31–40 of 82 posts
“Fine, I’ll take my knowledge and business to China” “Okay, okay we’re sorry, Mr. Musk”
Would probably just declare himself his own country. Just needs his own currency (wait, didn't he do that already?), own military (it's handy to own a fleet of ICBMs with better guidance systems than anything the U.S. has), and own energy infrastructure.
The FAA, more than any technical reason, explains why SpaceX bought two oil rigs to perform oceanic launches.
“Fine, I’ll take my knowledge and business to China” “Okay, okay we’re sorry, Mr. Musk”
Rockets are considered munitions under ITAR. Following through on that threat would result in serious jail time.
“Fine, I’ll take my knowledge and business to China” “Okay, okay we’re sorry, Mr. Musk”
I've never seen Tesla/Musk apologize for anything, except when it comes to China. If Musk wants to be able to open his mouth with his opinions he'd be better to stay in the US.
"Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) came under increased pressure in China on Wednesday from regulators and state media after Monday's protest by a disgruntled customer at the Shanghai auto show went viral and forced the electric car maker into a rare apology."
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/china-...
And lets not forget when he was accused by the Chinese government on having his vehicles spy in China and how he had to grovel to not get shutdown.
> FAA Administrator Steve Dickson spoke with Musk on March 12 for 30 minutes to stress "the FAA’s role in protecting public safety by ensuring regulatory compliance.... If there are legit concerns that the FAA needs to be involved in, that's fine. But the fact that Dickson is personally involved is a sign he might be the kind of person that likes to flex on people. There's almost certainly no good reason for him to b…
[flagged]
Seems like much ado about nothing unless SpaceX is outright lying: > SpaceX told the FAA in May that it did not believe the review was necessary because it only intends to use the "integration tower for production, research, and development purposes and not for FAA-licensed or -permitted launches," the FAA said. Does the FAA have jurisdiction over this tower if they're not actually using it for launches?
All that said, this is a case where the FAA probably shouldn't be dragging their heels. It's trivial (single digit minutes) to figure out what this impacts and shouldn't be more than a day to come to a conclusion and generate a report on necessary approach, chart, and notam updates among others. Unfortunately this isn't how these agencies operate.
EDIT: The FAA reviewed the site multiple times, including earlier this year and found no impact on aviation navigation so unclear what they're potentially upset about. The area is rather sparse and the closest airport is a small untowered field 15 miles away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX biggest customer is the US government. You really think the US gov will ship satellites to China for launches?
This. Spacex, while private and agile company, exists purely because of USA government buying their services - that’s majority of their revenue. There’s nothing wrong with that, being government contractor is a huge part of an economy.
The military industrial complex, crony capitalism, and siphoning tax dollars to billionaires are definitely debatable topics.
The FAA, more than any technical reason, explains why SpaceX bought two oil rigs to perform oceanic launches.
Launches from international waters from a US firm will still need FAA approval