8 ms·
Very inspiring, glad I woke up to watch it. Congratulations to the SpaceX team. This is what competition looks like. It’s funny how last decade SpaceX had to su
by ptek 2y ago
Very inspiring, glad I woke up to watch it. Congratulations to the SpaceX team. This is what competition looks like. It’s funny how last decade SpaceX had to sue the government to get more launches.
- XorNot 2y agoThe FAA needs more funding at this point. They're not staffed for the rate of launch requests which commercial space has grown too.
- bombcar 2y agoWe're going to need a dedicated FSA (federal space agency) at this rate, which should do most of the heavy lifting (ha) for the FAA and just use them for NOTAMs and TFRs.
- mkoubaa 2y agoWhat makes you think the issue is funding?
- mptest 2y agoOh idk maybe picking up just about any recent history book? ie, the goals and effects of austerity politics?
- systemvoltage 2y agoNeed to remove regulations instead and fast track SpaceX. Every fucking time we don't need to increase the size of the Government. It only gets bigger. Never smaller.
- dawnerd 2y agoNo, launching big heavy explosive things into space shouldn’t have fewer regulations. That’s insane to think they should be able to just do it without much oversight.
- tomschlick 2y agoSure the safety part of it is something that should be verified before launch. But when they are launching multiple of these things and the variables are all mostly the same you don't need to do the same analysis over and over again. A prime example is the environmental impact stuff. They have already done that multiple times. Nothing really changed. If it succeed and doesn't blow up the impact is X, if it blows up the impact is Y. Yet these approvals take weeks and months. There are also multiple agencies that put their foot down. Famously fish and wildlife was worried starship would crash in the water and hit a shark/whale. No seriously. https://youtu.be/kS8G5D9fg3g?t=21 https://youtu.be/kS8G5D9fg3g?t=21 Then there is the story that at Vandenburg air base, they had to strap a seal to a board and play rocket noises through headphones to see if it was distressed. Keep in mind Vandenburg has been a military rocket launch site for decades. But only now when its SpaceX do these agencies put up road blocks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SvJP5wfN4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SvJP5wfN4k
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Keep in mind Vandenburg has been a military rocket launch site for decades. Not one of which ever returned to base with a sonic boom. I assure you, the folks who tried to kill goats via mental powers and staring at them have required weirder tests than the seal.
- systemvoltage 2y ago[flagged]
- systemvoltage 2y ago[flagged]
- tacticalturtle 2y agoIsn’t this exactly what happened with Boeing, where the FAA delegated its authority, on the assumption that Boeing knew what it was doing?
- dmix 2y agoRegulations probably are not going to fix the rot that's inside Boeing. It's like putting water in groundhog tunnels, clamp down on one area and it will pop up somewhere else. They need to die off and get replaced by better competition when they mess up. And their market centralization ground to a halt instead of encouraged by the gov because of jobs and total risk aversion.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoBoeing is publicly funded though, which means crazy incentives take over that are out of whack.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- derektank 2y agoIf by the size of government you mean the budget, there have been multiple instances of the government shrinking. As a percent of GDP the 90s saw cuts to federal spending, the 2011 sequestration saw a drop in spending even in nominal terms, and obviously the end of WW2 saw a massive collapse in government spending and the end of multiple different programs
- chasd00 2y agoMore money would make the situation worse. They need competent leadership. Everyone like to just say “add more money” because it means no actual operational change to the status quo.
- acd10j 2y agoYou are right they are already trying to slow SpaceX as much as possible. More people in their hands more people finding ways to decelerate SpaceX
- atrus 2y agoHardly, the FAA is handing permits out the instant the mandated waiting time is up. They couldn't go faster without a literal act of congress.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 2y agoIt's not a mandated "Waiting time". It's the max amount of time that they have to respond. And they wait until the very last day.
- gamblor956 2y agoThe FAA already has competent leadership and staff. They don't have the budget to handle the increasing number of tasks they have been given to manage. The FAA manages more flights and space launch operations than it did in the 1980s, when it had a budget more than quadruple the size. To put it bluntly: you get what you pay for.
- nmca 2y agoYou get what you incentivise, not what you pay for.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoYeah in my area govt. officials can be incentivized to say no to prove they are doing the job. Adds massive amounts of delay.
