SpaceX blasts being stuck in bureaucratic orbit as Starship approval slips Faced with months of waiting for approval for the next Starship launch, SpaceX has gone on the offensive regarding the red tape surrounding the process and the ongoing environmental assessment. According to SpaceX, the next Starship has been ready to go since August. The company has adopted a rapid iterative approach and added …
When that’s the best way to make a civilization work, fuck yes.
If you don’t have a decently functioning civilization then none of your money or freedom mean anything because some nasty bugger will come along, scream “you money or your life!” and take both.
So suck it up buttercup and pay your dues.
The FAA's job is to make sure everything is acceptable with a launch. That means making sure that things discovered since the first launch dont cause problems in future launches. Is it a surprise, that after the first couple launches, people have noticed some potential problems and want those investigated? Perhaps Space X could throw some funding at FAA, so it could hire more investigators to pursue the reviews (then again seeing the regulatory capture between Boeing and the FAA, maybe we dont want that!). Still you want faster investigations, then get the government to finance the regulatory agencies better...
As an aside, anytime a company starts bleeting about problems being caused by a "vocal minority", it usually turns out there talking about the majority of People living directly where the company is causing problems! And perhaps they dont want to live with those massive problems being dumped in their backyard! The quiet majority, dont tend to know about the problems, or live anywhere near them, so of course have no opinions to be loud about...
"Still you want faster investigations, then get the government to finance the regulatory agencies better..."
SpaceX's original stated intention for the site was to launch the Falcon 9, not as a destructive test facility smack in the middle of several nature preserves. The first launch tower was built without permits and Elon claimed it was only an "integration tower". What is supposed to be the biggest, most powerful rocket should have a water deluge/sound suppression system, but SpaceX abandoned the permit process with the Army Corps of Engineers and eventually proceeded with a "not a deluge system" that they didn't get any permissions for.
If you go through the process, it takes time, but it means that later on you aren't stopped cold as paperwork and permissions have to be amended or brought into compliance which can take even more time. The Boca Chica site was a poor choice for the Starship program as it has a very limited angle that avoids launching over populations and foreign nations (unfriendly). The only upside is that Elon seems to be getting away with flouting building codes and regulations and can pursue destructive testing that NASA is not going to allow on the site of the Apollo launch pads.
You are as bad as Space. Please get your facts right.
The original Environmental Impact Study was for Falcon Heavy because at the time Starship was just a vague concept too poorly defined to do an EIS. Doing a full EIS takes several years so it made sense to get the process started early. When the design for Starship became sufficiently clear SpaceX applied for permission to launch it from Boca Chica. This required changes to the existing EIS - which only took months because it could be built on studies already completed for the more environmentally difficult Falcon.
SpaceX had all the required permits to build a tower but not to launch rockets from it. The launch license depends on the design of the rocket which was changing every month while the tower was being built. Each Starship launched so far has been sufficiently different from the last that it required a new launch license. No Starship has ever launched from the tower. They have all launched from the table in front of the tower.
SpaceX did get permission from TCEQ for the deluge. TCEQ told them they had all the required permits. The EPA later said they didn't. SpaceX cut corners by trusting TCEQ when they should have checked EPA rules for themselves. The deluge passed the requirements for EPA without modification.
NASA was worried that launching experimental Starships from Florida would put the only Dragon capable launch pad at risk. There are now two Dragon capable launch pads. Launching Starships from Florida is currently held up by environmental issues independent of NASA's concerns. When it became clear that full EISs would be required for the Florida launch pads SpaceX shipped parts for the Florida deluge and tower to Boca Chica so Boca Chica now has a second tower and work for the second launch table is in progress,
As has been stated many times before all US launch sites are in nature reserves. It is pretty much the only way to keep building developers away.
The important bits SpaceX are not saying are why two 60 day studies are required. They have absolutely nothing to do with the typos in the deluge compliance reports that showed mercury levels hundreds of times higher than the legal minimums when the actual values where at or below the minimum detectable levels. Much of the world's media went nuts on that storm in a teacup and SpaceX are being disingenuous by mentioning it along side the current round of delays.
First up the hot staging ring is going to crash into the sea much closer to the shore than on the last flight. SpaceX should have realised this would be an issue months ago and got the environment assessment started back then. Comparing dropping the ring next to the nature reserve to others dropping their complete first stages way out in the ocean is just arse covering for SpaceX's lack of planning.
