5 ms·

Note that this launch has been ready to go for weeks and the FAA were stalling SpaceX. Elon joked that it's easier to build self landing rockets than push paper

Note that this launch has been ready to go for weeks and the FAA were stalling SpaceX. Elon joked that it's easier to build self landing rockets than push papers through the FAA. I really hope if Trump wins he guts that regulatory body.

Renaud 2y ago
To quote user rvnx: > SpaceX provided information about the flight profile and its impact only in mid-August to FAA. [...] > According to 50 CFR § 402.13, the other agencies have 60 days to give back their answers to the FAA. > 15 August + 60 days = now. You don't send a rocket without some sort of due diligence in terms of impact. Nobody likes bureaucracy, but I don't see how we're going to make the world a better place for everyone by letting billionaires basically do whatever they want with their toys without checks.
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  Sure, but its just not "billionaires" that need to be checked. Sometimes the checkers need some checking as well... "California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches" (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-musk-spacex-0018337 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-m...) Whether you like Elon Musk or his politics... or not I hope you can see that these actions demonstrate the danger of an overly powerful regulatory body. California Costal Commission members acting in their regulatory capacity while citing Musk's politics is out of line, abusive of their power, and not consistent with guarantees of freedom of expression or the democratic process. You don't win against MAGA or Trump by becoming them... and if you try to beat Trump at his own game... you aren't any damn better.
  - philipwhiuk 2y ago
    1. It's not clear the California Costal Commission actually have veto over federal land. Federal land ultimately is not within the power of the state to regulate. So they might be powerless. 2. The federal land is aimed at launches for national defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions to mostly server commercial interests fits into this mandate 3. They actually okay'd 36 just not the full 50 - still an increase. 4. There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current rate.
    - sbuttgereit 2y ago
      > It's not clear the California Costal Commission actually have veto over federal land. Federal land ultimately is not within the power of the state to regulate. So they might be powerless. > The federal land is aimed at launches for national defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions to mostly server commercial interests fits into this mandate "'I do believe that the Space Force has failed to establish that SpaceX is a part of the federal government, part of our defense,' said Commissioner Dayna Bochco." OK, sure let's accept that assertion... but that's besides the point: should the commissioners be deciding these matters on the basis of their legally appointed areas of regulatory oversight or on their broader political sensitivities? If we're really saying its OK for regulatory bodies with a specific area of protection/oversight to express the agendas of constituencies outside of that concern, or allow commissioners to simply make enforcement actions based broadly on their own personal preferences rather than interpretation of laws and establish regulations, such as labor relations, "bad antics", and presidential elections... what have we really become and what is the point of the regulatory body? In the end, I think the commissioner quoted above is simply making a shallow rationalization. Moreover, why would a federal agency seek a state commission approval if it's not actually required? Doing so would just be asking for a political firestorm: there are incentives for the state to show they aren't beholden to the feds and the feds would simply be inviting controversy in cases where the state told them "no" and they went ahead anyway. You can see this in the article where the commission says Space Force disrespected them. Why opt into that kind of low-win scenario if you don't have to? > There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current rate. How is this in the purview of a commission that is ostensibly created to protect the coastal environment and things like public access to beaches? This is why I am deeply suspicious of government: I'm given reason to be based on their actions and motivations. Who knows, maybe someday we'll normalize this deviance of regulatory purpose and our laws so much that maybe I'll be denied my next driver's license renewal for having said these things.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - kiba 2y ago
