SpaceX: FAA Is Slowing Progress to the Moon
“If you’re able to build a rocket faster than the government can regulate it, that’s upside down.”

Most Americans want astronauts to get back to the moon and eventually to Mars, but those expeditions will keep getting pushed back unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) can get its act together. Every rocket—regardless of who makes it—that soars into space must get licensing and approval from the FAA, but SpaceX claims that the government agency is both understaffed and too slow-moving.
SpaceX launches Falcon rockets roughly every four days, they are the industry leader by far. But as SpaceX and their competition—Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, and other smaller companies—increase their flight rates, the industry is witnessing firsthand how the government agency is hindering NASA's ability to get back to the moon.
Back in April, SpaceX did the first test launch of Starship, which is the vehicle that NASA is relying on for the later stages of its Artemis program, which seeks to explore the lunar surface. Starship successfully made it airborne but then started shifting uncontrollably, forcing SpaceX to use the onboard flight termination system. This resulted in the destruction of the launch pad in addition to debris flying nearby to the South Texas launch facility. After assessing the destruction, the FAA then required the company to address a multitude of issues before SpaceX would be permitted to launch Starship again.
Elon Musk now claims that all of those concerns were addressed, but the FAA has still failed to approve another Starship launch. It took more than two years to get the first launch of Starship approved and there is no telling how long it could take to get the second one through. Not only is this making SpaceX rethink trying to get other rockets approved for takeoff at the moment, but it is also delaying the Artemis program. Ultimately, Artemis III will not happen without Starship—which means the hope of getting back to the moon by the end of 2025 is looking more and more unlikely.
Tim Hughes, senior vice president at SpaceX, told the Washington Post, "We'd very much like the government to be able to move as quickly as we are. If you're able to build a rocket faster than the government can regulate it, that's upside down, and that needs to be addressed. So we think some regulatory reforms are needed."
Regulatory reform of the FAA could take on a few different forms, but SpaceX suggests that the government agency double its licensing staff. Anything that would streamline the cumbersome approval process at this point would help—even if that means throwing the process out and starting from scratch.
The snail pace at which the FAA gets launch licenses approved is putting the private space industry in jeopardy. Of course, launches should be reviewed for safety, but there's no excuse for why that assessment takes years. "Next year could be a pretty dynamic time with lots of providers in spaceflight," a SpaceX official told ArsTechnica, so let's hope that the FAA speeds up its process or just gets out of the way entirely.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'd suggest building a launch facility elsewhere, but that would be illegal too.
“private mhd ship not permitted to export” was my search string and I found nothing! But… Some years ago I read of a private designer-builder of an “MHD ship” spending $20 million to develop one, and the Navy wouldn’t buy it from him! But the feds ALSO forbade him from selling it to foreigners! (Sorry, I’m too lazy to “Google” more.)
So I’d suggest that SpaceX sell their tech to the highest bidder, since the fuckheads and assholes here won’t let them launch. At least get SOME brave nation off into space! Butt OF COURSE our Lords and Masters control our every breath and thought!
Mexico is closer to the equator anyway.
Mexico would be a good location if we could work out the treaty issues. Northern Brazil even better.
If you are trying to get away from government regulation, a floating launch platform in international waters.
Don't double any federal agency; eliminate the need for federal approval.
This is SQRLSY One, and I approve of this message!
Musk is not afraid to make mistakes. He sees mistakes as learning opportunities. That’s what great minds do. They can separate the mistake from the person, and don’t see being wrong as a personal fault (unless the person refuses to correct it).
Government (and dim minds, but I repeat myself) doesn’t work that way. Once it makes rules, that’s it. It will defend being wrong rather than admit to being wrong. That’s why they move sooo slooow.
It's also why we need more cattle prods and wood-chippers!
Govt., it's agencies, are granted a sanction to initiate force, threaten, by the majority. Govt. is created by "The Most Dangerous Superstition" (Larken Rose). Superstition is irrational, destructive, and will result in our species extinction. In species defense we must oppose it until it no longer controls politics.
Launch from another country.
Can't. It'd be considered a violation of the munitions export rules.
Don't export. Build there as well.
It would be hilarious if Mexico ended up being a bigger player in space exploration than the US.
It's the knowledge of how to build that the officials come down on. Exporting the manufacture would be worse in their eyes.
The sole practical difference between an orbital rocket and an ICBM is payload. There are accordingly very strict restrictions on taking orbital rockets overseas, and even stricter ones on exporting the know-how to make them.
Can you launch from another country?
No.
Most of the stuff with the rocket is protected and can't be done outside the US. You aren't even allowed to have foreigners work on it. Everyone has to be American. Even Canadian NORAD folks can't pitch in.
Which makes the Biden administration accusations that Space X refuses to hire foreigners extra-stupid.
Space X's design philosophy is to push all their tests to the point of breaking until they don't break anymore. It's called iterative design. They did it with Falcon 9 and their doing it with Starship.
Because of it Falcon 9 went from blowing up during every test to becoming the most reliable rocket anywhere in human history. That's why everyone knew the first Starship launch was going to explode. Most didn't think it would make it off the pad, including the FAA.
