It's my opinion that the FAA is currently politically motivated when it comes to SpaceX, specifically Elon Musk and they are doing whatever they can to slow Elon down because he's not bending the knee.
He has contracts which will ruin SpaceX if he breaks them. They are also a strategic military interest, he cant just do what he wants. He has to obey the laws and regulations. until he can change them.
Ironic that this new "study" requirement appeared about the same time that Elon supported Trump. I'm sure that's just by chance along with Tulsi being put on the special TSA list. Trump 2024
SpaceX has received about $15 billion in US government contracts since 2003, so we want this technology to stay within the US. Unless you're hoping to take a 1-way trip to Mars in the near future, I think it's reasonable to accommodate other people and animals that call the launch area home.
Impossible, Falcon 9 and Starship are considered Advanced Weapons Technology, so they can't just move to another country. Only solution is "solve" FAA, in whichever way is possible.
@@Tanks_In_Space he has enough money to buy an island somewhere out in international waters and run all his operations outside the grip of corruption so firmly embedded in every aspect of our government
Boeing recently pled guilty to fraud in a plea deal with the US government and agreed to a penalty of well over 600 million dollars for misleading the FAA about it's 737 max software issues. Had the FAA known the truth, they would have required a remedy before certifying the 737 max.
3 options I can see for SpaceX. 1) dance around and comply with a corrupt governmental agency. 2) offshore platform to launch from. 3 ) buy an island large enough to accommodate all necessary infrastructure needed for launches. If this is chosen in international waters, SpaceX could ratify a constitution and become it's own entity.
The only problem with 2 or 3 is that the government has a security interest in the activities of SpaceX. They would stop any attempt to export any of its technology.
Same here that and my wife and my vote being stolen in 2020 to wit: In the 2020 election, both my wife and I were the first ones to show at the polling station near our home, arriving at 6:00am in the cold waiting for the polls to open at 6:30am. I was the first person to enter and when asked to identify myself was told that I already had voted hence, I couldn’t vote. I said what the hell do you mean I have already voted and called BS. The same for my wife. We both were told that we had voted by absentee ballot. We spent the next 2 hours filling out forms and documents, IDs, etc. in order to rectify the stolen votes. While we were in another room doing all this we periodically would hear loud yells from other people of “what do you mean I have already voted”. Weeks later I went to a board of elections meeting and asked to find out who had voted fraudulently for us and was told that we were not allowed that info. My friend and attorney told me if I wanted to pursue it I had better be prepared to hurt financially. Enough said…our votes and many others were stolen.
Soft land into open ocean, but FAA will claim that might scare/harm a few fish, and necessitate a further study of fish population, etc to stop Spacex another 6 to 12 months (or longer,if bureaucrats have their way !
Why are FAA doing everything they can to stop SpaceX , should be more focused on Boeing after there mishaps, Space X is developing the future & improving in every launch they have done so far & is better the USA to be in front on space exploration surley . MY thoughts only Malcolm from Australia 🇦🇺.
Thanks for cmt. To be honest, the conflict between SpaceX and the FAA has increased significantly since Elon Musk expressed support for Trump. Politic is the bottom line in this case.
Yes, SpaceX is right to move on. Get flying while continuing on with testing the new catch method. Also, in parallel, work with FAA and get the approval for catching with ChopSticks up to the point you need a real "flight" to prove the engineering capability as a last signoff in the new permit. Work "new stuff" in parallel with permitted flights. Don't hold up the SpaceX show for months at a time. God Bless E.M. and SpaceX - go fly!
An FAA license is required for any launch or reentry, or the operation of any launch or reentry site, by U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, or by any individual or entity within the U.S. www.faa.gov/newsroom/commercial-space-transportation-activities
Wrong. Starship is a U.S. launch vehicle build by a U.S. corporation, SpaceX. By international agreements, the FAA is responsible for oversight on the safety aspects of Starship operation no matter where it's launched and landed on the surface of the Earth. Moving Starship operations to an ocean platform does not change this. FAA is still as involved as it is in Starship operations at Boca Chica.
IMO. SpaceX should skip trying to catch HB or Starship for the interim and use landing legs until all is working without issues. After the Starship has proven itself, then try catching one. Landing legs do provide alternative landing sites.
SpaceX is approved to use a specific launch pattern, and knew that if they change that pattern it would require new approvals - so they change they launch pattern at the last minute and then whine about needing approvals. Trying to catch the booster on land comes with a bunch of risks - including hitting something on land - so obviously needs a full analysis that SpaceX would rather avoid.
