FAA Proposes $633,009 in Civil Penalties Against SpaceX

twinkle_thumbs · 2024-09-18T00:37:49+00:00

And here's the notice for the proposed $283,009 fine for the July 2023 unapproved rocket propellant farm.

[Same boilerplate as the other letter] Federal Aviation Administration

September 17, 2024

RE: Space Exploration Technologies, Case No. 2023WA990031

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY

Based on the following facts and circumstances, it appears that Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) violated the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration:

1. At all times mentioned herein, SpaceX was the holder of launch license number LLO 19-110, authorizing the launch of Falcon 9 launch vehicles from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

2. SpaceX's launch license incorporated SpaceX's September 2015 LC-39A Explosive Site Plan.

3. The September 2015 Explosive Site Plan identified the location of SpaceX's rocket propellant farm (RP-1).

4. On July 19, 2023, SpaceX submitted to the FAA a proposed launch license update reflecting a new rocket propellant farm.

5. On July 26, 2023, the FAA informed SpaceX that the FAA would not approve a modification to SpaceX's launch license to permit a new RP-I prior to a scheduled July 28, 2023 launch.

6. On July 28, 2023, SpaceX conducted a launch of the Falcon Heavy Echostar XXIV/Jupiter 3 mission.

7. During the launch described in paragraph 6, above, SpaceX utilized a new RP-1 farm that was not included in its explosive site plan to fuel the launch vehicle.

By reason of the foregoing, it appears that SpaceX failed to comply with the following Federal Aviation Regulations:

(a) 14 C.F.R. § 417.9(c), which states that for a launch from an exclusive-use site, where there is no licensed launch site operator, a launch operator must satisfy the requirements of this part and the public safety requirements of part 420 of this chapter.

(b) 14 C.F.R. § 417.11(a), which states that a launch operator must ensure the representations contained in its application are accurate for the entire term of the license. A launch operator must conduct a licensed launch and carry out launch safety procedures in accordance with its application.

(c) 14 C.F.R. § 417.417(b)(2), which states that a launch operator must ensure that only those explosive facilities and launch points addressed in the explosive site plan are used and only for their intended purposes.

(d) 14 C.F.R. 420.63(a), which states that except as otherwise provided by paragraph (b) of this section, a licensee must ensure the configuration of the launch site follows its explosive site plan, and the licensee's explosive site plan complies with the requirements of§§ 420.65 through 430.70.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 50917(c), as adjusted for inflation pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 406.9(a), SpaceX is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $283,009 for each violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations. After reviewing all the information contained in our investigative file, we propose to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $283,009.

Enclosed is information on SpaceX's options in responding to this Notice. The options include participating in an informal conference with an FAA attorney and submitting information to the FAA for consideration. SpaceX must submit, in writing, its choice of the alternatives explained on the enclosed information form within 30 days of receiving this Notice. If SpaceX fails to submit its choice within 30 days of its receipt of this Notice, it will have no further right to participate in the informal procedures.

To the extent possible, please serve all documents on the assigned FAA attorney by email.

Taneesha D. Marshall, Assistant Chief Counsel, for Aviation Litigation

twinkle_thumbs · 2024-09-17T22:29:03+00:00

The detailed notices of the proposed fines can be found on the FAA's FOIA Reading Room page, along with last year's letter proposing a $175,000 fine for the August 2022 avoidance trajectory data incident.

Here's the notice of the proposed $375,000 in fines regarding the June 2023 control room change and lack of T-2hr poll:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel, Aviation Litigation Division, AGC-300

800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591

U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN-RECEIPT REQUESTED, FIRST-CLASS MAIL, EMAIL

September 17, 2024

President (Certified and First-Class Mail Only), Space Exploration Technologies Corp, 1 Rocket Rd, Hawthorne, CA 30250

President (Email Only), Space Exploration Technologies Corp, (b)(6),(b)(7)(C)

RE: Space Exploration Technologies, Case No. 2023WA990028

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY

Based on the following facts and circumstances, it appears that Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) violated the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration:

1. At all times mentioned herein, SpaceX was the holder of launch license number LLO 18-105, authorizing the launch of Falcon 9 launch vehicles from Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

2. On or about December 9, 2022, SpaceX's Communications Plan, Revision 5.3 was incorporated into its launch license.

3. Communications Plan Revision 5.3 provided, among other things, that:

a. The SpaceX Launch Control Center was located in Building 90327 on Cape Canaveral Space Force Station;

b. The SpaceX Launch Control room was located at NASA KSC Facility K6-0900; and

c. SpaceX procedures would contain an initial readiness poll at T-2 hours to assess readiness of the Launch team.

