FAA warns Musk that he is building Super Heavy launch tower without permission

Post by nickik » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:50 AM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #57

hirundo wrote: post #47

This project appears to be on the critical path to making humanity a multi planetary species. That should be balanced against whatever impact the environmental review finds. Not that it should give SpaceX a blank check. But to the extent that the environment is fragile and needs protection, it's even more important to not have all of our eggs in it.

> This project appears to be on the critical path to making humanity a multi planetary species. Inasmuch as "multi planetary" means multiple _self supporting_ planetary settlements (and otherwise, what's the point?), that seems to be an entirely unrealistic goal for the foreseeable future, so, by definition, there cannot really be a "critical path" to such a goal.

Post by nickik » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:55 AM UTC

fma wrote: post #34

jimbob45 wrote: post #2

“Fine, I’ll take my knowledge and business to China” “Okay, okay we’re sorry, Mr. Musk”

LOL, pretty sure Musk is more scared of the Chinese government than the US government. 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…

Post by microtherion » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #71

microtherion wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This project appears to be on the critical path to making humanity a multi planetary species. Inasmuch as "multi planetary" means multiple _self supporting_ planetary settlements (and otherwise, what's the point?), that seems to be an entirely unrealistic goal for the foreseeable future, so, by definition, there cannot really be a "critical path" to such a goal.

No other system currently built will get human to Mars even non-self supporting.

Post by hirundo » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 2:26 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #75

nickik wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No other system currently built will get human to Mars even non-self supporting.

That may be so, but that's a different claim. If he had a plausible path to build a backstop against catastrophes threatening to wipe out humanity, a case could be made that this should outweigh everyday regulations & petty bureaucratic paperwork. What he has is a plausible path to shipping canned apes for a brief sojourn to a far away locale fairly hostile to long term habitation. If that's what he wants, fine, but…

  Unfortunately, in Blowups Happen a capability for orbiting large payloads had been developed. "Aha," I said. "I see your problem. If you can get a ship into orbit, you're halfway to the moon."
  "No," Bob said. "If you can get your ship into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere."
  He was very nearly right.

Post by staunch » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 3:01 PM UTC

edrxty wrote: post #35

staunch wrote: post #10

> 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…

I've actually dealt with the FAA on a rocket launch. They're an INCREDIBLY bureaucratic agency. We were inside a continually restricted airspace volume (R-xxxx) as well as a TFR that was miles wide, but at the last minute we were restricted from flying a remotely controlled aircraft released at an apogee of around 2000ft AGL. We'd already received prior approval but then someone at the regional office decided they wa…