9 ms·

My guess its because SpaceX is the best chance to complete the moon missions. Its space race time (with China) so time to streamline the regulations.

by pkaye 2y ago

skissane 2y ago
I think the FAA can see the writing on the wall – with Musk being so closely linked to the President-elect, come January 20 there is going to be a lot of pressure on them from the White House if they aren't keeping SpaceX happy. So might as well get ahead of the pressure and make them happy now.
- wannacboatmovie 2y ago
  Because we live in a world where people are more upset if the government is in bed with the space-n-rocket guy than companies engaging in mass surveillance, censorship, and suppression of ideas at their behest.
  - deprecative 2y ago
    [flagged]
- KRAKRISMOTT 2y ago
  Let's pray he can do the same for general aviation, we sorely need cheaper and better alternatives to century old Cessnas.
  - deprecative 2y ago
    As soon as the government develops the technology then gets forced to bring in the oligarchs Musk will be able to take credit for it. The issue is literally sonic booms over people's homes and businesses.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    Yeah and not having to breathe leaded fuel fumes and getting that stuff on our hands when checking the tanks.
    - KRAKRISMOTT 2y ago
      Nitrile gloves + better fuel sump is a good stop gap. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pnpages/05-04237.php https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pnpages/05-04237.php
  - wilg 2y ago
    Why?
    - KRAKRISMOTT 2y ago
      General aviation has been on the decline primarily because of the way US liability law is structured and the cost of FAA airworthiness certification. A quirk of legislation made it such that old models of planes are shielded from lawsuits, among other issues. If you are a manufacturer, why bother designing a new plane when you can keep selling the same world war 2 era stock? It's not like you will have any competition. The cost of certification is also why Boeing tried to avoid certifying the 737 max as a new plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalizatio... https://worksinprogress.co/issue/planes-claims-and-automobiles/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/planes-claims-and-automobil... Fewer people are learning to fly except to go work for the airlines. Most of the small aviation manufacturers and engine producers have been snapped up by China. It's so expensive to certify an engine for flight that most of general aviation is using engines where you burn leaded fuel and manually control the carburetors and fuel injectors. In aviation, a 1940s era airframe is considered perfectly safe, and it is completely acceptable to use vacuum pneumatic instruments despite them being significantly less reliable than MEMS or solid state ring laser (or fibre optic) gyros. Even something as simple as a radar altimeter would cost well into the 5-6 figures. It's a very backwards industry similar to medicine and pharmacy. The doctors believe in hazing new grads through residency, while biotech legislators holds the view that right to try and loosening clinical trials lead to moral hazard; better ten people die from disease than for one to be accidentally killed during drug testing. It is the same in aviation, safety is written in blood and all that so the best way to stay safe is to make it too expensive to fly. Many flight schools preach training with old airframes and technology. A lot of pilots refuse to admit the real reason is because of cost, and instead come up with all sort of post-hoc fantastic explanations that students learn better when they are flying rickety vehicles with century old technology. If you want to learn to fly, find a school that offers the DA-20/DA-40 (or even better, the DA-40NG with push button start) manufactured in the past ten years. Avoid the Cessna-only places. The FAA is trying to improved the situation with the new MOSAIC light sports aircraft policy (that's mostly half baked) and certifying more engines for unleaded fuels. But unless the White House comes down hard on them for their inaction, they are going to drag out the issue for another decade (and hopefully kill off the general aviation industry all together). Regulators don't like general aviation, especially post 911. Between drones and climate change, and the fact that general aviation pilots are mostly Midwestern farmers and upper middle class people curious about aerospace, the industry doesn't have any real advocates. Not enough nouveau riche tech bros fly, and the ones that do are often rich enough to buy their own legislators and presidents that the costs don't matter. It's the aviation version of the middle class being squeezed from both ends. https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-proposes-rule-enhance-safety-and-performance-light-sport-aircraft https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-proposes-rule-enhance-safet... https://www.faa.gov/unleaded https://www.faa.gov/unleaded If general aviation continues to decline, it's going to become a national security issue. It's not a good world where aviation becomes a professional luxury, where aviation manufacturers cater primarily to foreign clients, and where most aerospace engineers would never have the opportunity to actually fly what they build.
- ericmcer 2y ago
  Why do people hate Elon so much? If the government is gonna be in bed with any capitalist I am ok with it being the guy who has repeatedly almost destroyed his personal fortune trying to build rocket ships, electric cars, WiFi satellites, and other push the envelope type stuff. I find it hard to believe he is selfishly motivated because he could have just sat on his billions and accrued more money/power instead of taking wild risks to do new things. Beats being in bed with bankers, pharmaceutical companies, arms dealers and people selling our personal data.
  - deprecative 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - ilaksh 2y ago
    I think it's 90+% political. The right and left are at war. It's beyond any real civility -- anything short of actual physical violence is fair game. This doesn't leave room for a lot of nuanced views of different political figures.
    - deprecative 2y ago
      Everything is political bro. You're doing the appeal to moderation fallacy.
    - nrb 2y ago
      > It's beyond any real civility -- anything short of actual physical violence is fair game. I think that's sort of the problem, the person we're discussing is a significant purveyor of that sort of incivility. When someone chooses to play in the mud like that it should not come as a surprise that people respond with distain.
      - ilaksh 2y ago
        But he didn't choose any more than a soldier chooses to bring a gun to the battlefield. It's not a few guys in one party. The whole thing is covered in mud.
- rkagerer 2y ago
  Near the end of the article it says: However, it seems unlikely that this document—which has been in the works for more than a year—was unduly influenced by Trump's election. It was prepared by an FAA still under the Biden administration.

