SpaceX is also pushing space regulators to their limits with Falcon 9. They launch the majority of mass to orbit in the USA by far so they are likely the main customer getting their licenses.
It does seem like it’d behove the FAA to scale up operations a bit.
Won’t help their qualms with Fish & Wildlife though. Unfortunately they chose to build on a wetland.
Maybe, you know, don’t massively fuck up. When your last test accidentally sent huge boulders flying into the ocean, you can expect more scrutiny. You can expect not getting away with “trust me bro”.
Considering this test and most conventional rocket launchers ultimately result in the majority of the space craft lost to the ocean by design, some concrete has pretty much zero ecological issues. It was within the blast zone so was not a safety issue either.
The main takeaway is that this was outside of the expected parameters. As such it is looked at closely. As it should be. It is not some catastrophic event in any way no more so than rockets that have blown up on the pad. Of which has happened many times for NASA.
That launch was designed to be a full destructive test from the get go. Had they separated properly, it would have been a near perfect test. Truthfully the biggest concern was that the self destruct was delayed for slightly longer than expected. The next flight will also be a full destructive test as well. Nothing wrong with that.
INB4 “that was part of the test” even though it was absolutely not part of it and was completely ignored warnings from engineering staff
It was not completely ignored. Modeling is so unpredictable with these kinds of uneven forces that no engineer could predict with certainty one way or another. There was no danger to people and concrete is not some particularly hard material to clean up. All the debris was contained within the blast zone they designated. One piece hit a vehicle that was within that zone but no people were in that zone by design.