    Based on this comment alone, Elon Musk's politics should have nothing to do with their rejection of SpaceX launches.
- concordDance 2y ago
  60 days per change is really pretty slow when you want to iterate quickly. It's probably worthwhile to figure out if we can speed that up. Perhaps by letting SpaceX pay a expedite fee (say, 2x the salary costs of the beurocracy employees who would look at it) to get it looked at faster?
  - FredPret 2y ago
    That incentivizes the FAA to hire an army of pencil pushers and take even longer to approve things
  - chasd00 2y ago
    It’s not like there’s a line around the corner for launch licenses. The fee should be $0 and it should take two weeks tops. Taxes fund the FAA not application fees.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  > t I don't see how we're going to make the world a better place for everyone by letting billionaires basically do whatever they want with their toys without checks There is legal recourse to get people to pay for real damages — civil penalties. This is used all the time. Perhaps too often, but that's a different conversation. SpaceX would be perfectly happy to pay penalties proportionate to the real damage the FWS is worrying about — literally, the rocket landing on a whale, which has approximately a 0% probability. But they aren't allowed to take that (nonexistent) risk and then pay for anything that went wrong.
  - sumedh 2y ago
    > There is legal recourse to get people to pay for real damages — civil penalties. Musk has the money to take any case to the Supreme Court, the court is controlled by Trump who is friends with Elon now. Any case against Elon will probably get thrown out or ruled in Elon's favour.
    - bpodgursky 2y ago
      If Elon can buy the Supreme Court, why can't he buy a mid-level Fish and Wildlife employee to expedite the FAA review? That would be cheaper and less illegal, you'd think it'd be the first choice. Money goes less far than you think.
      - sumedh 2y ago
        Why do you think Elon can buy the Supreme Court. I am not making that argument you are.
- kortilla 2y ago
  60 days is already sheer stupidity but the FAA was also quoting November before, well past the 60 day time. It should be a short 5 business day window where other agencies can quickly check to see if they might care and file to expand to 60 if they think it needs a review. Default hold open of 60 days just in case is purely anti progress reactionary conservatism.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  It's important to consider the broader implications of prolonged delays. They delay the potential benefits that these advancements could bring to society, for example in improved global communications, access to more natural resources in extraterrestrial sites, and the acquisition of more scientific knowledge through massively greater space exploration. The cumulative effect of these delays will undoubtedlu outweigh the incremental safety benefits they provide. Each 30 days delayed sets back progress that will help address global challenges or catalyze economic growth through new industries and technologies. And really, there is almost no downside to weigh faster approvals against. The checks you mention are already there, in the form of the deterrent effect of the threat of fines and lawsuits if they screw up. The checks should not come from centralized gatekeepers holding up progress by massively slowing the rate of iteration/experimentation. Billionaires played a major part in the expansion of railroads, factories and the telegraph network in the 19th century. They played a major role in the expansion of private automobiles, the passenger plane fleet, and telecommunication networks, and the explosion of everyday consumer products, in the 20th century. It is absolutely no surprise that they're now playing a leading role in pushing rocket technology forward, and the fact that they are shouldn't be used an excuse for obviously excessive restrictions on this enormously promising technology.