SpaceX will need half a dozen old oil rigs for launching and landing, spreader across the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Ocean. Far away enough from land based cities, close enough for moving people / payloads around. And surrounded by floating star factories producing rings, and propellant.
No, they don't. FAA rules apply only to the US National Airspace. FAA rules don't even apply inside a regular building, never mind in another country. However, the Space Treaty does apply to any US-based vehicle launched into space.
I think that landing at sea is a better, safer idea. Have the catch system over water such that if they miss, it lands in the water instead of crashing into the ground and destroying the launch complex
Landing on an offshore wind turbine assembly jackup barge would probably be the best current vessel. Either floating or jacked up. They are around 160m by 60m and look similar to the Falcon 9 drone ships.
There is the possibility of a partly submerged tower ,rising at the capture point, so the arms are raised as the tower rises to the required height with stabilisers being deployed and drag anchors. Not beyond Elon’s achievement.
Maybe SpaceX could take 2 oil tanker-sized ships and build them into giant catamarans with catch towers in the centre and sail them around the different parts of the world ??
Elon will still need FAA approval to fly the darn thing from the USA. He would have to launch and retrieve Starship and Super Heavy outside of US territorial waters and the USA's Exclusive Economic Zone.
@@jdb5152 the main job for the FTC is pretty much just to investigate fraudulent business dealings of consumer goods, and they create laws so producers of consumer goods don’t go down a shady route, that’s pretty much the gist of it. The FAA is a different story, it’s a part of the federal government that regulates and enforces laws that have anything to do with air travel within US territory. So if SpaceX wanted to build landing platforms in international waters nothing would really be stopping them. They both are major parts of the Federal government, but it looks like the FAA has more control, because consumer goods wouldn’t be so easily distributed without aircraft’s, and it limits new and up and coming Aviation and Space agencies.
The regulator still can ground SpaceX on launches alone. Or any change in any operation will required the regulator to review that change in any procedure based on what the regulator has demanded so far.
yea as it is now but they could be updated to catch both Starship and the Booster-wonder why they discontinued the oil platform that they bought to catch them???
At some point, SpaceX is going to have to buy/build their own island/nation. Have to wait and see if there is a leadership change in DC and some of this 'paperwork' eliminated or expedited.
They need to test the catch procedure ASAP. If it works then debate building an ocean platform tower. Catching the booster and the Ship would help rapid growth, recovery and quicker possible first human crew and Starship version for human crew to the moon or just space.
This is all an amusing experiment. Consider how often a Falcon booster has exploded on landing. Obviously, Starship has at least as good a chance of exploding on landing at least once. What happens when the largest rocket ever made explodes on land? The chances of this happening on IFT-5 are pretty good, and I intend to be there to see and document whatever happens. I do think that SpaceX is going have to come up with a better system than the chopsticks, but we need to have these tests to get an idea of how best to proceed.
@@thisbridgehascables No, it hasn't. It exploded on landING, but not on LAND. IFT-1 and IFT-2 self-destructed in flight. IFT-3 reached orbital velocity, but broke up on re-entry. IFT-4 landed in bodies of water. IFT-5 would be the first attempt to land any part of Starship on land.
USA won't let SpaceX move to China, due to the "secret rocket designs" blah blah blah USA won't even let private space companies export any space related stuff to other countries due to some stupid act in the law
The rapid re-usability that Elon says is necessary is not possible with landings on a slow barge in the middle of the ocean, so it will not be functional at all except maybe for very specific modes of use like military where quick re-usability might not be essential.
what about the flames comimg out the engines it could kill bugs in the air .stop space x for that . what about the the catch launch frame that could kill birds that fly into it during foggy days . what about the tests when the rocket freezes think about what that does to inscets and what happens to them and the freezing air that travels . wtf
@@Tanks_In_Space Well, you can dress it up however you please, but its still a fact that the US will never buy RD-180 rocket engines from Russia again. We are moving forward to new technologies and more sustainable strategies. We'd be on Mars it it wasn't for the soul sucking greed of the good ole boy network. Disposable rocketry is finished. Also, since Russia invaded Ukraine, they aren't capable of making RD-180's anymore because of the inability to get components, many of which were made in, you guessed it, Ukraine. #wearenotgoingback
@@Tanks_In_Space I was also trying not to criticize the poster's lack of understanding how NASA contracts work, that the FAA doesn't buy rocket engines or point out his atrocious grammar and his inability to formulate a rational argument, but I guess that time has past now, too.
