3 ms·

Hilarious, we used to throw SRBs from the space shuttle in the ocean repeatedly. I do agree, there seems to be a ton of extra scrutiny on SpaceX for no apparen

Hilarious, we used to throw SRBs from the space shuttle in the ocean repeatedly. I do agree, there seems to be a ton of extra scrutiny on SpaceX for no apparent reason. We can only speculate and I'm sure HNers have a ton of theories.

jandrese 2y ago
Corporate culture of "move fast and break things" probably gets regulator's panties in a bunch. SpaceX is doing development the right way, planning for multiple failed launches and attempting to learn as much as possible from each one as it develops the final product. This sort of rapid prototyping is orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to perfectly engineer everything right from the start. Downside is increased risk of unintended consequences on the initial test launches.
- GuB-42 2y ago
  > Downside is increased risk of unintended consequences on the initial test launches. And regulatory agencies are here to make sure these "unintended consequences" won't damage more than the company finances. Regulators don't care about rockets exploding, as long as the company can show that they have taken the necessary steps to make sure no one is hurt when it happens, it includes the environment. "Move fast and break things" is fine if your things break. It is not fine if my things break.
seanhunter 2y ago
People used to smoke on airplanes. Regulations (and the approach taken by regulators to enforcement) change over time.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  There is a Space Race 2.0 with China on, though. The democratic world shouldn't lose that race just because of unbridled bureaucracy.
  - leptons 2y ago
    I don't think letting the richest man in the world do whatever he wants (especially if he's proven to be a bit reckless) is worth winning any race. And it isn't even "a race", there is no actual finish line. China and the US can both be in space and even both go to the moon separately, and both can have perceived wins from that.
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      Reasonable people can disagree on this, but I don't think that resentment towards the richest man in the world or a perceived need to "put him in his place" is worth self-sabotaging your civilization's position on something as important as space. Americans may not feel it as keenly, but here in Central Europe, we have a visceral feeling that a new period of wars is upon us. Ukraine, the Near East, Taiwan: everything converging like back in 1938-9. Authoritarians all over the world feel emboldened. And, at the same time, the West is weaker than it was, not least because of loss of industrial capacity. Space is one of the few industries where we still command some advantage, and 2/3rds of that advantage is concentrated in SpaceX. Yeah, I don't think that sacrificing that advantage to personal dislike of Musk is worth it. Even though I agree that he is obnoxious.
      - leptons 2y ago
        >is worth self-sabotaging your civilization's position on something as important as space. And yet we can't really be sure that Musk has anything but self interest involved. He's gone all-in on right-wing climate denying politicians. I honestly don't really care what his aspirations are for life on Mars if he's willfully helping to destroy this planet just so he can save some money on his taxes, or whatever short-term goal he thinks supporting right-wing politicians will get him.
        mensetmanusman 2y ago
        We can’t be sure of anything can we?
        2y ago
- Dig1t 2y ago
  I think what you mean to say is that regulations GROW over time. If you only add regulations but never remove them, eventually you end up with a society where most things are illegal and the only people who can get anything done are wealthy enough to afford to deal with years-long bureaucratic processes.

jandrese 2y ago

Corporate culture of "move fast and break things" probably gets regulator's panties in a bunch. SpaceX is doing development the right way, planning for multiple failed launches and attempting to learn as much as possible from each one as it develops the final product. This sort of rapid prototyping is orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to perfectly engineer everything right from the start. Downside is increased risk of unintended consequences on the initial test launches.

GuB-42 2y ago
> Downside is increased risk of unintended consequences on the initial test launches. And regulatory agencies are here to make sure these "unintended consequences" won't damage more than the company finances. Regulators don't care about rockets exploding, as long as the company can show that they have taken the necessary steps to make sure no one is hurt when it happens, it includes the environment. "Move fast and break things" is fine if your things break. It is not fine if my things break.

seanhunter 2y ago

People used to smoke on airplanes. Regulations (and the approach taken by regulators to enforcement) change over time.

inglor_cz 2y ago
There is a Space Race 2.0 with China on, though. The democratic world shouldn't lose that race just because of unbridled bureaucracy.
- leptons 2y ago
  I don't think letting the richest man in the world do whatever he wants (especially if he's proven to be a bit reckless) is worth winning any race. And it isn't even "a race", there is no actual finish line. China and the US can both be in space and even both go to the moon separately, and both can have perceived wins from that.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    Reasonable people can disagree on this, but I don't think that resentment towards the richest man in the world or a perceived need to "put him in his place" is worth self-sabotaging your civilization's position on something as important as space. Americans may not feel it as keenly, but here in Central Europe, we have a visceral feeling that a new period of wars is upon us. Ukraine, the Near East, Taiwan: everything converging like back in 1938-9. Authoritarians all over the world feel emboldened. And, at the same time, the West is weaker than it was, not least because of loss of industrial capacity. Space is one of the few industries where we still command some advantage, and 2/3rds of that advantage is concentrated in SpaceX. Yeah, I don't think that sacrificing that advantage to personal dislike of Musk is worth it. Even though I agree that he is obnoxious.
    - leptons 2y ago
      >is worth self-sabotaging your civilization's position on something as important as space. And yet we can't really be sure that Musk has anything but self interest involved. He's gone all-in on right-wing climate denying politicians. I honestly don't really care what his aspirations are for life on Mars if he's willfully helping to destroy this planet just so he can save some money on his taxes, or whatever short-term goal he thinks supporting right-wing politicians will get him.
      - mensetmanusman 2y ago
        We can’t be sure of anything can we?
      - 2y ago
Dig1t 2y ago
I think what you mean to say is that regulations GROW over time. If you only add regulations but never remove them, eventually you end up with a society where most things are illegal and the only people who can get anything done are wealthy enough to afford to deal with years-long bureaucratic processes.