There are a couple of major reasons the FAA is involved:
1. Fuel-air explosions at ground level can injure people or destroy property (even kilometers away)
2. Rockets on unplanned trajectories can ruin people's day
3. Lots of fuel is toxic, we need to mitigate this.
Basically someone has to walk through all the worst case scenarios and ensure that everyone (and nature) remains safe or as safe as it is possible to be.
Toxicity and polluting aspects of Rockets is of a negligible concern, Everyday Astronaut (Youtube fame) gets this so often that he did an entire hour long video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4VHfmiwuv4
> Rockets on unplanned trajectories can ruin people's day
So the FAA should hand off regulation of one particular rocket to a different agency because it is not dangerous to the public in one particular aspect? What if they decide to use hydrazine in the maneuvering thrusters? Then it should be handed back?
1. Fuel-air explosions at ground level can injure people or destroy property (even kilometers away)
2. Rockets on unplanned trajectories can ruin people's day
3. Lots of fuel is toxic, we need to mitigate this.
Basically someone has to walk through all the worst case scenarios and ensure that everyone (and nature) remains safe or as safe as it is possible to be.
reply