Mr. Whitaker is sounding more and more like a bureaucrat (like Mr Huerta)! As I have said before the FAA will just bury commercial space launches in bureaucracy. If the FAA would enact SMS themselves, it would give SMS more credibility than it has now. Kind of telling that the FAA hasn’t done so.
1 reply
When it looks like the FAA is anti-space, anti-tech entrepreneur, and anti-jobs…well, yea. It is a bad look for the agency.
Beyond the current political undertones, the real issue is finding a balance between allowing groundbreaking advancements and ensuring safety isn’t compromised. Both sides have valid points, but perhaps it’s time for the FAA to rethink how it regulates emerging technologies in space exploration, especially with companies like SpaceX leading the way.
1 reply
“Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” The FAA doesn’t lead, they won’t follow… They are just in the way. How can you professionally and ethically say that your leadership process is to lead by enforcement? What would you say about a parent who’s primary leadership method is to hammer their children when they screw up? I agree with calls for the Administrator’s resignation.
1 reply
The FAA is delaying a launch over relatively trivial matters, for a period somewhere between 2 months and indefinitely. This is obviously unacceptable, anti-progress, and anti-business.
The new launches are not significantly different to previously approved operations - should be a trivial task and accomplished in days, tops.
The delays are by extension delays to a program of national significance - Artemis.
Company is shocked they are asked to comply with basic safety regulations and cries foul to politicians in it’s pay. SpaceX no different to Boeing or any other company in it’s behaviour and attitude that the rules don’t apply to them.
Innovation is not incompatible with safety - it just requires some basic governance which is anaethema to Musk. It’s all really tedious.
1 reply
SpaceX didn’t screw up here. A screw up would be a spaceship blowing up. That stuff happens from time to time, esp to new platforms.
This is about SpaceX blatantly disregarding environmental and safety terms for the licensing of their launches. No more, no less.
Nothing like the Boeing situation at all - not even close.
It’s tedious for people to take this attitude because they hate Elon - who frankly isn’t the person in charge of the day-to-day at SpaceX anyway!
We can only pray for some sanity in the White House and our government in the next election.
I have no idea what is going on internally in SpaceX - it is merely their external comms we can base it on (whether from execs or senior management like Musk).
It is like Boeing in that their attitude is that they know best, and regulation is for suckers.
It doesn’t matter whether anyone personally likes managers or owners of a business - all that matters is that they adhere to the rule of law and doing no harm to innocent bystanders or residents near their site of operation.
This should be apolitical - this is just a basic tenent of a free, civilised society.
1 reply
It is like Boeing in that if there is no oversight, the company thinks it knows best and starts to cut corners and costs. While we haven’t seen this with SpaceX yet, it is because there is someone looking over their shoulder.
SpaceX, Tesla et al have and are benefitting from enormous subsidies and government contracts, mainly under liberal administrations, so I’m not persuaded that is the case.
SpaceX is doing great work. But “go fever” has consequences and a billionaire bully should not have the power to toss an administrator trying to pump the brakes in the interest of safety. Hard lessons throughout the space program history validate that
“Rules were made for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men”. Innovation and bureaucracy do not mix well.
Let’s just look at this logically:
First, Whitaker’s statements are patently false and SpaceX brought proof. That means that he was either ill-informed or lying. Either way, he is not fit for the office.
Musk is a bully and a billionaire which is a bad combination. He doesn’t think he should have to answer to anyone about anything. He didn’t like what people were saying about him on Twitter so he bought it. He didn’t like the environmental and social policies of California so he moved his headquarters to Texas. He didn’t like a ruling that went against him in Delaware so he is or has moved Tesla’s state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas. Instead of working with the FAA he just tries to run over them. He was a democrat but now, suddenly, is a republican. Looking ahead it’s not hard to see why he would want Trump to become president. Of course he has to be careful, since he is an immigrant, Trump might deport him.
Again - which statements? I assume he got his name and title right?
SpaceX claiming Whitaker was wrong doesn’t make it so.
Edit - or maybe it does. I’m right and you’re wrong.
There. Settled.
1 reply
I’m not going to waste time to spoon-feed you facts that you won’t believe anyway. Google exists. Choosing whether you use it is up to you. Good day.
1 reply
The FAA is a sister agency to another well known federal bureaucracy whose safety record could also be called into question, yet they’ve never been fined. Starting with the Apollo 1 fire through the latest boondoggle of having to abandon astronauts on the space station, NASA (whom I wholeheartedly support) still continues receives its largesse from the taxpayer, all without the specter of financial pain being levied against them. The FAA proposing to fine Space X smacks of protectionism at best and a targeted “assassination” of its creator at worst.