Next up the first stage will be coming back all the way to the tower instead of simulating a landing out at sea. This will cause sonic booms in different places - ie the nature reserve. SpaceX should have anticipated that the change in flight profile for the next launch license would require an extension to the existing environmental impact study and started the process earlier so it would be ready by now.
Both environmental studies are likely to turn up FONSI (Finding of no significant impact). The FAA are required to do them anyway and SpaceX should have anticipated this and started them earlier. This whining is just politics.
"You are as bad as Space. Please get your facts right.
The original Environmental Impact Study was for Falcon Heavy because at the time Starship was just a vague concept too poorly defined to do an EIS. "
TL:DR
Yes, the EIS was done for Falcon 9/9H and not Starship. The thing is that the vehicle does matter and no preparations were ever made to launch the falcon series or an 'sub-orbital' craft to be designated later. The process to do an EIS for Starship was forced upon SpaceX who would have been happy to never do it if they could get away with it.
Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral were turned into nature preserves, they weren't build on top of one (many). The species that use those areas emmigrated there over time and most weren't using those places as permanent habitat for eons. Boca Chica is quite different.
Boca Chica is only a couple of km from the border with Mexico and the first Starship deposited its debris in Mexican territorial waters. There are people living just over the border so an incident can easily be an international one very quickly in addition to debris from the launch being blown into Mexico along with the noise.
"Isn't that why most companies move there?"
I'd expect that if I were to move to Texas, buy some land and construct anything on that land without appropriate planning, I'd be in big trouble. Unless, of course, I had a social media platform to whine with and employ a certain minimum number of people. If that's how things work in TX, that's not a good look.
Trying to do anything with local government offices is a giant PIA. Local is a completely amateur operation and the people that wind up there like to be complete pricks. Knowing that, you have to gird you loins and enter into the fray informed. It has to be done. Paying a couple of people that have gone through the same process in that location will let you know what they kick back on and who needs to be paid and how much cash needs to be in the envelope. Elon's in a unique position in that even though he's doing big projects, a functionary trying to fleece him more than the next guy might mean a list of rants on Xitter which might trigger an audit of finances and where did you get the funds for all of your stuff on your salary. Of course, Elon might shot both feet and rant anyway rather than seeing the bribe as a face saving way to lubricate the permitting process to his benefit provided it's a reasonable ask.
It would be very improper for a company to directly fund a regulator. The staff need to be able to be completely objective, which means they take home the same pay and have the same job security regardless of whether they grant or withhold permission.
Also, the amount of regulating capacity in a regulator should be just less than industry demand. There has to be a cost associated with over using a regulator lest the companies take them for granted. It encourages companies to be efficient with their engagement with a regulator, because the limited resource gets shared out amongst all companies.
Plus it keeps the staff busy more of the time. If there were a surplus of regulator staff then they’re going to be idle a lot of the time. Best keep them busy and practiced
There is an important date on 5th of November in the US ... if the Starship did indeed successfully fly before that day, methinks that the opinion of Elon Musk concerning that important date might make a big impact on many Americans. Probably more than the opinion of a singer always dressed in glittering swimsuits (did nobody ever tell her to vary outfits ?). The current government had to swallow a big snake by having to ask SpaceX to save their asses from the Calamity Capsule, so another success would be difficult to ignore.
But pushing out after that important date might actually be for saving turtles, I wouldn't know. May-be turtles are particularly sensitive in september-october ?
"But pushing out after that important date might actually be for saving turtles, I wouldn't know. May-be turtles are particularly sensitive in september-october ?"
SpaceX doesn't care about turtles. They were instructed to modify their lighting so baby turtles would be attracted to the sea rather than the factories inland that operate 25/7.
"That's actually kind of... odd."
What? That the US elections are being held on Guy Fawkes day? The first Tuesday of November has been election day in the US for some time. Rather than just calling for an election and sending agencies scrambling to set up polling locations, it's more organized to hold voting on a particular day a couple of times each year.
I remember reading a book at school that said something along the lines that Fawkes co-conspirators travelled up north to capture the Kings son prince Charles and his sister Elizabeth, but having not heard of Fawkes capture, they told pretty much everyone they came across that the King was dead, and that they should join the small army heading up north to start a rebellion. The people were so horrified by what they were hearing, a group of people consisting of sickened Catholics and Protestants alike lynched the lot of them.
I only hunted that book down in the school library after an off-the-cuff remark from our English teacher about catholic involvement in the plot, no-one else in class cared, so yes, I agree with you that most people have no idea, other than it's a night to let off fireworks.