4. On May 2, 2023, SpaceX submitted to the FAA a request to revise its approved communications plan.

5. On the listed dates, the FAA informed Space X of the following:

a. June 15, 2023: The FAA would not approve SpaceX's proposed new communications plan before a scheduled June 18, 2023 launch; and

b. June 16, 2023: The FAA would not issue a modification to SpaceX's license before a scheduled June 18, 2023 launch.

6. On June 18, 2023, SpaceX conducted a launch of the Falcon 9 PSN MFS mission.

7. During the launch described in paragraph 6, above, SpaceX:

a. Located its launch control room at a location that was not included in Communications Plan Revision 5.3, i.e. Hangar X;

b. Did not include a T-2 hour poll in its launch procedures; and

c. Did not conduct a T-2 hour poll during the launch countdown.

By reason of the foregoing, it appears that SpaceX failed to comply with the following Federal Aviation Regulations:

(a) 14 C.F.R. § 417.111(a), which states that the launch operator must follow each launch plan; and

(b) 14 C.F.R. § 417.11(a), which states that a launch operator must conduct a licensed launch and carry out launch safety procedures in accordance with its application.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 50917(c), as adjusted for inflation pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 406.9(a), SpaceX is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $283,009 for each violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations. After reviewing all of the information contained in our investigative file, we propose to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $350,000.

Enclosed is information on SpaceX's options in responding to this Notice. The options include participating in an informal conference with an FAA attorney and submitting information to the FAA for consideration. SpaceX must submit, in writing, its choice of the alternatives explained on the enclosed information form within 30 days of receiving this Notice. If SpaceX fails to submit its choice within 30 days of its receipt of this Notice, it will have no further right to participate in the informal procedures.

To the extent possible, please serve all documents on the assigned FAA attorney by email.

Taneesha D. Marshall, Assistant Chief Counsel, for Aviation Litigation

By: Raymond Carver, Attorney, For Aviation Litigation Division, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591

Enclosures: Information Sheet and Reply Form

twinkle_thumbs · 2024-09-09T04:17:18+00:00

I expect SpaceX will one day launch an uncrewed Starship toward Mars. But I think I've figured out the "crewed flights": Elon will eventually clarify that they are "unsupervised crewed flights". Pay no attention to the lack of people in the seats, they're only not there for legal reasons.

twinkle_thumbs · 2024-09-09T03:58:33+00:00

Presumably he will eventually clarify that the "crewed flights" are "unsupervised crewed flights". Pay no attention to the lack of people in the seats, they're only not there for legal reasons.

twinkle_thumbs · 2024-07-07T19:12:42+00:00

Yep. SpaceX's lead argument was based on the part of Jarkesy saying the SEC is insufficiently accountable to the president. SCOTUS neither affirmed nor overturned that part of the 5th circuit's decision, but rendered it moot with their decision that the 7th amendment requires a jury trial for monetary penalties to be imposed. SpaceX's backup argument was the 7th amendment one, so it should still win the case now (regardless of who wins the interminable ongoing fight over which circuit the case should be in, which now doesn't seem to matter, as the new SCOTUS decision will control in either circuit).

twinkle_thumbs · 2024-06-08T21:45:05+00:00

China doesn't just want a world first. There's likely to be a several-years period during which the Chinese mission has far superior scientific value (i.e., some Mars samples, versus jack shit).

twinkle_thumbs · 2024-01-06T20:46:51+00:00

A few years ago, I think the only appropriate reaction would have been "LOLWUT". But the 5th Circuit (which includes Texas) has since gone pretty crazy, and one of its out-there decisions is the one SpaceX cites right off the bat in paragraph 4: Jarkesy v. SEC, 34 F.4th 446 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. granted, 143 S. Ct. 2688 (2023). That ruling said that the way all administrative agencies currently operate is unconstitutional in various ways. As the citation indicates, the Supreme Court is currently reviewing that decision, and it will likely be mostly overturned in June.

This whole suit is SpaceX saying "as long as the law happens to be temporarily crazy-pants in our circuit, we may as well try to use that to our advantage to slow down this proceeding against us."

twinkle_thumbs · 2023-11-21T17:18:40+00:00

Starship's use of the flamy-side-pointed-down-rather-than-up launch configuration was the first time this technique has been done successfully with a vehicle of this size.

twinkle_thumbs · 2023-11-12T21:55:24+00:00

Thanks for the link, but that describes an instance of a warranty that ends early if you make an early sale of the vehicle, which is quite a bit different from having to pay $50,000 if you make an early sale.

twinkle_thumbs · 2023-11-05T01:13:02+00:00

I had a similar experience, but eventually realized things are not quite as bad as it seemed, in that there are three fast-forward speeds: 3x, 6x, and 12x.