@@grahammukuyu4660 That's not true. An FAA license is required for any launch or reentry, or the operation of any launch or reentry site, by U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, or by any individual or entity within the U.S. www.faa.gov/newsroom/commercial-space-transportation-activities Respectfully, You are repeating rumors rather than fact checking what you are posting, like so many others repeating this misinformation about offshoring to somehow avoid FAA authority. FAA regulations mostly relate to US citizen involvement, not where activities take place.
The FAA is working on finishing off the last US large commercial aircraft company, Boeing. FPV drone devolvement by small hobbyist in the US is very complicated and has been stifled. The only US space company that can take people to orbit is being permitted-to-death and delayed. Safety should be first but only to a point. Since 2000(except for 9/11), about 400 people have died on board commercial jet crashes in the US however 885,000 have died in car crashes.
They know there will be a sonic boom and it will affect animals and that the long-term effect is unknowable. You learn by doing, not speculating. Are we going to do it or not? Animals adapt or die, as do we.
It slipped because the FAA is incompetent. It seems appropriate to ask. "What kind of Mickey Mouse operation is the FAA running?" Their excuse is that they approved several flights provided they had the same profile. That makes a heck of a lot of sense, LMAO. "We just finished this test, let's repeat the same test multiple times to ensure that the data we got from the test repeats itself." SpaceX would be best served if they moved their launch site onto an oil rig in international waters and told the FAA to......
The problem is where the booms are occurring, In the middle off the ocean or over land can make a difference. The title is deceptive. This is only half the battle. If they can rig a barge with an OLM so youn can launch at sea. Musk can really kiss the FAA goodbye.
I still think MEXICO would jump at the chance put a Mexican Flag on the side of the Starship brand and be within a short shipping distance of Star City.
If the FAA they don’t need any excuses! All they need to say is, we are corrupted!
It's my opinion that the FAA is currently politically motivated when it comes to SpaceX, specifically Elon Musk and they are doing whatever they can to slow Elon down because he's not bending the knee.
FAA = BANANA REPUBLIC harassment and lawfare !!!!!!
“…to slow ELON down” sad fan boy
ok ivan 😂
Oil companies build rigs in the GULF, why not SPACEX? Build their own stable, GULF SPACEPORT....shove it FAA.
theyve already boughten a floating oil rig and are reconstructing it for this reason, just takes alot of time to get it set up
@@Keskaal They already abandoned that and sold the two rigs. No word on reviving that.
If the FAA is worried about Sonic booms and Wildlife why don't they cancel the 4th of July❤
Land. Why not launch? The ocean would be a great flame trench.
We can save humanity , but it might scare some birds, so we are screwed.
🐣🐣🐣
Let make America Great Again. Get rid of FAA.
Trump can make this
I wouldn’t launch another ounce to the space station or for the military or for the government. Reign in the faa or use your SLS.
Haha, SpaceX may do this
He has contracts which will ruin SpaceX if he breaks them. They are also a strategic military interest, he cant just do what he wants. He has to obey the laws and regulations. until he can change them.
@@Winkkin
GFYS
-Elong
😂
@@HumbelPie Guess you'd know all about that, wouldn't ya.
Typical government bureaucracy standing in the way of progress.
Ironic that this new "study" requirement appeared about the same time that Elon supported Trump. I'm sure that's just by chance along with Tulsi being put on the special TSA list. Trump 2024
The FAA fines Musk but lets Boeing get away with worse with no penalty.
Wait - what?! FWL needs _two months_ to evaluate a _sonic boom?!_ We’ve reached peak bureaucratic insanity.
😩😩😩
Elon should have moved his operation off of the continental United States, fuck the bureaucracy and corruption of the regulatory system.
I bet Mexico would let them launch. Move south of the border
SpaceX has received about $15 billion in US government contracts since 2003, so we want this technology to stay within the US. Unless you're hoping to take a 1-way trip to Mars in the near future, I think it's reasonable to accommodate other people and animals that call the launch area home.
Impossible, Falcon 9 and Starship are considered Advanced Weapons Technology, so they can't just move to another country. Only solution is "solve" FAA, in whichever way is possible.
