Bob Zimmerman thinks so.
I supposed it’s possible, but NASA needs it to fly. Nelson could probably pressure Biden if that were really happening.
[Update a while later]
Starship is stacked and ready for launch.
Except for the license.
14 thoughts on “Is The White House Holding Up The Starship Test Flight?”
Comments are closed.
If some of the nutbars commenting on the Ars article you linked to are simpatico with advisers in the White House, Zimmerman might be right.
NASA needs Falcon 9 to fly. It may have some notions about using Starship, but that’s all much further down the road, and is unlikely to produce any sense of urgency now.
…and the USAF/USSC …and because of that slow walking works both ways…
I’m not as certain as Bob Z is. But I’m not nearly as experienced as he is on these matters. I will defer to him on this issue
I suppose if this becomes “a thing”, I’m sure it’s something the House Republicans will take a look at.
This may or may not be an Administration slow-roll. Given that the SEC has been unleashed on Elon for completely bulls**t [1] reasons, probably as retribution for his having taken Twitter away from them, I could see a pattern.
However, the destruct problem from the first orbital attempt was real, and needs to be fixed. IMHO, it was due to use of inappropriate, underpowered ordnance. The autonomous flight safety system worked fine; they just used a destruct charge that couldn’t do the job.
The only two people in AST who knew anything about ordnance were Wynn Aung and me, and we both retired about the same time. Wynn’s loss was particularly bad, since he was a genuine (self-taught) expert, while I just had a lot of practical (not “by the book”) experience. Wynn had both, and ordnance is one of those fields where knowledge of “the book” is genuinely helpful. I don’t know that anyone has taken either of our places. But Kelvin Coleman, the AST AA, will make the best decision possible with what he has at his disposal. (Full disclosure: Kelvin and I have been good friends for 25 years. He’s a straight-shooter.)
If there is external pressure on AST from above, then it’s anyone’s guess when the license will be issued. But there’s a statutory requirement on the time to issue a license, and I’m sure that Kelvin will do his utmost to meet that.
[1] bullshit
…and I certainly *will* defer to your experience. I have a similar “feeling” that FAA wants to throughly review the changes made to the flight termination system.
So far, I’ve only heard praise from Elon concerning their “partnership” with the FAA. So I guess we’ll see.
What would it take to get you out of retirement?
A whole lot more than anyone would be willing to pay. But thanks for the compliment
Mike,
My feeling is that while external pressure on AST is possible, the recent message from Elon vs. the one from FAA/AST is far more likely an expression of the “kabuki dance” each ‘side’ feels obligated to go through at important junctures.
Which is not to say that they are not each doing things that are advisable to do.
Elon also has the DOJ after him for – get this – not hiring illegal aliens and instead complying with ITAR. Yeah, there’s a pattern, and it’s got a lot to do with Twitter not censoring half the population.
Don’t forget the ADL.
And worse of all the Ukrainians, who I hear are a bunch of vengeance mad Vikings.
Your two links to totally unbiased stories go to the same website. Was that intentional?
Thanks David , Yes I meant to link to a Telenko twitter thread , he has several on the same canard, different than the original one . Here found the original one
What I thought that what we do around here, link to totally unbiased opinion pieces in following the lead of our host of course. Though outside the headline and last 2 paragraph and a sentence 4th in last paragraph, it was pretty dry and stuck to the facts. Better than most Glenn Greenwald’s, John Solomon’s, Kurt S or Am G written diarrhea that gets linked around here.
Could be worse , the TNR piece could have noted that the warships that didn’t get attacked then went on to launch missiles into Ukrainian cities and killed children then that would be bias.
FAA just put it on indefinite hold. However, I’m not sure the “63 corrective actions” is as alarming as the news suggests. After every shuttle flight, NASA reviewed all the anomalies and ones critical to safe flight had to show “corrective action” at the next certification of flight readiness. Obviously, not all the corrective actions taken were sufficient to prevent Challenger or Columbia, but action was taken. Further, SpaceX has already taken some of the actions listed, such as “redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness”.
Still, some of the listed actions seem like implementation of the bureaucratic culture that has hampered NASA exploration such as “application of additional change control practices”. What’s the hurdle for “additional”? Any? Who validates the “change control practices” as being sufficient? The FAA? It was a test that was expected to fail, and the data collected was intended to identify changes to be made. So, what control do you want of those changes?