I'm kinda puzzled about the point you are trying to make here. Yes, it's certainly true that SpaceX is recalcitrant, stubborn and needlessly provokes legal conflict because Musk is pretty thin skinned and impulsive [1]. And if that's all you meant to say, sure but it really feels like you had a broader point -- but while I sense the emotional tone of disapproval I'm having trouble putting my finger on what else you are claiming. Maybe it's just my failure in comprehension.
There seems to be a strong undercurrent here implying that these FAA regulations are appropriate and reasonable -- was that your broader point? If so I don't think you give us enough information to tell. I mean everything involves risk, the question is whether the cost of those regulations (including all the delays, paperwork and lawyers and opportunity for lawsuits) is worth their benefit to safely (say measured via the value of a statistical life). And yes if regulations get repealed maybe we lose more than we gain but maybe not and it's hard to know -- but it certainly doesn't seem like a facially ridiculous policy experiment to try.
Or maybe you mean to imply that Elon is somehow getting away with flouting the law or something. But, he keeps paying prices in delays, needless costs and legal setbacks as a result of SpaceX's conflict with the FAA. What's the argument he should be punished more? So far we've gotten good safety results so things aren't broken too much and this kind of compromise and regulatory negotiation seems to be how many highly regulated companies interact with their regulators.
--
1: See his super dick move of demanding his law firm fire someone who wasn't even working on his cases because he'd worked as an intern at the SEC during law school while they were going after Musk.
I'm kinda puzzled about the point you are trying to make here. Yes, it's certainly true that SpaceX is recalcitrant, stubborn and needlessly provokes legal conflict because Musk is pretty thin skinned and impulsive [1]. And if that's all you meant to say, sure but it really feels like you had a broader point -- but while I sense the emotional tone of disapproval I'm having trouble putting my finger on what else you are claiming. Maybe it's just my failure in comprehension.
There seems to be a strong undercurrent here implying that these FAA regulations are appropriate and reasonable -- was that your broader point? If so I don't think you give us enough information to tell. I mean everything involves risk, the question is whether the cost of those regulations (including all the delays, paperwork and lawyers and opportunity for lawsuits) is worth their benefit to safely (say measured via the value of a statistical life). And yes if regulations get repealed maybe we lose more than we gain but maybe not and it's hard to know -- but it certainly doesn't seem like a facially ridiculous policy experiment to try.
Or maybe you mean to imply that Elon is somehow getting away with flouting the law or something. But, he keeps paying prices in delays, needless costs and legal setbacks as a result of SpaceX's conflict with the FAA. What's the argument he should be punished more? So far we've gotten good safety results so things aren't broken too much and this kind of compromise and regulatory negotiation seems to be how many highly regulated companies interact with their regulators.
--
1: See his super dick move of demanding his law firm fire someone who wasn't even working on his cases because he'd worked as an intern at the SEC during law school while they were going after Musk.