@@Tanks_In_Space he has enough money to buy an island somewhere out in international waters and run all his operations outside the grip of corruption so firmly embedded in every aspect of our government
The same FAA that approved the max 8 737
They are "too hands-off" in oversight of Boeing but very strict with SpaceX. What the heck???
Boeing recently pled guilty to fraud in a plea deal with the US government and agreed to a penalty of well over 600 million dollars for misleading the FAA about it's 737 max software issues. Had the FAA known the truth, they would have required a remedy before certifying the 737 max.
FAA is being ridiculous!
3 options I can see for SpaceX. 1) dance around and comply with a corrupt governmental agency. 2) offshore platform to launch from. 3 ) buy an island large enough to accommodate all necessary infrastructure needed for launches. If this is chosen in international waters, SpaceX could ratify a constitution and become it's own entity.
The only problem with 2 or 3 is that the government has a security interest in the activities of SpaceX. They would stop any attempt to export any of its technology.
They still require an FAA license for 2), or anywhere else in the world.
No longer a Democrat
Same here that and my wife and my vote being stolen in 2020 to wit:
In the 2020 election, both my wife and I were the first ones to show at the polling station near our home, arriving at 6:00am in the cold waiting for the polls to open at 6:30am. I was the first person to enter and when asked to identify myself was told that I already had voted hence, I couldn’t vote. I said what the hell do you mean I have already voted and called BS. The same for my wife. We both were told that we had voted by absentee ballot. We spent the next 2 hours filling out forms and documents, IDs, etc. in order to rectify the stolen votes. While we were in another room doing all this we periodically would hear loud yells from other people of “what do you mean I have already voted”. Weeks later I went to a board of elections meeting and asked to find out who had voted fraudulently for us and was told that we were not allowed that info. My friend and attorney told me if I wanted to pursue it I had better be prepared to hurt financially. Enough said…our votes and many others were stolen.
Soft land into open ocean, but FAA will claim that might scare/harm a few fish, and necessitate a further study of fish population, etc to stop Spacex another 6 to 12 months (or longer,if bureaucrats have their way !
Maybe he should just buy his own island and launch and recover there .
Materials would be hard to import
Why are FAA doing everything they can to stop SpaceX , should be more focused on Boeing after there mishaps, Space X is developing the future & improving in every launch they have done so far & is better the USA to be in front on space exploration surley . MY thoughts only Malcolm from Australia 🇦🇺.
Thanks for cmt. To be honest, the conflict between SpaceX and the FAA has increased significantly since Elon Musk expressed support for Trump. Politic is the bottom line in this case.
Yes, SpaceX is right to move on. Get flying while continuing on with testing the new catch method. Also, in parallel, work with FAA and get the approval for catching with ChopSticks up to the point you need a real "flight" to prove the engineering capability as a last signoff in the new permit. Work "new stuff" in parallel with permitted flights. Don't hold up the SpaceX show for months at a time. God Bless E.M. and SpaceX - go fly!
A drone ship to surpass ALL drone ships. Without the landing legs part that would take a huge bite out of payload weight for super heavy. Go SpaceX 🌎
🚀🚀🚀
SONIC BOOM !!!! Does the FAA try to fine God for thunder…what a joke…Boeing money must be everywhere…🤬
SpaceX should get those oil rigs back and go 12 miles plus offshore then the FAA can go pound sand.
🤪🤪🤪
An FAA license is required for any launch or reentry, or the operation of any launch or reentry site, by U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, or by any individual or entity within the U.S.
www.faa.gov/newsroom/commercial-space-transportation-activities
Wrong. Starship is a U.S. launch vehicle build by a U.S. corporation, SpaceX. By international agreements, the FAA is responsible for oversight on the safety aspects of Starship operation no matter where it's launched and landed on the surface of the Earth. Moving Starship operations to an ocean platform does not change this. FAA is still as involved as it is in Starship operations at Boca Chica.
IMO. SpaceX should skip trying to catch HB or Starship for the interim and use landing legs until all is working without issues. After the Starship has proven itself, then try catching one. Landing legs do provide alternative landing sites.
Definitely.
wait til they find out about thunder.
SpaceX is approved to use a specific launch pattern, and knew that if they change that pattern it would require new approvals - so they change they launch pattern at the last minute and then whine about needing approvals. Trying to catch the booster on land comes with a bunch of risks - including hitting something on land - so obviously needs a full analysis that SpaceX would rather avoid.
Was there not a sonic boom with every space shuttle return?
