FAA Clears SpaceX To Launch Second Starship Flight (cnbc.com) 19
The FAA has cleared SpaceX to launch its second spaceflight attempt of its Starship rocket. CNBC reports: SpaceX posted on the social media platform X shortly after the greenlight that it was "targeting Friday, November 17 for Starship's second flight test." A two-hour launch window will begin at 8 a.m. ET. SpaceX plans to livestream the Starship launch, with a webcast beginning about 30 minutes before lift off. Starship first launched in April, achieving flight for a few minutes before exploding mid-air, severely damaging the ground infrastructure and raising environmental concerns. The FAA in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched a safety review prior to issuing a new flight license for the second attempt.
FWS determined that the rocket launch and subsequent damage to the pad infrastructure had no long-term negative effects on the surrounding ecology, according to an agency report released Wednesday. Still, SpaceX will help mitigate damage to the area by reducing sound waves and vibrations, assisting in fire suppression, and providing launch pad protection, the agency said. As a result, "the FAA determined SpaceX met all safety, environmental, policy and financial responsibility requirements," the agency said in a statement Wednesday.
FWS determined that the rocket launch and subsequent damage to the pad infrastructure had no long-term negative effects on the surrounding ecology, according to an agency report released Wednesday. Still, SpaceX will help mitigate damage to the area by reducing sound waves and vibrations, assisting in fire suppression, and providing launch pad protection, the agency said. As a result, "the FAA determined SpaceX met all safety, environmental, policy and financial responsibility requirements," the agency said in a statement Wednesday.
Re: Chance of hitting a shark? (Score:1)
Re: Chance of hitting a shark? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Chance of hitting a shark? (Score:3)
Depends, does this shark have a laser ?
Speaking of ALL safety. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Reuters unearthed details about the 600-plus injuries by examining court documents in worker lawsuits, employee medical records, state workers’ compensation claims and emergency-call records."
OSHA is the organization that is responsible for oversight regarding workplace injuries and more specifically the rate of workplace injuries. 600-plus injuries does sound like a lot, but considering the number of total employees and this spanning the better part of a decade (the death was nine years ago), I have a much larger question and problem to identify: why in the hell are none of the agencies listed in the above quote required by mandate to submit documentation to OSHA?
This is NOT meant to defend any deficiency in safety at SpaceX. It's more a obvious question raised as to why OSHA can make a claim that they were not aware. You're telling me workers compensation claims should not be reported directly to OSHA? Why again?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
They probably are, but as the article relates, Musk isn't interested in safety let alone reporting incidents. If he didn't report the death of an employee due to basic incomptence, what would make you think he would report people having broken bones or losing limbs?
It's more a obvious question raised as to why OSHA can make a claim that they were not aware. You're telling me work
Re:Speaking of ALL safety. (Score:4, Insightful)
why in the hell are none of the agencies listed in the above quote required by mandate to submit documentation to OSHA
They probably are, but as the article relates, Musk isn't interested in safety let alone reporting incidents. If he didn't report the death of an employee due to basic incomptence, what would make you think he would report people having broken bones or losing limbs?
You might be able to brush off something needing a band-aid and some Tylenol, but you're not going to sweep someone's death under the rug. Not to be callous about it, but a trained Marine choosing to replace a cargo strap rated for several thousand pounds with himself to secure a moving load sounds like something that is quite easily defended regardless of the "availability" of cargo straps in the immediate area. Common sense wasn't "available" either in that moment.
Someone's death tends to generate a hell of a lot more paperwork that again doesn't seem like they "probably are". At all. Which reaffirms my question.
It's possible the claims are never made. As with Twitter and Tesla, Musk runs a slipshod operation. He may just pay the money and be done with it. You'd have to look into the financials of SpaceX for some odd looking line items to see if that's what's happening.
Ignorance or malice are excuses easily mitigated if and when mandatory reporting to OSHA is done by the agencies external to the company. Workplace compensation would be the logical first choice for that. Compensation tied directly to claims and reporting. A workplace death isn't some "claim that isn't made" unless you're going to start implying that Musk paid out literal hush money to the family, every witness, ambulance workers, coroners office, police, and every other agency that gets involved when you're suddenly forced to remove a corpse from the workplace.
Re: (Score:1)
i mean #4 and #5 are just undeniably true and that is making #1 more and more accurate
Re:Met all safety requirements? (Score:4, Insightful)
"the FAA determined SpaceX met all safety, environmental, policy and financial responsibility requirements,"
Just as a note, the FAA is only tasked with ensuring the public's safety. Safety of the workers is the purview of OSHA.
Re: Met all safety requirements? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a Musk fan, but that article you linked is definitely a hit piece. It states "over 600" unreported injuries since 2014, then goes on to list among those injuries multitudes that are not actually reportable, thereby inflating the numbers. It would be far more useful for then to actually list reportable injuries that were not reported. But I suspect that they're incapable of doing that, and besides then they wouldn't have any scary large numbers to whine about.
exploading? (Score:4, Funny)
achieving flight for a few minutes before exploding mid-air
No sir. It was " rapid unscheduled disassembly "!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Current round of delay is to fix issue with an actuator for grid-fin which is situated behind the hot staging ring that required de-stacking for them to get to. The first test was initially scheduled for 4/17 but delayed by 3 days. In this particular case, they're coming up to some other deadline such as Thanksgiving and Christmas in which the public road cannot be closed.
Re: (Score:1)