My guess its because SpaceX is the best chance to complete the moon missions. Its space race time (with China) so time to streamline the regulations.

by pkaye 2y ago

My guess its because SpaceX is the best chance to complete the moon missions. Its space race time (with China) so time to streamline the regulations.

skissane 2y ago

I think the FAA can see the writing on the wall – with Musk being so closely linked to the President-elect, come January 20 there is going to be a lot of pressure on them from the White House if they aren't keeping SpaceX happy. So might as well get ahead of the pressure and make them happy now.

wannacboatmovie 2y ago
Because we live in a world where people are more upset if the government is in bed with the space-n-rocket guy than companies engaging in mass surveillance, censorship, and suppression of ideas at their behest.
- deprecative 2y ago
  [flagged]
KRAKRISMOTT 2y ago
Let's pray he can do the same for general aviation, we sorely need cheaper and better alternatives to century old Cessnas.
- deprecative 2y ago
  As soon as the government develops the technology then gets forced to bring in the oligarchs Musk will be able to take credit for it. The issue is literally sonic booms over people's homes and businesses.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  Yeah and not having to breathe leaded fuel fumes and getting that stuff on our hands when checking the tanks.
  - KRAKRISMOTT 2y ago
    Nitrile gloves + better fuel sump is a good stop gap. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pnpages/05-04237.php https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pnpages/05-04237.php
- wilg 2y ago
  Why?
  - KRAKRISMOTT 2y ago
    General aviation has been on the decline primarily because of the way US liability law is structured and the cost of FAA airworthiness certification. A quirk of legislation made it such that old models of planes are shielded from lawsuits, among other issues. If you are a manufacturer, why bother designing a new plane when you can keep selling the same world war 2 era stock? It's not like you will have any competition. The cost of certification is also why Boeing tried to avoid certifying the 737 max as a new plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalizatio... https://worksinprogress.co/issue/planes-claims-and-automobiles/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/planes-claims-and-automobil... Fewer people are learning to fly except to go work for the airlines. Most of the small aviation manufacturers and engine producers have been snapped up by China. It's so expensive to certify an engine for flight that most of general aviation is using engines where you burn leaded fuel and manually control the carburetors and fuel injectors. In aviation, a 1940s era airframe is considered perfectly safe, and it is completely acceptable to use vacuum pneumatic instruments despite them being significantly less reliable than MEMS or solid state ring laser (or fibre optic) gyros. Even something as simple as a radar altimeter would cost well into the 5-6 figures. It's a very backwards industry similar to medicine and pharmacy. The doctors believe in hazing new grads through residency, while biotech legislators holds the view that right to try and loosening clinical trials lead to moral hazard; better ten people die from disease than for one to be accidentally killed during drug testing. It is the same in aviation, safety is written in blood and all that so the best way to stay safe is to make it too expensive to fly. Many flight schools preach training with old airframes and technology. A lot of pilots refuse to admit the real reason is because of cost, and instead come up with all sort of post-hoc fantastic explanations that students learn better when they are flying rickety vehicles with century old technology. If you want to learn to fly, find a school that offers the DA-20/DA-40 (or even better, the DA-40NG with push button start) manufactured in the past ten years. Avoid the Cessna-only places. The FAA is trying to improved the situation with the new MOSAIC light sports aircraft policy (that's mostly half baked) and certifying more engines for unleaded fuels. But unless the White House comes down hard on them for their inaction, they are going to drag out the issue for another decade (and hopefully kill off the general aviation industry all together). Regulators don't like general aviation, especially post 911. Between drones and climate change, and the fact that general aviation pilots are mostly Midwestern farmers and upper middle class people curious about aerospace, the industry doesn't have any real advocates. Not enough nouveau riche tech bros fly, and the ones that do are often rich enough to buy their own legislators and presidents that the costs don't matter. It's the aviation version of the middle class being squeezed from both ends. https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-proposes-rule-enhance-safety-and-performance-light-sport-aircraft https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-proposes-rule-enhance-safet... https://www.faa.gov/unleaded https://www.faa.gov/unleaded If general aviation continues to decline, it's going to become a national security issue. It's not a good world where aviation becomes a professional luxury, where aviation manufacturers cater primarily to foreign clients, and where most aerospace engineers would never have the opportunity to actually fly what they build.
ericmcer 2y ago
Why do people hate Elon so much? If the government is gonna be in bed with any capitalist I am ok with it being the guy who has repeatedly almost destroyed his personal fortune trying to build rocket ships, electric cars, WiFi satellites, and other push the envelope type stuff. I find it hard to believe he is selfishly motivated because he could have just sat on his billions and accrued more money/power instead of taking wild risks to do new things. Beats being in bed with bankers, pharmaceutical companies, arms dealers and people selling our personal data.
- deprecative 2y ago
  [flagged]
- ilaksh 2y ago
  I think it's 90+% political. The right and left are at war. It's beyond any real civility -- anything short of actual physical violence is fair game. This doesn't leave room for a lot of nuanced views of different political figures.
  - deprecative 2y ago
    Everything is political bro. You're doing the appeal to moderation fallacy.
  - nrb 2y ago
    > It's beyond any real civility -- anything short of actual physical violence is fair game. I think that's sort of the problem, the person we're discussing is a significant purveyor of that sort of incivility. When someone chooses to play in the mud like that it should not come as a surprise that people respond with distain.
    - ilaksh 2y ago
      But he didn't choose any more than a soldier chooses to bring a gun to the battlefield. It's not a few guys in one party. The whole thing is covered in mud.
rkagerer 2y ago
Near the end of the article it says: However, it seems unlikely that this document—which has been in the works for more than a year—was unduly influenced by Trump's election. It was prepared by an FAA still under the Biden administration.