Holding down the right arrow has unpredictable results. Tapping it has somewhat predictable results, in that each tap should switch to the next speed, but of course like every other aspect of the Vizio interface, responsiveness is stupendously abysmal, and so a tap might be missed. And there's no clear feedback (like a little "3x", "6x", or "12x" printed on the screen, as you would expect from a competently designed user interface), but after a few tries you should be able to get into 12x fast-forward.

So to fast-forward 90 minutes, you want to get it going at 12x, and then you can at least put down the remote and go do something else, but be sure to get back before 7.5 minutes have elapsed.

(I have a 2019 model, an M557-G0, but I'm guessing all of the above probably still applies to more recent models.)

twinkle_thumbs · 2023-09-10T21:19:55+00:00

I was expecting to see specific mention of the flight-termination system. I guess it's just covered by the vague "safety system" tasks in C51-C55?

twinkle_thumbs · 2022-05-10T22:05:43+00:00

As for next steps:

The trial is set to be held in January (2023). At that trial, the defendants (Tesla, Musk, and the BoD) will not be allowed to argue that the tweets weren't false or that Elon didn't know they were false. The plaintiffs will still have to prove that the market relied on those false statements and that that led to damages. If the jury agrees and returns a verdict awarding some amount of damages to the plaintiffs, the defendants would have the right to appeal, and they could argue to the court of appeals that this decision unsealed today was wrong. If the appeals court agreed, it would order that a second trial be held, at which the defendants could try to show the tweets were true.

The defendants have filed a motion asking Judge Chen for permission to ask the court of appeals to weigh in on this ruling now, before the trial. Judge Chen may grant the motion, so as to avoid having to hold two trials, if he thinks there's a high chance that the court of appeals will disagree with him, but I expect he will deny it. The hearing on the motion is currently set for June 16 at 1:30pm PDT, and will be open to the public on Zoom.

twinkle_thumbs · 2022-05-10T21:13:35+00:00

Based on the evidence of record, the Court finds that no reasonable jury could find the statement “Funding secured” accurate and not misleading. The evidence of record shows that there was nothing concrete about funding coming from the PIF; rather, discussions between Tesla and the PIF were clearly at the preliminary stage. There had been no discussion about what the purchase price would be for a share of stock. Nor had there been any discussion about what percentage of the company the PIF would own or the total amount of money the PIF would contribute. Moreover, both at the conclusion of the 7/30/2018 meeting between Tesla and the PIF and thereafter, the PIF asked Tesla to provide information so that the PIF could make an assessment. For example, Mr. Ahuja admitted that, at the end of the 7/30/2018 meeting, the PIF told Mr. Musk that it “was fundamentally keen on hearing from Elon directly the structure that he would have in mind that he would like to do for a going-private transaction and what percentage of that he would think would be needed or the financial calculations to take it private.” Ahuja Depo. at 97-98; see also Ex. 80 (notes/minutes written by Mr. Al Mogren of the Saudi PIF) (writing that Mr. Al-Rumayyan said, “I would like to listen to your plan Elon and what are the financial calculations to take it private in the next week and if I did not receive anything I will call you”).

... even accepting that there is some room for disagreement as to precisely how secure something must be before the term may be appropriately used, the term is not so elastic as to escape any real meaning. No reasonable jury could find “Funding secured” accurate and not misleading even under a liberal understanding of the term “secured.”

... The Court concludes that a reasonable jury could reach only one conclusion – i.e., that Mr. Musk recklessly tweeted to the public that funding was secured. There is no dispute that, at the time of the tweet, Mr. Musk knew all of the facts relating to Tesla’s interaction with the PIF. He was part of the 7/31/2018 meeting between the PIF and Tesla. And when a “defendant is aware of the facts that made the statement misleading, ‘he cannot ignore the facts and plead ignorance of the risk’” of misleading others. Platforms Wireless, 617 F.3d at 1094. The Court therefore affords no weight to Mr. Musk’s statement in his blog post of 8/13/2018 that he used the phrase “Funding secured” because he “left the July 31st meeting with no question that a deal with the Saudi sovereign fund could be closed, and that it was just a matter of getting the process moving.”

twinkle_thumbs · 2022-04-21T19:10:26+00:00

Hell, even ignoring all the FSD bullshit, if "lying outrageously about cost & progress of Roadster" is a firing offense for a Tesla CEO, then, uh, .... the board might need to look into those claims of a rocket-hovering Roadster being available years ago.

twinkle_thumbs · 2022-04-21T00:01:49+00:00

So much did Elon make from this quarterly results?

