Which statements? What proof?
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
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.
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, the FAA being portrayed as a drag on innovation is spot on and is a big reason why General Aviation has gone nowhere since the 1940’s. Now maybe the general public gets to see what aviation has to put up with dealing with the FAA.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
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.
1 Like
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.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.