Disputed facts do not constitute proof. SpaceX issued a letter disputing four statements that Whitaker made. They have their position and the FAA has its own. SpaceX have the means and forums available to prove their claims to people who can rule and take action on them. We’ll see what happens if and when Musk’s promised lawsuit comes around.
The title seems to be, sorry, click bait. Elon might have said something, but the article only lists the note from SpaceX - not Musk.
The FAA originally said the problem was environmental. Now the administrator says “safety”. What is it that is unsafe compared to the last flight? I’ve been following this for a couple months now and still haven’t learned that basic fact.
To get back to the point - Musk drives me crazy (even though I drive a Tesla and love it) but this has nothing much to do with him. SpaceX is largely run without him. Yes, he’s the primary investor, and has tremendous sway, but launch decisions are not part of that.
If SpaceX believes its fines are incorrect, it has the same rights to contest them as anyone else - administrative law judge, NTSB, and ultimately court of appeals. Not sure why someone would resort to the court of public opinion unless they knew they were going to lose in those forums that are more grounded in facts than PR.
The bunfight continues. 
AMEN brother! SMS for single-pilot, commercial operators is about the dumbest idea ever.
It seems like Elon Musk’s call for Michael Whitaker’s resignation isn’t just about the FAA being a “resistive force,” like parasitic drag—it feels more like a calculated move to weaken government oversight in the space industry. By casting the FAA as an obstacle to innovation, SpaceX might be pushing a narrative that puts corporate freedom ahead of public safety. This seems to be more than just an operational disagreement; it’s starting to look like a broader political struggle that could change how space exploration and other high-tech industries are regulated.
Here’s the deal. The launch license is the agreement SpaceX struck with the FAA about how they would conduct the launch. This type of agreement comes about through negotiation, where the applicant (SpaceX) proposes how they will comply with the regulations to the REGULATOR (FAA), and the FAA provides comment then ultimately accepts or rejects the applicant’s proposal.
Once approved, the license forms a binding obligation on the part of the applicant on how they will conduct the launch.
So, something happened and SpaceX wanted changes to the license terms, (I’m guessing here, but likely proposed at the very last minute with insufficient time for the regulator to properly review and approve them before the scheduled launch).
At that point SpaceX made a business decision. Launch and face fines, or don’t launch and face cost overrun and delay. They decided fines and increased oversight was the better option to a delayed launch, and took the risk.
Now they are crying like a bunch of babies over the consequences of their decision.
SpaceX needs to grow up and own the consequences of their actions and quit whining about it.
Honestly, you should go back and look at the aircraft design of the 1940’s, and then look at the aircraft designs being certified today, and rethink your position. A DC-3 is nothing like a 787.
An Ercoupe is nothing like an SR-22.
Today’s aircraft are vastly more capable, efficient, and safe than those of the 1940’s. The FAA has enabled and supported innovation every step of the way, and also been the straight man looking out for public safety and holding industry’s feet to the fire there.
And I say that as someone who has spent my career in industry, developing new aviation products and technologies.
Not talking about airliners, or anything turbine powered. Textron and Piper are still selling designs from the 1950’s. Lycoming and Continental still selling engine designs older than that. Cirrus is the only manufacturer selling a newer design. I too am speaking with 25years experience in pt135 ops. Getting anything approved by the FAA can be and still is a test in patience. My local FSDO hasn’t done any field approvals for years. I would not be surprised if SpaceX were to move to Florida that they could find a FSDO that is more accommodating. The administrator’s answers make it look to me that the individual FSDO districts still run independent of Washington, in other words nothing has changed in the way the FAA does business.
1 reply
In short, it is the market size. General aviation still uses 1950s technology because it’s reliable, safe, and cheaper to keep using— sticking with older systems keeps costs lower in a small market. Minuscule when compared to the automobile trade.
Thank God that the FAA did not exist when the Wright brothers were taking the first steps into powered flight. We would not have ever been allowed to fly with all of the regulations and micro-management that they have put into place. They are typical of everything that the government puts their hands on.
California has more pilots, flight schools, piston-engine aircraft and airports than most states, and plays an important role in the U.S. aviation industry. You are right. With the rapid development of the tourism industry, I have found that it is now being updated and modernized, which is a long-term industry benefit.