Maybe SpaceX should go back to the idea of launching and landing on a converted oul platform in the Gulf far enough out to be out of FAA control
yes, an Oil platform ;)
The sonic boom is no louder than a lightning bolt at close range, this is BS!
The sonic boom is not the issue, it's about the dumping of the huge ring between the stages.
SpaceX will need half a dozen old oil rigs for launching and landing, spreader across the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Ocean.
Far away enough from land based cities, close enough for moving people / payloads around.
And surrounded by floating star factories producing rings, and propellant.
seeing how far they’ve already come, that wouldn’t be too hard of an achievement.
I think that the FAA remains in charge regardless of location, world wide - for any US based vehicle.😊
No, they don't. FAA rules apply only to the US National Airspace. FAA rules don't even apply inside a regular building, never mind in another country. However, the Space Treaty does apply to any US-based vehicle launched into space.
Get MEXICO to agree to a Landing/Launch Site, close and NO BLANKING FAA OR EPA
4 letters, ITAR
Still needs to get licence from FAA. Even if they launch and land in international water.
Yes they do, anywhere on earth.
But they won't have excuses that it will affect people or animals.
Why is NASA allowing the FAA to jeopardize the moon mission?
That is SpaceX's Modus Operandi. Build launch improve for the next flight. Just like CAR Companies.
The FAA issue launch licenses. You have to take off before you can land...
Why, Elon should leave the US, give the glory to another nation....
@@RamblingRodeo I think that is where this is headed - corrupt politicians and regulatory agencies are forcing Musk's hand.
I think that landing at sea is a better, safer idea. Have the catch system over water such that if they miss, it lands in the water instead of crashing into the ground and destroying the launch complex
Elon just needs to register a company call " SpaceX, Mexico" and doesn't need to do anything,
FAA will have a lot of pressure from all areas.
Landing on an offshore wind turbine assembly jackup barge would probably be the best current vessel. Either floating or jacked up. They are around 160m by 60m and look similar to the Falcon 9 drone ships.
FAA shuld be just for fking planes not rockets and space ships
we need FSA that will look only on that aspect
The bureaucrats are hindering Elon Musk for other reason than because he is so successful!
Sonic boom......the Space Shuttle exhibited 2 sonic booms on re-entry. Wassssssss the problem????
5 or more launches a month has a much greater impact than 1 launch ever 4 months.
Sonic booms what about fireworks going off for 3 days straight during the 4th of July the FAA should cancel the 4th of July then❤
There is the possibility of a partly submerged tower ,rising at the capture point, so the arms are raised as the tower rises to the required height with stabilisers being deployed and drag anchors. Not beyond Elon’s achievement.
The best part is no part.
Err no...they dont want landing gear. So yes streamline FAA but no sea landing they sold the oil rigs.
Do u think they have given up on landing Starship offshore?
Why can’t they build a giant fresh water pool and install the chopstick in the water
This way there is some cushion if the arms miss
So build a launch pad 2 miles away in Mexico. Prep them in Texas and launch in Mexico.
Maybe SpaceX could take 2 oil tanker-sized ships and build them into giant catamarans with catch towers in the centre and sail them around the different parts of the world ??
I like it !!!
Ocean protection is enforced by signatory nations of the ocean treaty
He could launch from the Space Port in New Mexico, just a thought.
Good idea 👍👍👍
Elon will still need FAA approval to fly the darn thing from the USA. He would have to launch and retrieve Starship and Super Heavy outside of US territorial waters and the USA's Exclusive Economic Zone.
National security interests will prevent any SpaceX tech from being exported.
Space X requires an FAA license ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD! FAA.gov
Elon should buy a small island around Puerto Rico for his star base.
he cant becasue he was fufiling some military contract for usa gov so he is legaly binded to stay on us soil with space x
@@renamon303Puerto Rico is considered US territory, so it’s possible that he could.
@@Ch1cken_Nub I was wondering if the regulatory jurisdiction of the FTC/FAA is the same. I really don’t know. It’s a territory, not a state.
@@jdb5152 the main job for the FTC is pretty much just to investigate fraudulent business dealings of consumer goods, and they create laws so producers of consumer goods don’t go down a shady route, that’s pretty much the gist of it. The FAA is a different story, it’s a part of the federal government that regulates and enforces laws that have anything to do with air travel within US territory. So if SpaceX wanted to build landing platforms in international waters nothing would really be stopping them. They both are major parts of the Federal government, but it looks like the FAA has more control, because consumer goods wouldn’t be so easily distributed without aircraft’s, and it limits new and up and coming Aviation and Space agencies.
