FAA Fines SpaceX for Launch Violations, Company Fires Back with Lawsuit (spacenews.com)
- Reference: 0175040427
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/09/19/0039219/faa-fines-spacex-for-launch-violations-company-fires-back-with-lawsuit
- Source link: https://spacenews.com/faa-fines-spacex-for-launch-license-violations/
> The FAA [2]announced Sept. 17 that it notified SpaceX of $633,009 in proposed fines for [3]violating terms of its launch licenses during the June 2023 Falcon 9 launch of the Satria-1, or PSN Satria, broadband satellite and the July 2023 Falcon Heavy launch of Jupiter-3, or EchoStar-24, broadband satellite. Both launches were successful.
>
> For the Satria-1 launch, the FAA said in [4]its enforcement notice (PDF) to the company that SpaceX had requested in May 2023 changes to its communications plan to allow the use of a new launch control center at the company's "Hangar X" facility at the Kennedy Space Center and to skip a poll of launch controllers at two hours before liftoff. The FAA notified SpaceX shortly before the scheduled launch that it would not be able to approve those changes and modify the license in time, although the enforcement notice did not state why. SpaceX went ahead and used the Hangar X control center and skipped the "T-2 hours" poll for the launch. The agency concluded that violated two conditions of its launch license, which allowed for civil penalties of up to $283,009 each. The FAA said it planned to fine SpaceX a combined $350,000 for that launch.
>
> A month later, SpaceX conducted the Falcon Heavy launch of Jupiter-3, but nine days before the launch the company requested a modification to its launch license to allow it to use a new tank farm for RP-1 fuel at KSC's Launch Complex 39A, according to a separate enforcement notice. The FAA notified SpaceX two days before the scheduled launch that the agency would not be able to modify the license in time, but SpaceX nonetheless used the new tank farm for the launch. The agency said it proposed to fine SpaceX the maximum $283,009 for that violation.
Instead of participating in administrative procedures, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said it would [5]take the FAA to court . "SpaceX will be filing suit against the FAA for regulatory overreach," he [6]posted on X.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~schwit1
[2] https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-proposes-633009-civil-penalties-against-spacex
[3] https://spacenews.com/faa-fines-spacex-for-launch-license-violations/
[4] https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/afn-foia-20240917-case-2023WA990028.pdf
[5] https://www.axios.com/2024/09/17/elon-musk-spacex-fines-faa-violations
[6] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1836097185395666955
Sigh. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sue the industry regulator whose rules you break on a regular basis! That always works!
Another work of genius by Musk.
Consider the current supreme court (Score:3)
With the latest supreme court, with things like the "Chevron Decision" eliminated, I'd argue that it's likely enough to work to be worth the attempt.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point is that even if you win, you better dot the i's and cross the t's of EVERYTHING YOU EVER DO in perpetuity when dealing with anything that regulator regulates.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In this case though, there's nothing that was wrong, other than waiting three months for a bullshit, "approved" to be stamped on a minor piece of paperwork. If what was filed needed investigation before approval, that's one thing, but a, "ok, you need us to fill out this paperwork, then wait a few months for you to get off your ass and approve it" doesn't feel like a good reason for a fine. Oh, you changed the brand of toilet paper, that requires you to fill out this form and get government approval bef
Re: Consider the current supreme court (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeh, and I think this is what SpaceX is going after here. The regulation on how space launches are carried out seems to be unnecessarily onerous. Can you imagine if every time you flew a plane you needed to file paperwork telling the FAA which fuel tank you were going to use 3 months ahead of time? SpaceX are clearly more than a little pissed off that flight 5 of starship has so far been delayed by 5 months by the FAA, and are trying to force a relaxation of the rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Large airports do in fact need regulatory approval to build new fuel depots, because safety is a major concern. In this case they are dealing with even more volatile rocket fuel.
If the FAA can't approve stuff for SpaceX fast enough, I'm sure draining their funds with a stupid lawsuit will help. /s
Seems like the money would be better spent buying some senators to push for better funding and more rapid approvals.
Re: Consider the current supreme court (Score:2)
They already had the approval to build and store the fuel. This was the approval to use the already built and filled fuel facility for launch, which had already been checked over and greenlit by both SpaceX and the Space Force.
Re: (Score:2)
f the FAA can't approve stuff for SpaceX fast enough, I'm sure draining their funds with a stupid lawsuit will help. /s
The last time Elmo told people [1]to fuck off [theverge.com], they did just that. Then the crybaby turned around and sued them for doing the very thing he told them to do. This lawsuit should work out the same way.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/29/23981928/elon-musk-ad-boycott-go-fuck-yourself-destroy-x
Re: (Score:2)
The regulation on how space launches are carried out seems to be unnecessarily onerous.
