3 ms·

Do you seriously think they wouldn't pay for the additional staff directly out of pocket if they were allowed to? Seems like an obvious and easy win as far as b

Do you seriously think they wouldn't pay for the additional staff directly out of pocket if they were allowed to? Seems like an obvious and easy win as far as business investments go.

boxed 3y ago
Regulatory capture is a danger there. But yea, the article says they suggested it at least as an interim solution.
nickthegreek 3y ago
So you want the 3rd party agency responsible for review to be paid for by the company that wants the review...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > you want the 3rd party agency responsible for review to be paid for by the company that wants the review No, they're saying that the not "urging congress to raise their taxes" take is a straw man.
  - wenebego 3y ago
    Okay so if you dont want either of those things, where does the money come from?
    - hef19898 3y ago
      The tax payer, Musk cannot be bothered either way with all the world saving stuff he does.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > if you dont want either of those things, where does the money come from? I don't see a problem with higher use fees for frequent funding new hires. I can't imagine SpaceX would, either. Plenty of regulators charge application fees without getting compromised.
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      Again, this is a strawman. No one should engage with this question.
- hersko 3y ago
  That's only for the pharmaceutical industry.
- hedora 3y ago
  They could charge $20M for each application round. That'd provide enough staff. The agency would have a financial motivation to incorrectly reject applications, which is better than having a financial motivation to rubber-stamp them. (Both things are bad, but incorrect reject is slightly better.)
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    RocketLab charges ~$7M per launch.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  I don't know how the FAA operates, but that's a perfectly reasonable model. They are still government employees. Where the government takes the money from has little impact on their goals.

Do you seriously think they wouldn't pay for the additional staff directly out of pocket if they were allowed to? Seems like an obvious and easy win as far as business investments go.

boxed 3y ago

Regulatory capture is a danger there. But yea, the article says they suggested it at least as an interim solution.

nickthegreek 3y ago

So you want the 3rd party agency responsible for review to be paid for by the company that wants the review...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> you want the 3rd party agency responsible for review to be paid for by the company that wants the review No, they're saying that the not "urging congress to raise their taxes" take is a straw man.
- wenebego 3y ago
  Okay so if you dont want either of those things, where does the money come from?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The tax payer, Musk cannot be bothered either way with all the world saving stuff he does.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > if you dont want either of those things, where does the money come from? I don't see a problem with higher use fees for frequent funding new hires. I can't imagine SpaceX would, either. Plenty of regulators charge application fees without getting compromised.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Again, this is a strawman. No one should engage with this question.
hersko 3y ago
That's only for the pharmaceutical industry.
hedora 3y ago
They could charge $20M for each application round. That'd provide enough staff. The agency would have a financial motivation to incorrectly reject applications, which is better than having a financial motivation to rubber-stamp them. (Both things are bad, but incorrect reject is slightly better.)
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  RocketLab charges ~$7M per launch.
marcosdumay 3y ago
I don't know how the FAA operates, but that's a perfectly reasonable model. They are still government employees. Where the government takes the money from has little impact on their goals.