3 ms·

> They are basically completely dismissing government oversight as "unnecessary obstacles to progress". SpaceX works quite well with the government and doesn't

> They are basically completely dismissing government oversight as "unnecessary obstacles to progress". SpaceX works quite well with the government and doesn't mind oversight with regards to safety at all. What they don't care for is frivolous oversight/bureaucratic rubber stamping without looking at the intention behind the rules. They also don't like being surprised last minute. All of which happened in the prelude to that update post you referenced. I know a lot of people on this site are from Europe or have European sentiments, but the two places really function quite differently normally. The job of regulators isn't to be obstructionist for the sake of it. It's to create rules that actually improve safety and overall move society forward.

jdiez17 2y ago
I understand the US and Europe work differently. Although I am European, I also have a strong dislike of bureaucracy and am sympathetic to advancing society through technological progress. But there should be some oversight. You cannot just let a private company do whatever industrial processes wherever they want in the name of progress.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > cannot just let a private company do whatever industrial processes wherever they want in the name of progress We don't. The question was why the FAA was enforcing rules that have nothing to do with its remit. There is protocol of regulatory agencies having each others' backs. But it was silly in this situation—it probably calls for reviewing the regime.
- mlindner 2y ago
  > But there should be some oversight. You cannot just let a private company do whatever industrial processes wherever they want in the name of progress. Then we're in agreement as is SpaceX and even Elon Musk. He's previously stated he's in favor of regulations in general. He just is against an overwhelming overbearing quantity of them that just exist because they've always been there.
- jaywee 2y ago
  Having a 60 days consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service whether a falling hot-stage ring (essentially dumb steel piece) causes danger to fish is just silly.
  - jfoster 2y ago
    I wonder if fishing boats need to have a 60 day consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service before each fishing expedition. It seems to me that fishing expeditions pose a significant threat to the welfare of fish.
Teever 2y ago
> SpaceX works quite well with the government and doesn't mind oversight with regards to safety at all. What they don't care for is frivolous oversight/bureaucratic rubber stamping without looking at the intention behind the rules. How could you possibly know this? There's no way an outsider can be privy to all of the details of this situation to make an objective call. Looking at it from the outside it's obvious to me that one party has a financial interest while the other doesn't, and the party that has a financial interest is run by a person who is more than willing to misrepresent situations to his financial benefit. SpaceX could be right in this situation but you and I will never know.
- mlindner 2y ago
  I know it based on what in-the-know reporters (dedicated space industry reporters) have said, what I've read in some books on SpaceX's history and the (albeit very limited) contacts with people I have who work in the industry. I can also go with what Elon Musk has previously said about him being fine with regulations. His companies operate in some of the most highly regulated industries in the world and he doesn't complain about the vast majority of those regulations. People love to jump to the assumption that because Elon Musk complains about _one_ regulation in question he wants to remove them entirely.

jdiez17 2y ago

I understand the US and Europe work differently. Although I am European, I also have a strong dislike of bureaucracy and am sympathetic to advancing society through technological progress. But there should be some oversight. You cannot just let a private company do whatever industrial processes wherever they want in the name of progress.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> cannot just let a private company do whatever industrial processes wherever they want in the name of progress We don't. The question was why the FAA was enforcing rules that have nothing to do with its remit. There is protocol of regulatory agencies having each others' backs. But it was silly in this situation—it probably calls for reviewing the regime.
mlindner 2y ago
> But there should be some oversight. You cannot just let a private company do whatever industrial processes wherever they want in the name of progress. Then we're in agreement as is SpaceX and even Elon Musk. He's previously stated he's in favor of regulations in general. He just is against an overwhelming overbearing quantity of them that just exist because they've always been there.
jaywee 2y ago
Having a 60 days consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service whether a falling hot-stage ring (essentially dumb steel piece) causes danger to fish is just silly.
- jfoster 2y ago
  I wonder if fishing boats need to have a 60 day consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service before each fishing expedition. It seems to me that fishing expeditions pose a significant threat to the welfare of fish.

Teever 2y ago

> SpaceX works quite well with the government and doesn't mind oversight with regards to safety at all. What they don't care for is frivolous oversight/bureaucratic rubber stamping without looking at the intention behind the rules. How could you possibly know this? There's no way an outsider can be privy to all of the details of this situation to make an objective call. Looking at it from the outside it's obvious to me that one party has a financial interest while the other doesn't, and the party that has a financial interest is run by a person who is more than willing to misrepresent situations to his financial benefit. SpaceX could be right in this situation but you and I will never know.

mlindner 2y ago
I know it based on what in-the-know reporters (dedicated space industry reporters) have said, what I've read in some books on SpaceX's history and the (albeit very limited) contacts with people I have who work in the industry. I can also go with what Elon Musk has previously said about him being fine with regulations. His companies operate in some of the most highly regulated industries in the world and he doesn't complain about the vast majority of those regulations. People love to jump to the assumption that because Elon Musk complains about _one_ regulation in question he wants to remove them entirely.