At my Catholic school it was explained that it was all a false-flag operation by the evil king to blame the catholics.
Their explanation was that "how could Fawkes possibly have obtained all that gunpowder ?" That this was in the middle of the 70s IRA bombing campaign was a little ironic.
Elon's been on the interwebs whining about Blue Origin as well claiming the company is lobbing lawsuits at them, which isn't true. Blue has been going after NASA and the GAO for violating their own rules so they can favor Elon with contracts SpaceX has not qualified for. Another complaint in the media is that Blue hasn't gone to orbit yet. It's the case of the tortoise and hare. SpaceX hasn't put the Starship in orbit either comparing it with New Glenn. I expect that there's a very good chance the first outing of New Glenn isn't going to wind up as a giant explosion like some I could mention.
True, but that's only because the burn was terminated just before it reached orbital velocity - a choice that was made to ensure it wasn't left in LEO if there were any issues.
The real problem is with SpaceX using a rapid, iterative development process that has not previously been used by the aerospace sector - it scares the daylights out the regulators, as it probably should until they have the evidence to show that it can (or cannot) be used safely.
>"rapid, iterative development process that has not previously been used by the aerospace sector - it scares the daylights out the regulators"
Well, the explosions probably make them a bit uncomfortable as well...
Honestly, it's a good sign if there's tension between the FAA and SpaceX. If there wasn't, either SpaceX is being slow and conservative or the FAA is being too accommodating.
"True, but that's only because the burn was terminated just before it reached orbital velocity"
The fuel gauges looked a little low as well which may have been a factor in deciding not to test an in-space relight where that capability is intended so the ship can de-orbit. A bigger concern is those near empty fuel tanks were on a mission with nothing inside the rocket. There didn't seem to be enough for a de-orbit burn and fuel to land.
Starship exploded on the flight before as it was carrying enough fuel for orbital insertion and re-entry which was vented to get down to the re-entry weight (and "boom").
They reduced the fuel loading for the last flight so they didn't have to vent.
Another complaint in the media is that Blue hasn't gone to orbit yet. It's the case of the tortoise and hare. SpaceX hasn't put the Starship in orbit either comparing it with New Glenn."
I think most people would be comparing New Glenn with Falcon Heavy rather than Starship. New Glenn is bigger than Falcon Heavy, but not by all that much, where as Starship is quite a bit bigger that New Glenn. New Glenn is also not fully reusable, so also more like Falcon Heavy than Starship.
On the other hand. BO is definitely more on the "traditional" side of the fence, spending years designing and building a "finished" product they hope will work first time. I wish them luck. Much as I like what SpaceX has done, including their explody development process, I don't want them being the only game in town. Competition is a proven driver of progress, much as the big conglomerate hate it because they'd much rather be monopolies, charging whatever they like for their ever stagnant products.
"New Glenn is also not fully reusable, so also more like Falcon Heavy than Starship."
Starship isn't fully reusable yet either unless your definition includes gathering up all of the pieces, melting them down and making a new rocket out of them. New Glenn's booster is designed and built to be recoverable, but the missions they contemplate have the second stage going too far/fast to be a good risk to bring back and also have the performance to re-land without a huge hit to how much can be launched.
The SpaceX Raptor engines will still need more work. The last flight where they did accomplish a simulated landing of the booster still had a dead engine. Had they recovered the stage, that engine would definitely need replacing and the rest given a good examine to make sure nothing else has gone beyond tolerances. If too much work is needed, it gets into the realm of "refurbishable" like the Shuttle. Elon and Gwen talk about a regime where turn around is less than a week. Of course, they've talked about that for years now.
"Starship isn't fully reusable yet either unless your definition includes gathering up all of the pieces,"
Well, yes. But that's because far they have not *tried* to land the two parts in a recoverable or reusable way. I thought that was clear from what I posted. Different development methodologies. New Glenn is even less reusable by your argument because it's not even launched at all yet unless you mean it's fully reusable as a museum exhibit. No need to melt it down :-)
I really think you ought to wait until Starship is "production ready" before whinging about how it's not as good as New Glenn. Likewise, lets see how a "production" New Glenn performs too. And if you really want to compare the two companies, think how much SpaceX have actually done so far compared to BO. BO may leap ahead of SpaceX, but so far SpaceX have performed far, far better than any other launch system in the world. I'm very much looking forward to the New Glenn launch in the same way I'm looking forward to seeing StarShip progress from early prototypes to a usable system. You, on the other hand, seem to have chosen a "team" and decided only "your" team is worth supporting. You are allowed to support both sides if you want to you know. Sometimes both sides have interesting things, even if both might also have things you don't like. It's a bit like the thinking mans politics :-)
"But that's because far they have not *tried* to land the two parts in a recoverable or reusable way. "
Blowing up negates any chance of "trying". It looks like IFT-4 also had issues.