Renaud 2y ago

To quote user rvnx: > SpaceX provided information about the flight profile and its impact only in mid-August to FAA. [...] > According to 50 CFR § 402.13, the other agencies have 60 days to give back their answers to the FAA. > 15 August + 60 days = now. You don't send a rocket without some sort of due diligence in terms of impact. Nobody likes bureaucracy, but I don't see how we're going to make the world a better place for everyone by letting billionaires basically do whatever they want with their toys without checks.

sbuttgereit 2y ago
Sure, but its just not "billionaires" that need to be checked. Sometimes the checkers need some checking as well... "California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches" (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-musk-spacex-0018337 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-m...) Whether you like Elon Musk or his politics... or not I hope you can see that these actions demonstrate the danger of an overly powerful regulatory body. California Costal Commission members acting in their regulatory capacity while citing Musk's politics is out of line, abusive of their power, and not consistent with guarantees of freedom of expression or the democratic process. You don't win against MAGA or Trump by becoming them... and if you try to beat Trump at his own game... you aren't any damn better.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  1. It's not clear the California Costal Commission actually have veto over federal land. Federal land ultimately is not within the power of the state to regulate. So they might be powerless. 2. The federal land is aimed at launches for national defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions to mostly server commercial interests fits into this mandate 3. They actually okay'd 36 just not the full 50 - still an increase. 4. There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current rate.
  - sbuttgereit 2y ago
    > It's not clear the California Costal Commission actually have veto over federal land. Federal land ultimately is not within the power of the state to regulate. So they might be powerless. > The federal land is aimed at launches for national defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions to mostly server commercial interests fits into this mandate "'I do believe that the Space Force has failed to establish that SpaceX is a part of the federal government, part of our defense,' said Commissioner Dayna Bochco." OK, sure let's accept that assertion... but that's besides the point: should the commissioners be deciding these matters on the basis of their legally appointed areas of regulatory oversight or on their broader political sensitivities? If we're really saying its OK for regulatory bodies with a specific area of protection/oversight to express the agendas of constituencies outside of that concern, or allow commissioners to simply make enforcement actions based broadly on their own personal preferences rather than interpretation of laws and establish regulations, such as labor relations, "bad antics", and presidential elections... what have we really become and what is the point of the regulatory body? In the end, I think the commissioner quoted above is simply making a shallow rationalization. Moreover, why would a federal agency seek a state commission approval if it's not actually required? Doing so would just be asking for a political firestorm: there are incentives for the state to show they aren't beholden to the feds and the feds would simply be inviting controversy in cases where the state told them "no" and they went ahead anyway. You can see this in the article where the commission says Space Force disrespected them. Why opt into that kind of low-win scenario if you don't have to? > There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current rate. How is this in the purview of a commission that is ostensibly created to protect the coastal environment and things like public access to beaches? This is why I am deeply suspicious of government: I'm given reason to be based on their actions and motivations. Who knows, maybe someday we'll normalize this deviance of regulatory purpose and our laws so much that maybe I'll be denied my next driver's license renewal for having said these things.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- kiba 2y ago
  Based on this comment alone, Elon Musk's politics should have nothing to do with their rejection of SpaceX launches.
concordDance 2y ago
60 days per change is really pretty slow when you want to iterate quickly. It's probably worthwhile to figure out if we can speed that up. Perhaps by letting SpaceX pay a expedite fee (say, 2x the salary costs of the beurocracy employees who would look at it) to get it looked at faster?
- FredPret 2y ago
  That incentivizes the FAA to hire an army of pencil pushers and take even longer to approve things
- chasd00 2y ago
  It’s not like there’s a line around the corner for launch licenses. The fee should be $0 and it should take two weeks tops. Taxes fund the FAA not application fees.
bpodgursky 2y ago
> t I don't see how we're going to make the world a better place for everyone by letting billionaires basically do whatever they want with their toys without checks There is legal recourse to get people to pay for real damages — civil penalties. This is used all the time. Perhaps too often, but that's a different conversation. SpaceX would be perfectly happy to pay penalties proportionate to the real damage the FWS is worrying about — literally, the rocket landing on a whale, which has approximately a 0% probability. But they aren't allowed to take that (nonexistent) risk and then pay for anything that went wrong.
- sumedh 2y ago
  > There is legal recourse to get people to pay for real damages — civil penalties. Musk has the money to take any case to the Supreme Court, the court is controlled by Trump who is friends with Elon now. Any case against Elon will probably get thrown out or ruled in Elon's favour.
  - bpodgursky 2y ago
    If Elon can buy the Supreme Court, why can't he buy a mid-level Fish and Wildlife employee to expedite the FAA review? That would be cheaper and less illegal, you'd think it'd be the first choice. Money goes less far than you think.
    - sumedh 2y ago
      Why do you think Elon can buy the Supreme Court. I am not making that argument you are.
kortilla 2y ago
60 days is already sheer stupidity but the FAA was also quoting November before, well past the 60 day time. It should be a short 5 business day window where other agencies can quickly check to see if they might care and file to expand to 60 if they think it needs a review. Default hold open of 60 days just in case is purely anti progress reactionary conservatism.
ETH_start 2y ago
It's important to consider the broader implications of prolonged delays. They delay the potential benefits that these advancements could bring to society, for example in improved global communications, access to more natural resources in extraterrestrial sites, and the acquisition of more scientific knowledge through massively greater space exploration. The cumulative effect of these delays will undoubtedlu outweigh the incremental safety benefits they provide. Each 30 days delayed sets back progress that will help address global challenges or catalyze economic growth through new industries and technologies. And really, there is almost no downside to weigh faster approvals against. The checks you mention are already there, in the form of the deterrent effect of the threat of fines and lawsuits if they screw up. The checks should not come from centralized gatekeepers holding up progress by massively slowing the rate of iteration/experimentation. Billionaires played a major part in the expansion of railroads, factories and the telegraph network in the 19th century. They played a major role in the expansion of private automobiles, the passenger plane fleet, and telecommunication networks, and the explosion of everyday consumer products, in the 20th century. It is absolutely no surprise that they're now playing a leading role in pushing rocket technology forward, and the fact that they are shouldn't be used an excuse for obviously excessive restrictions on this enormously promising technology.