You think something which involves thousands of tons of explosive materials has too many regulations? Something taking place [1]next to populated areas [livescience.com] shouldn't be checked, rechecked, and checked again? You must be from Texas.
There is already [2]one lawsuit [theverge.com] because Leon is destroying the environment. Would you like some more?
[1] https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/disastrous-spacex-launch-under-federal-investigation-after-raining-potentially-hazardous-debris-on-homes-and-beaches
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/1/23707029/spacex-faa-lawsuit-boca-chica-launch-explosion
Re:Sigh. (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt it will happen, but it would be nice to see the judge throw it out for barratry on the grounds that if SpaceX thought that the regulator was overreaching then it should have sued when the licences were granted with those restrictions, and since it didn't the suit is clearly in bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
When paperwork is required for something amazingly trivial, and no one can expect it to be denied, then delaying it just because people at the FAA just don't want to do any work, or will always take three weeks for bullshit paperwork that should be seen as useless by EVERYONE, that doesn't make much sense either. If you need an inspection by regulators for a change, then fine, but if it's ONLY because paperwork is required, the paperwork is filled out but the rubber stamp hasn't put the "approved" on it b
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, the way the regulatory environment is working now, China will have a reusable rocket, with settlements on the Moon and Mars while SpaceX and others US companies are still wrestling with red tape. China has already managed to beat SpaceX to orbit with a methane rocket.
Regulation and oversight is important, but it needs to be sufficiently funded and resourced so that it gets completed in a timely manner, and so if changes to a project for compliance or safety are needed they can be quickly mad
Re: (Score:2)
And if safety isn't something that would be affected, and they actually approved it after the launch because everything else was in order, then no fine should be seen as justified here. People who want to feel important require stupid things like, "we must sign off on EVERY LAST THING". We have a wannabe dictator trying to get back into the White House, but low level people with that same mindset seem to be in the FAA too.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you heard? Rules are bad. Gubbermint's bad. Make 'Amurica Grate Again!
Re: (Score:1)
I'm NOT a fan of Elon Musk, but honestly, the, "we can't handle doing OUR paperwork in time, so we won't let you make changes that may be needed to make sure things actually work" messaging from the FAA is nonsense. So, because a government agency has people who do things SLOWLY, and will never actually look at what is needed, they want to just make everyone wait? We are not talking about changes to flight plan(which requires coordination about the air space around the launch site), which you would need
Re: (Score:2)
> Sue the industry regulator whose rules you break on a regular basis! That always works!
> Another work of genius by Musk.
Guy makes no sense. He has to have something on the ball to pull off all the things he's doing. I have no idea what it is though.
But his inability to control his emotions and prejudice always destroys the good. The guy is a pterodactyl.
Re: (Score:2)
> Sue the industry regulator whose rules you break on a regular basis! That always works!
> Another work of genius by Musk.
You know, perhaps you’re right. After all, licenses are important. Perhaps Musk should remind the FAA and others of this with a guest passenger EULA change before giving a couple of stranded astronauts a ride home.
He will make sure to make those EULA changes last minute of course. We wouldn’t want anyone else to get any “lesser” treatment.
More malicious than overreach. (Score:3, Insightful)
The FAA is just NOW bitching about a launch well over a year old? The fuck were they saving that gripe for? Political points? If you’ve got a complaint over alleged violations, then speak up or shut the fuck up.
This isn’t mere overreach. This is targeted and malicious by the FAA, purposely waiting mere days before a requested launch to inform someone of non-accommodation. I can’t even see that this is about safety. License violations? Perhaps Musk should revise his guest passenger EULA before giving a couple astronauts a ride then. Last minute of course. See who else likes that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "just now", it's "due process". The FAA needed to investigate what happened, give SpaceX an opportunity to respond, consider it all, and then decide on a level of fine that is appropriate. A year seems reasonable for this sort of thing.
If they rush it, SpaceX would just sue them for not considering it properly. Presumably SpaceX's lawyers looked at the decision, found it watertight, so had to find some other reason to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
> The FAA is just NOW bitching about a launch well over a year old? The fuck were they saving that gripe for?
Who said saving. Do you understand the speed of government regulatory agencies? They were probably working on it as fast as they could.
Lesson to be learnt (Score:1, Interesting)
The lesson to be learnt is to never do any business of any sort with Musk, since you will end up being dragged through court interminably.
Even doing business with him and having that business conclude without a lawsuit means he will probably sue you if you decide not to do further business (which you had never contracted to do) with him in future.
Simplest just to stay away and have nothing to do with him or any of his companies.
Can they afford more staff now? (Score:1)
Hopefully with these fine payments, the FAA will be able to actually hire more people and get these things processed in a more timely manner.
Launch from a ship (Score:2)
Why does SpaceX launch from land? They land on ships and could launch from ships in international water, without FAA BS.