It’s looking more and more like Elon will have to move SpaceX to China if he ever wants to get to Mars.
Please, if you feel the need to read a comment, try to respect free speech and not tell others what they can and cannot say.
I have to agree that the use of the word “Libtards” was over-the-top.
Would the use of words like “unneccessarily complicated”–convoluted, difficult to understand, vindictive, “doxxing”, “strangulation by regulation”, “not invented here”, byzantine, perplexing, obscure, complicated, inscrutable, tangled, tortuous, muddled, vindictive, “malicious ill will and a desire to hurt (motivated by spite)”, and that grand-daddy of all terms for government “Paralysis by Analysis” make those who use government to stifle progress FEEL BETTER?
The fact is–Musk uses his OWN MONEY instead of OUR MONEY to succeed where government fails–and GOVERNMENT is angry at him for doing so. Though SpaceEx has achieved where government failed–government seems determined to thwart further progress.
And those who SUPPORT ineffective and vindictive big government (hint–they are NOT conservatives) are doing everything they can to NOT allow him to succeed. Is it any wonder why things are the way they are today?
Because this is an aviation forum–perhaps an aviation analogy can be made: The year–1903–and the sentiment in Washington might have been “We have to stop those dangerous Wright Brothers from using an unsafe and unlicensed aerial vehicle on public seashores at Kitty Hawk–after all, they may endanger sea turtles and sea birds! How can they expect to succeed, when the greatest minds in government (Samuel Langley of Smithsonian) have failed?”
Same thing with Musk–raise your head too high, and government will notice you and slap you down–label you “dangerous”–and make sure you don’t succeed where they failed.
And government supporters wonder why big government is the subject of millions of jokes about it!
Bull’s-eye!
BTW - Your take away is spot on!
I live near the cape so I hope SpaceX and NASA can work it out so that they can launch the Starship from there. I was looking forward to it.
Okay Wise Ass, none of these issues are new to the industry except for Musk’s more conservative political views. The current admin is so vindictive and and politically petty that it regularly uses the FBI for retribution including going after Musk. Large explosions at NASA launch sites are not new and not just old history, and the only alternative to Musk’s SpaceX LP 39A used to be Russia, who have famously now told the US and the rest of the world to piss off regarding anything to do with the ISS including using their launching facilities. Yet the Biden admin is so politically oriented they see and do essentially everything through their myopic progressive lenses. If NASA’s newly expressed concerns were based as they report, we should have heard about them months or years ago. Why just now? Most of us know the answer.
The NTSB has already and just recently done exactly as would be expected regarding Tesla and is suddenly concerned about self driving issues and developments? Same as NASAs “sudden concerns”
Might happen if Musk relents, kisses enough political butts, gives enough money to the right politicians, and/or the US gets rid of the most corrupt administration and enough ensconced liberal bureaucrats to change both the culture and direction of the country.
I have no idea if this offends you but don’t you find it odd that the reporting on AvWeb is stating that NASA is having “none of it” when you go to the Reuters article there is Ms Lueders stating that “Space X is working with us on those things”. So, I suspect that the real trigger for the kind of sentiment you wish were not being used by the various commenters is AvWeb’s need to provide a sensational headline that results in a click on the article and an emotional reaction to the piece. Live by the sword and die sword and all
This article deeply misrepresents what was actually said.
I’m surprised and disappointed, Russ & Avweb.
Many comments herein are not very relevant - NASA is addressing a particular risk that was intensified by Russia’s war on Ukraine: damage to US’ means of transporting astronauts to the space station.
SpaceX should want to respect that concern, as realizing it would be bad for Space X in at least two ways.
Not the first time ‘The Mouth 2’ has been arguing with FAA, who may well be bureaucratic in this bunfight.
I hope that NASA’s caution is just that: professional and warranted caution in the face of new technology. I do find politics (from both sides) interfering in what should boil down to sound science and reasonable safety. Surely it’s not lost on NASA that SpaceX is their only avenue currently for getting astronauts to space. Not to mention their best bet for launching satellites.
Consider what happened just the other day with ASTRAS launch from cape Canaveral. I’ve personally seen an Astra rocket explode here in alaska, and they continue to get contracts despite a dismal success record. Starship definitely does need more than one launch point, wherever it might be.
“as a business leader he’s too much of a wild card”
I suppose his lousy skills as a business leader is why he his the richest man on the planet…
We’ve been using agile development and “test-first” in software development for many years now. As a software developer, I recognized early on that SpaceX has adapted that approach to building space hardware: Construct and test each component until the design is confirmed. The earlier Starships were test articles, built cheaply and containing only what was needed for the particular test, like the “belly flop” maneuver, the gimballing of the Raptor engines, or seeing if they have figured out the timing needed for maneuvers, as they did for landing the Falcon 9 booster. The hardware is highly instrumented; they are after the telemetry - the hardware is merely the means to the end and can be discarded if it doesn’t blow up. Costs are front-end loaded with this approach, but the overall costs are lower.
Elon Musk has introduced a new paradigm to space flight; he is focused on space transportation and the mass production of the necessary hardware. From the beginning, NASA’s missions were like Magellan’s and the other early explorers; Musk’s vision corresponds to the current traffic of ocean-going ships. Boca Chica is the location to expect RUDs; Starships launched from the Cape will be the “production” versions. People who judge SpaceX by the old NASA standards will be hopelessly confused. There is only one space transportation company, and their signature is a successful launch every three weeks or so, and returning 116 flight-proven boosters to successful landings. If any rocket is going to explode at the Cape it’s more likely to be the multi-billion dollar, disposable, obsolete SLS.
Very true, if we pilots and aircraft owners don’t stick together and exercise free speech, the FAA will be making us get medicals, do annual inspections, BFR’s and all sorts of hoops as related to overregulation!
He’s been launching rockets he doesn’t have a permit for next to a wildlife refuge and three of them exploded, and you’re surprised he’s getting regulatory pushback for it?
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Wise O, dismissing factual current events as conspiracies rather than understanding a sociopolitical movement that is obsessed with controlling every aspect of your life, up to and including future technologies is exactly what defines “useful idiot” Comrade Lenin would be very proud of you.
Thanks Jack.
Thanks