Then you will need to launch from sea if you don't want the FAA involved.
The regulator still can ground SpaceX on launches alone. Or any change in any operation will required the regulator to review that change in any procedure based on what the regulator has demanded so far.
Even changing the tiles will require a REVIEW!
Are the drone ships large enough to safely support the Starship boosters? As huge as they are it looks like it would be unstable.
yea as it is now but they could be updated to catch both Starship and the Booster-wonder why they discontinued the oil platform that they bought to catch them???
@@zarl5238 I wasn’t aware they bought an oil platform. May be the amount of money it will take to convert it to a landing pad.🤔🤔🤔
@@fw1421 Yea they bought 2 a couple of years ago started rebushing them and all of a sudden stopped and sold them $ ? Maybe
I can't believe we are stopping progress due birds
But wasn't the genial idea of Starship and the booster that they don't have landing gear and thus save on mass fo bigger load?
At some point, SpaceX is going to have to buy/build their own island/nation. Have to wait and see if there is a leadership change in DC and some of this 'paperwork' eliminated or expedited.
They need to test the catch procedure ASAP. If it works then debate building an ocean platform tower. Catching the booster and the Ship would help rapid growth, recovery and quicker possible first human crew and Starship version for human crew to the moon or just space.
move 10 miles to Mexico.
This is all an amusing experiment. Consider how often a Falcon booster has exploded on landing. Obviously, Starship has at least as good a chance of exploding on landing at least once. What happens when the largest rocket ever made explodes on land? The chances of this happening on IFT-5 are pretty good, and I intend to be there to see and document whatever happens. I do think that SpaceX is going have to come up with a better system than the chopsticks, but we need to have these tests to get an idea of how best to proceed.
Starship has already exploded on land.. where have you been ?
@@thisbridgehascables No, it hasn't. It exploded on landING, but not on LAND. IFT-1 and IFT-2 self-destructed in flight. IFT-3 reached orbital velocity, but broke up on re-entry. IFT-4 landed in bodies of water. IFT-5 would be the first attempt to land any part of Starship on land.
Thanks, very informational on SpaceX 👍👍👍👍
An obvious political move. Yet another reason to vote Trump.
Relating to the need for a tall catch tower making problems at sea, you actually said it when you continued with; «as WELL». The solution is a well.
A gyroscopic level barge is not out of the realm of possibility.
Drone ship's wont work for Starship that's why SpaceX sold the two oil rig's that they owned.
would it be feasible for spacex to strip down an old oil rig & then build a tower on that
How do you get the propellant and fuel out to the barge. You might see them land, but they'll never take off from a barge.
Might need to move SpaceX to China if Musk wants to get to Mars at this rate…
USA won't let SpaceX move to China, due to the "secret rocket designs" blah blah blah USA won't even let private space companies export any space related stuff to other countries due to some stupid act in the law
Space X would require an FAA license for launch or reentry in China, or anywhere else on earth.
@@brianw612 FAA is USA, China is CAAC
@@duomaxwell2293 Depends, if Elon run away from USA to fulfill his dream with all spacex secrets.
@@MarioP9511 ... impossible, Falcon 9 and Starship are considered Advanced Weapons Technology, so they can't just move to another country.
The rapid re-usability that Elon says is necessary is not possible with landings on a slow barge in the middle of the ocean, so it will not be functional at all except maybe for very specific modes of use like military where quick re-usability might not be essential.
much of what Elon says isn't possible.
The title is not supported by the content of the video and is a lie.
Suspect its probably AI generated
Great video pix - but why using shots showing vertical cryo storage tanks, that have all been removed !
thanks for sharing 🤩🤩🤩
I would move away from the USA ASAP. This country has no interest in having go getters.
What about China?
Elon might build his own launch facility closer to the equator. Goodbye FFA and USA!
Indonesia - Venezuela.
please leave soon!
ewerybody can build own if want, FAA not need any space project ewer. not him busines.
There is no way no how that a super heavy booster could survive a drone ship landing it to heavy and to tall
Mechazullas on pil platforms. Not a drone ship.
There was no exposition on the launch pad during Starship 1. Rocket exhaust damaged the launch pad.
I love Animals. But They are not the one who invent what humans did.
Elon should announce his plan launch the exact same mission profile just to see what nonsense the FAA will come up with to delay him.
