[bpodgursky]

The FAA, more than any technical reason, explains why SpaceX bought two oil rigs to perform oceanic launches.

[GoOnThenDoTell]

Launches from international waters from a US firm will still need FAA approval

[wyqydsyq]

What requires them to get approval from the FAA for something outside the FAA's jurisdiction?

[R0b0t1]

The FAA claims jurisdiction worldwide. Did you not see the case where Musk launched from India because he could not get reasonable US approval and they pitched a fit?

[randyrand]

I recall that but I don’t think that was SpaceX. Some other satellite firm.

[tymekpavel]

It is easy for SpaceX to create a shell company that circumvents this.

[ncallaway]

I don't think that's true.

Many aspects of SpaceX's rockets are covered by ITAR, which puts strict regulations and controls on the exports of many aspects of SpaceX's vehicles.

I imagine exporting the rocket to a non-US based firm would be a much larger bureaucratic hurdle than getting FAA approvals.

[R0b0t1]

ITAR is largely voluntary. I say this having looked at the regulations because at one time I wanted to produce/was producing things that fell under ITAR. In a lot of situations if you say it is not restricted by ITAR then it is not.

This leaves me (and hopefully you) wondering what ITAR actually still accomplishes. I guess federal contracts dictate the use of the ensuing technology? I still see issues with that depending on how IP rights are assigned.

I guess we're waiting on the next PGP-style test of export control laws.

[nickik]

No, people living like to live on the coast is the reason.