The FAA knew its recommendations were already implemented when it issued it's report. The FAA process is onerous but not this onerous. What's happening now isn't bureaucracy but politics.
The politics of force first, reason/logic never, is the purpose of bureaucrats. The solution is to abolish coercive politics, replace it with voluntarism and shows the world a humane politics that values reason, rights, choice. This is “striking at the root of the problem”. It’s also necessary for species survival.
That's a very thoughtful comment up to the last sentence.
A+
no sarc
I would argue that the Biden administration’s hammering of Musk on multiple fronts all at once is obviously political.
Or (and I know this will sound crazy) you could abolish the regulations and let the Space X employees make their own informed decisions about what risks to accept.
Most Americans want astronauts to get back to the moon
I don't see any value in it. At least, not as a NASA mission. Someone really needs to explain the purpose and logistics of it to me, it seems like a waste. Going to Mars, obviously, has value, but it's also a much bigger project.
Private rocket services taking people to the moon for space tourism? Sure, okay. I just don't see any public service value in sending more people to the moon.
If you can start manufacturing fuel on the moon it’s game changing for populating the solar system. Also, Tritium mining.
But how is it a gamechanger? Because the logistical network you'd need to put in place on the moon would be overwhelming. No water, no food, no fair, so you'd have to have a constant supply chain of spaceflights just for supplies, and anyone stationed on the moon would be a missed spaceflight from death. And you're having to expend all the fuel necessary to escape earth gravity, fly all the way there, land in lunar gravity, and escape lunar gravity.
Is tritium really that much more valuable than deuterium to make it worth all the logistical expenses that would be involved?
Grow the food, mine or manufacture the water.
I agree NASA shouldn't do it with tax money, but I agree even more that the FAA shouldn't expend tax money opposing private industry accomplishing it.
Grow the food how? You need a large supply of the CHONPS elements to maintain life. Of them, only O, P, and S are on the Moon in any abundance. There are, usefully, various ices on the Moon near the poles, so polar facilities can get H and C. But the Moon has <5 ppm nitrogen with no known concentrated sources.
There's one non-Earth celestial body inside the asteroid belt with large quantities of reasonably-accessible CHONPS elements, and that's Mars. That Mars gives you a near-24-hour day/night cycle for free is a bonus, reducing dependence on grow lights.
Everywhere else requires importing from Earth, importing from Mars, or importing icy bodies from the outer solar system. All of which are doable, but logistically intensive.
Send tanks of low-hydration climate activist slurry? Since the ice is there, it might be a better idea to increase the concentration of the elements not present.
I agree that Mars is a good goal, but the moon seems like a useful stepping stone to get there.
Gravity. Launching from Earth takes a tremendous amount of fuel. If you're launching from the moon or space itself to a deep space destination, you've saved yourself the majority of the fuel expenditure currently required.
There's an old saying in the space biz, "Once you get to earth orbit, you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system.". Getting off earth is half the battle. So, it's to your advantage to start from an off earth location.
It's helium-3, not tritium! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 and https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface ... AND we do NOT yet have the "tech" to harness controlled thermonuclear fusion! So far and so fart, still a pipe dream...
Er, not tritium, helium-3. The stable decay product of tritium.
Or, maybe contribute more so the service you want can be properly funded?
Bureaucrats have "unquenchable thirst"... They can ALWAYS be counted upon, to invent yet MORE forms that MUST be filled out! FOR THE CHILDREN!!!
Those who can't do, teach...
Those who can't teach... Become rent-seeking trolls under the bridge, and forms-devising bureaucrats!
I’m sure Musk and his various companies pay pennies in taxes.
SpaceX has explicitly offered to fund the FAA hiring more people.
Hey, FAA: Light that candle!
If you peel back the layers I'm confident that somewhere, someone in the federal government is attempting to assess the likelihood that Musk may use Starship to smuggle drugs.
Max Scorpio built a launch pad in an empty volcano maybe look for one of those
The company I used to work for quoted a lot of equipment for the Los Angeles facility. They were willing to make large modifications to the buildings at a whim. Dig a hole for the equipment. No problem. Raise the roof? Still no problem. Some things that I assume you could not easily get a permit for in LA county they were willing to do (and did do). But it seems that they get around it no problem. I would not be surprised if Newsom gets involved and starts fining them or raising some noise. Time to poison his rocket business.
This wouldn’t be happening if he hadn’t brought twitter.
Indeed. His decision to tell the disinformation apparatchiks to take a hike has provoked a government storm against every business he owns and runs. He is Fed.gov's enemy #1.
Imagine, if you can, no regulators, no bureaucracy, no law & chaos.
Who will force SpaceX on Mars? Who will burden humanity there?
Imagine, if you can, no one to stop innovation, no frightened immature control freaks to rule over us.
Imagine a world free from superstition, free from political zombies.
Imagine humanity living free from institutional fraud, force, fear.
All we have to do is self-govern, self-defend, live by our nature.
This just means that Musk isn't bribing the right people.
He'll figure it out.