- whimsicalism 2y agoperhaps we need less thorough reviews
- whimsicalism 2y agoNot sure why this is downvoted. Our risk-to-regulatory oversight cost benefit analysis seems extremely off - we overregulate small things that do not have large-scale meaningful impact while basically grandfather in stuff like depleting the Great Salt Lake, coal emissions, etc. which have vastly less regulatory $ spend per environmental impact. Ideally, if we could quantify all environmental impacts into a single number (ie. CO2 emissions but also wildlife impact, etc.), the $/impact spent across different fields would be equal. Currently, however, we are likely spending 100x+ on a per-impact basis on SpaceX regulation.
- mptest 2y ago>while basically grandfather in stuff like depleting the Great Salt Lake, coal emissions, etc. Gee, almost as if decades of austerity politics, lobbying by financial interests, and regulatory capture has malformed a well intentioned regulatory apparatus? Seems like we need more regulation that's less interested in what "united citizens" have to say. (read lobbyists) How are you arriving at that assessment of regulation of spaceX? i'd be interested in reading more.
- whimsicalism 2y agoAusterity politics? I don’t agree, we have record spending as a percentage of gdp and are rapidly approaching sovereign debt crisis levels of mismanagement. We aren’t Europe, we never really had an austerity moment. > How are you arriving at that assessment of regulation of spaceX? I mean, SpaceX launches simply do not have a large impact on the environment compared to say, all cumulative coal emissions in the US. The FAA AST budget (which is for SpaceX launches) is about 60 million. Total EPA budget is about 9 billion. That’s about 160x the size of the FAA launch regulatory budget, but the environmental impact of things the EPA covers (and mostly fails to cover) is much much much more than 160x the impact of spacex launches.
- coding123 2y agoOr dismantled, lol
- creer 2y agoIt seemed to not be FAA here, but the several other agencies that all had 60 days to respond. FAA fast-tracked it but couldn't fast track it past the other guys' 60 day allowed time.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoWell that may still continue to happen. The wonderful and competent state of California is literally trying to block SpaceX launches over Musk’s constitutionally protected political speech: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-musk-spacex-00183371 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-m... I cannot remember a more explicit case of authoritarian government abuse in a developed nation in recent memory, and it’s especially infuriating given SpaceX and Musk are one of the most important and innovative companies and leaders of all time. No other country would think to look at such accomplishments and try to undermine themselves through petty politics and lawfare.
- mr_toad 2y agoBut Starship launches from (checks map) Texas.
- blisterpeanuts 2y agoIt is a state commission composed of political appointees. It's unlikely it has the jurisdiction over Vandenberg to ban any activities, except when such activities violate state environmental laws. Even then, the federal government might be able to override them. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Ideally, the commission will withdraw its objections and allow the launches; SpaceX obviously chose this site both for its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and for redundancy in case of poor weather in Florida (like this past week for example).
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoIt has jurisdiction over Vandenberg for private launches, and there is debate over what counts as private versus federal. However, regardless of possible environmental concerns, they’ve already explicitly said they’re targeting SpaceX because of Musk’s political speech, which is morally reprehensible and also illegal per the constitution.
- neodymiumphish 2y agoCan the federal government override them if the launches are purely commercial. Presumably that would be the case eventually, so I think it’s something that needs to addressed sooner.
- WalterBright 2y agoCalifornia officials reject more SpaceX launches, with some citing Musk's X posts https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1845131546501734440/photo/1 https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1845131546501734440...
- cryptonector 2y agoThat's madness. And unconstitutional.
- WalterBright 2y agoMusk tweeted that he's filing a lawsuit Tuesday morning.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoIt’s funny how much illegal stuff gets done by leadership. Sue to fix. Lawyers always win.
- mlindner 2y agoThe California Coastal Commission has no authority over a Federal (Military) launch range so there's no need for real concern. Yes using people's personal opinions for denial is illegal, but it's moot regardless. So I'm not sure SpaceX could sue for any damages.
- cdash 2y agoThey don't actually have any jurisdiction in this case. Launches from Vandendberg are from a military base and while they do try to work with the California commission they ultimately are the ones that decide what does and does not get launched.