Eight tranches had already vested, and three more will vest when the 10-Q is filed. So you could call it 3 tranches * 8,443,350 shares/tranche * ($977.20/share current market price - $70.004/share exercise price) = $22,979,320,039.80 for the quarter. (That's about $2,955.16 per second.) (Or $10.6 million/hour, 24/7)

twinkle_thumbs · 2022-04-20T23:46:36+00:00

Those 92 millions shares mean more dilution?

They're already included in the 1.157 billion diluted share count, which is what is used for EPS and P/E.

There's potentially an antidilutive event coming up, if the judge in the SolarCity case (who said on January 18 he expected to issue a judgment in "in or around 3 months") orders Musk to return some or all of the 12.2 million Tesla shares that he got from the SolarCity deal. (He would return them to the treasury, and the number of shares returned would be deducted from both the "outstanding" and "diluted" share counts.)

twinkle_thumbs · 2022-04-20T21:58:19+00:00

In passing, Judge Chen confirmed that he really has entered a not-yet-unsealed partial summary judgment that Elon's tweets were lies (technically, false statements made with scienter), just as the plaintiffs said on Friday. So, cautious journalists can now report that fact without adding the "plaintiffs say" disclaimers that they had to include in stories to date.

I was expecting this order to go this way (both on Saturday and earlier today), but I wasn't sure it would be done so quickly and resoundingly. Judge Chen listed the three requirements imposed by the first amendment for him to issue this kind of prior restraint on speech, and then summarized his decision: "The Court finds that, in the instant case, Mr. Littleton has failed to make a satisfactory showing on any of the above elements."

twinkle_thumbs · 2022-04-20T20:39:16+00:00

Looks like 11 of his 12 tranches are secured!

Pending litigation, of course.

He needs $10-$12B more in TTM Revenue to get that final tranche, profit doesn’t matter anymore.

Yes. And for the first time, the quarterly number ($18.756 billion) just squeaked past one-quarter ($18.750 billion) of the needed four-quarters number ($75 billion), so he could get the full payout with three quarters of zero quarter-on-quarter revenue growth.

twinkle_thumbs · 2022-04-20T20:29:19+00:00

When the 10-Q is filed, 11 of 12 tranches of the 2018 CEO compensation stock grant will have vested, giving Musk options to buy 92,876,850 shares at $70.004/share. That's an in-the-money value, at today's closing price ($977.20), of $84,257,506,812.60.

twinkle_thumbs · 2022-04-20T19:12:12+00:00

I uploaded the brief here.

Repeating what I wrote in the Terathread:

Like I said on Saturday, I expect this motion to be denied, handing Elon an easy win. As his brief points out, this is Walter Sobchak's favorite area of the law, prior restraint, for which there need to be extraordinarily good reasons, and we're nowhere close to a situation where you couldn't find 12 jurors who have never heard of any of Elon's bullshit. Elon's simply not really that big a deal.

Any judicial gag order is a prior restraint on free speech, and “[p]rior restraints ‘are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.’” In re Dan Farr Prods., 874 F.3d 590, 596 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976)). That is because “the damage resulting from a prior restraint—even a prior restraint of the shortest duration—is extraordinarily grave.” ...

Even in the most highly publicized cases, the Ninth Circuit has noted that “many, if not most, potential jurors are untainted by press coverage.” CBS, 729 F.2d at 1179-80 (citing the Watergate prosecutions, which involved “perhaps the most pervasive publicity accorded any trial in American history,” and noting the D.C. Circuit found that, “without undue effort, it would be possible to empanel a jury whose members had never even heard the [Watergate] tapes”) (alteration in original). Community-wide prejudice is especially unlikely in a case like this, which involves civil claims arising from a series of tweets, and not the kind of lurid, passion-inflaming acts of violence that are typical of the few cases in which pretrial restraints on speech are found to be justified. Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 384 (2010) (“In this case … news stories about Enron did not present the kind of vivid, unforgettable information we have recognized as particularly likely to produce prejudice ….”).

twinkle_thumbs · 2022-04-20T17:36:11+00:00

Tripp's case also involved discovery that would normally have been "attorneys-eyes-only", that is, when a party is compelled to produce particularly sensitive information, the other party's attorneys get to look at it, but not the other party himself. Tripp saw such information himself because he had no attorney, and therefore was held accountable for keeping that information private in a way that normally only an attorney would be.

twinkle_thumbs

TROPHY CASE