They are also trying to reasonably protect us. (remember 737 max?)
Although spacex lost lots of rockets out on a floating barge far from populated areas, this is on land near humans and should not be easily normalized.
I think the chinese have had some rocket mishaps that were not good.
We don't have any evidence that there was any safety concern here; the FAA has not said that.
The FAA already admits that their existing license system doesn't work properly for reusable rockets, and they're long delayed implementing their new license system. I don't think we should assume they're in the right here.
What exactly was “this particular violation”? You’re knee-jerk reacting and missing the point - there is likely no actual concern other than fitting the mold of some decade old rules regarding once-a-year launches. Both parties are aware of that.
SN8 hit the landing pad, which had a designated exclusion zone around it (a safety radius in which humans are not allowed). Crashing into the landing pad was a completely unsurprising result for the test they were doing, and I'm not aware of any reason to think that the exclusion zone was too small.
Who is calling it so? This practice of using "so-called" to manufacture unsubstantiated descriptions of events or people is poor journalism at best. See also a more notable and previously-critiqued use of this langauge: https://www.ft.com/content/ac7389f1-41d8-46b6-bc42-32ac603b7...
12 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 44.0 ms ] threadAlthough spacex lost lots of rockets out on a floating barge far from populated areas, this is on land near humans and should not be easily normalized.
I think the chinese have had some rocket mishaps that were not good.
that said it's a hard line to walk.
The FAA already admits that their existing license system doesn't work properly for reusable rockets, and they're long delayed implementing their new license system. I don't think we should assume they're in the right here.
That this particular violation didn't lead to any incident doesn't invalidate the need for licenses and the obligation to respect them.
"This particular instance of me driving 200 mph on a public road didn't result in any accident so no big deal right, speed limits are useless"
Who is calling it so? This practice of using "so-called" to manufacture unsubstantiated descriptions of events or people is poor journalism at best. See also a more notable and previously-critiqued use of this langauge: https://www.ft.com/content/ac7389f1-41d8-46b6-bc42-32ac603b7...