YES and bring back oil rigs
They need an FAA license to launch from oil rigs, just like they do for F9 landings on drones in international waters. This video is AI BS.
Fn faa. Someone's gotta find a way to get them to streamline their approval process
I’ll believe it when it happens
what about the flames comimg out the engines it could kill bugs in the air .stop space x for that . what about the the catch launch frame that could kill birds that fly into it during foggy days . what about the tests when the rocket freezes think about what that does to inscets and what happens to them and the freezing air that travels . wtf
That shud by an older Tanker or aircraft carrier and use it as a landing pad
Need a bigger drone ship
Can they land on a train, and the rail connects to the launch pad, so they don’t damage it. It can still be rapidly reused
Space X should rise the prize for NASA Flights, lets say double it and FAA may take the russian rockets again. without needing the FAA.
That is not going to happen
@@Tanks_In_Space Well, you can dress it up however you please, but its still a fact that the US will never buy RD-180 rocket engines from Russia again.
We are moving forward to new technologies and more sustainable strategies. We'd be on Mars it it wasn't for the soul sucking greed of the good ole boy network. Disposable rocketry is finished.
Also, since Russia invaded Ukraine, they aren't capable of making RD-180's anymore because of the inability to get components, many of which were made in, you guessed it, Ukraine.
#wearenotgoingback
@@Tanks_In_Space I was also trying not to criticize the poster's lack of understanding how NASA contracts work, that the FAA doesn't buy rocket engines or point out his atrocious grammar and his inability to formulate a rational argument, but I guess that time has past now, too.
I suggest a droneship is an impediment to rapid repair and recycling even at present.
Elon Musk should move his entire operations to another country without all the politics and stupid regulations. Maybe Australia or the Philippines ?
Not allowed, something about an advanced weapons act🤷♂️
Space X requires an FAA license for any launch or reentry anywhere on earth. This entire video is BS.
@@brianw612if they move everything there then there is nothing faa or US can do
@@grahammukuyu4660 That's not true.
An FAA license is required for any launch or reentry, or the operation of any launch or reentry site, by U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, or by any individual or entity within the U.S.
www.faa.gov/newsroom/commercial-space-transportation-activities
Respectfully, You are repeating rumors rather than fact checking what you are posting, like so many others repeating this misinformation about offshoring to somehow avoid FAA authority. FAA regulations mostly relate to US citizen involvement, not where activities take place.
The FAA is working on finishing off the last US large commercial aircraft company, Boeing. FPV drone devolvement by small hobbyist in the US is very complicated and has been stifled. The only US space company that can take people to orbit is being permitted-to-death and delayed. Safety should be first but only to a point. Since 2000(except for 9/11), about 400 people have died on board commercial jet crashes in the US however 885,000 have died in car crashes.
Thanks for cmt
They know there will be a sonic boom and it will affect animals and that the long-term effect is unknowable. You learn by doing, not speculating. Are we going to do it or not? Animals adapt or die, as do we.
Badges?! We don't need no steenking badges! HaHaHaHa!!!
They should build an oil rig type launchpad like an Armageddon
one more interesting idea
Mars does not have enough water for landing....
I've said it several times.. threaten to move all of spacex to Mexico, and lets see how long it takes for a licence to magically appear.
It slipped because the FAA is incompetent. It seems appropriate to ask. "What kind of Mickey Mouse operation is the FAA running?" Their excuse is that they approved several flights provided they had the same profile. That makes a heck of a lot of sense, LMAO. "We just finished this test, let's repeat the same test multiple times to ensure that the data we got from the test repeats itself." SpaceX would be best served if they moved their launch site onto an oil rig in international waters and told the FAA to......
*_FAA excuse: some fish died in landing_*
So there is a chance!!!!🎉🎉🎉🎉
Hopefully
They were already making sonic booms.What's wrong now
The problem is where the booms are occurring, In the middle off the ocean or over land can make a difference. The title is deceptive. This is only half the battle. If they can rig a barge with an OLM so youn can launch at sea. Musk can really kiss the FAA goodbye.
@@drmayeda1930 didn't they sold both platforms they already had ?
Land it on an oil rig.
I still think MEXICO would jump at the chance put a Mexican Flag on the side of the Starship brand and be within a short shipping distance of Star City.
Why not just use the same profile. I don't buy that the progress argument considering the last launch.
November! Its election we all knows😂