! 👍
Thankyou for the criticism! We all love when it flies asap but too much sucking isnt good either, especially the pipe of elon musk which turned even crazier in recent past
> Why doesn’t SpaceX fly … using the same profile as Flight 4?
I suspect the reason SpaceX wanted to get the Flight 4 licence to cover multiple flights was that they didn’t expect Flight 4 to go so well. I think they thought they’d probably need to repeat the same profile a few times. They don’t need to repeat that flight now, but that doesn’t mean the multi-flight licence was a bad idea…
As for “why not just fly anyway” - well they wouldn’t learn much more than they already have, and bear in mind they spent a lot of time and effort refurbishing the TPS (other cover sheets are available 😉) - so don’t waste the hardware on something so similar when you can get it to provide bucket loads more data from a catch profile.
There is plenty to learn. They haven't tested the door since flight 3, they could test the new TPS, they could test an in space raptor relight, that's just off the top of my head.
I'd drink it haha.
Back when I was building parking lots I absolutely loved it when the big ol water truck came by on a blistering hot day.
Sometimes they are in a bit of a rush with a lot of stops that day, but I was always able to at least catch some water in my hard hat for drinking, with the added flavour of my own disgusting head sweat.
Dude. I think SpaceX's complaint about government paperwork being a drag isn't about one specific instance but about all the paperwork in total that has to be done and all the hoops that have to be jumped through. SpaceX, I'm sure, knows how long the paperwork takes and how long it takes to build a ship... they're the ones that do it. If you've every dealt with the federal government you know exactly what they're talking about.
Thanks Jack awesome coverage! Thank you NSF!
A well-rounded and unbiased description of events. We want SpaceX to succeed, but to do so, it must take everyone with concerns about environmental damage due to a potential launch cadence with two towers, seriously. Every launch will have an impact, with the dissipation of water and chemicals accounted for. Global warming, greenhouse gases, and punching holes in the ozone, are concerns the general public have, regarding multiple rocket launches, so provide the data to allay these fears right at the start, before things really get going...
in Texas we don't say TCEQ as tee see e cue. We pronounce it as TCQ, tee see cue.
Good to know. Thank you!
It is a puresnowflake..the heart with hands
Really good and reassuring to see you guys taking a rational even handed approach to these issues.
Thank you! We always make sure to dig around in the back to ensure that what we're presenting is factual. Das has done a great job digging through documents
The by-products of burning methane and oxygen are water and co2.
So how is that industrial waste?
As far as I remember from several sources, the raptor engine setup for combustion is a little off stoichiometric proportions and methane rich to avoid damages to the combustion chamber. Therefore we can probably expect a low proportion of soots from the exhaust. But remember the insane amount of propellant burnt every second from 33 raptor engines. I expect a non negligible amount of soots/pollutants in the exhausts even if it would be nothing compared to kerosene based engines like the merlins
Everyone put pressure on the FAA, They have been Weaponized against SpaceX is stifling progress.
Not to mention SpaceX stores and dumps hydrohydroxic acid in large quantites.
RAPTOR WATER PLEASE !!! Tee Shirt ideas , anyone ???
Very good overview. It's great to see passionate space fans be truthful and not fanboys. No company, person or government is flawless. Want faster government, pay your fair share of taxes! That includes the companies and wealthy. Want more responsible companies, raise the fines. Want better iteration in space tech, learn to work together better.
TY NSF for all you do. Ethical passionate coverage. It's why I'm still a member.
Wow, the "progressive" fatuity of your statement is astonishing.
yeah, I'm in the "would actually pay money to drink deluge water" camp, I think.
You can't say that FAA is maliciously slowing down Spacex after last 2 Falcon 9 mishaps were cleared in a record speed.
Because they were never in the remit of the FAA, no safety issue, therefore the FAA has no remit to stop launches once it's been cleared up.
Starship is a whole other game for bureaucracy to play with.
I can say the environmental agencies are though.
Your prelude is correct but the underlying assumption is not. Falcon mishaps were out of the "purview" of FAA so to say. They did not reallllly have anything to stop SpaceX. However, what people are saying now about FAA about slowing down SpaceX is just top tier BS.
Half of them have no idea about how the process really works. SpaceX already has a launch license for the IFT4 configuration so it can launch in that config if it wants, tomorrow. But, SpaceX wants to do a catch. So whats wrong with that you say? Well, to begin with its going to catch a steel skyscraper which is going to come back to the launch site. This in itself has to be assessed for a ton of hazards and possible mishaps. For example, what happens if the engines don't fire during the landing burn. We already know there could be issues. Just see CSI starbase. Secondly, SpaceX themselves gave FAA information regarding the hot staging ring. Probably related to its location where it crashes. What if those tolerances are not what SpaceX originally thought? The deluge water release after a launch has to be assessed for hazardous chemicals and groundwater contam. The reality is that there are a lot of things that FAA needs to consider. Its not like they have amazing and ultra pro max expert engineers like SpaceX so it has to makedo with what it has. Yes, the process is slow but it HAS TO BE DONE. SpaceX bitching about the delay doesn't make it amy fast. It is in some way better that they can now do more work in the meantime. I have seen a ton of other channels where people are just bitching about FAA without having any idea how serious a launch license is.
SpaceX has superior succes!!!!!! What will happen to SpaceX if Harris becomes president? Further harassment by the FAA? A woke SpaceX? Don't forget: Dem's are a very vengeful bunch of folks.
@@nirbhay_raghav You are such a dishonest person. You know absolutely NOTHING about the internals of the process here and are just insisting "it must be this way" because you made a bunch of assumptions about what's happening and decided they're correct. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong - I AM saying you definitely don't know what you're talking about and nobody should take you seriously whether you're right or whether you're wrong.
Turns out, if you build a giant industrial facility in the middle of a coastal wildlife refuge, you have to give a tiny, federally mandated portion of a crap about said wildlife refuge, even if you are, at least theoretically, rich.
awesome that you guys digged so deep to find all the information and looking at everything with a critical eye instead of just repeating spacexs and musks statements!
hurricane prep.. transistor radio & batteries. this would be perfect in countries that are not pushing to switch off FM radio where batteries last weeks for DAB etc where batteries.. don't
Why is NSF so set on bashing SpaceX for all of these issues? They had the "go" from the FAA so even if they didn't have some minor paper work in order, it makes sense not to delay a 100 million dollar launch for potentially months over something that you would only get a negligible fine. No need to make it bigger than it is. It also wasn't mentioned that they had extensive third party testing on the released water that deemed it unproblematic, thus the "drinking water" comment.
And sure, technically they could launch now given the license they have received, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it shouldn't take so long for a license modification. Agencies shouldn't stifle progress just for the sake of following their procedures if something is as important and costly as Starship. Kind of a case of not seeing the forest for all the trees.
Waiting for flight 5