Elon has stated a few times that the Raptor engine is being run right on the edge. How is that a good thing for a rocket that's supposed to be renewable? I would want to have a decent amount of margin rather than being at the limits of the materials.
Have you seen their new engine yet? That is also part of the development. Like I said, let's wait and see. You really can't take too much from prototypes and test flights "failing" until or if they are successful. What you seem to be complaining about is a lack of understanding of the SpaceX development process. Just have a look back at how Falcon (9 and heavy) started out and where they are now. Their entire philosophy is to launch with incremental targets, learning from each launch, seeing what worked and improving and aiming for the next, more advanced target. Your entire argument against Starship appears to stem from a total misunderstanding of that process. It seems to have worked well so far. BO are going for a 1st time success, which may still fail, and so far have taken years to only get as far as sub-orbital joyrides while Falcon 9 has become the most successful current launch system by far. Even if BO do succeed in all aspects with their first launch, it'll still take them a good few years to catch up to SpaceX. And as I already said, I hope they do as competition is good, especially when the the competitors are egotistical billionaires not used to being "beaten".
" What you seem to be complaining about is a lack of understanding of the SpaceX development process. "
Fire, Aim, Ready. I have plenty of experience in manufacturing and aerospace and what Elon is doing isn't a valid approach other than as an exercise to spend as much money as possible. It's pointless to set a launch date and launch whatever there is on that date regardless. It's better to get to something that has a reasonable expectation of doing what it's supposed to and then setting a date.
BO isn't selling "joy rides" for the sake of being an amusement company. They gone step by step in a responsible fashion to have a craft that is competent enough to launch people. They also launch experiments with New Shepard though to little fanfare. The development of the BE-3 engine has given lots on insight to developing the BE-4 which is not only useful in-house, but as a saleable item. Jeff isn't being summoned to testify regarding "accidents" due to a rushed development program. He is making noises about increasing the rate of progress since he doesn't want to sell all of his Amazon stock to support the company and that's likely part of the reason he stepped down as CEO of Amazon to spend more time at BO so there's no lag in making decisions when they need to be made at the top level.
A first launch success for New Glenn would be ideal, but if the rocket performs most of the first mission with only a minor anomaly, that can be acceptable since it is a very complex system. Just clearing the launch pad isn't going to suffice to call it a success (in hindsight). The booster cartwheeling and then exploding at altitude isn't acceptable either. Missing the barge on landing might be ok depending on why. The main goal for a customer is for their payload to be put where it needs to go, intact and functional (not shaken to bits).
and then setting a date."
People who've watched Musk over the years talk about "Musk time" and how it's usually roughly 2x longer than he expects.
Again if you listen closely he'll set quite low expectations, but they will always have a "Stretch" goal which, if everything else works they will have a go at trying.
SX have succeeded by incorporating a way to develop first stage recovery while doing for-pay commercial launches.
But stg2 recovery of a VTOL vehicle is a massive PITA. A cursory analysis will show the total kinetic and potential energy per unit mass of a stg2 is 11x that of stg1 (and F9 stg1 are much slower than TSTO ELV's to make the problem doable in the first place).
In fact the only actual spacecraft (IE engines running on launch, not inside a launch shroud, because that's a payload) was the Shuttle.
SS doesn't just need new materials and operating processes it needs new physics to cope with the massive Cp/Cg shift.
No doubt I'll get a lot of downvotes for this one but I suspect that a lot of Red Chinese money is going into environmental groups for the purpose of bollixing things up. Not just SpaceX, bridges, pipelines, power plants, highways, any sort of needed infrastructure.
The groups themselves are likely not aware of where that money is coming from, it's surely being filtered through several layers of front groups, but I've no doubt it's happening.
On both sides of the pond, not just the US.
And seriously, if you had that kind of money isn't that the sort of thing you would do to weaken an enemy?
The main backers of the "Campaign for a Rural Unspoiled Traditional England" who opposed windfarms in the UK did turn out to be Westinghouse's Nuclear Engineering division and the USSR were the backers of most European nuclear disarmament and anti-nuclear groups during the cold war.
If I were a national economic competitor then throwing a few $$ at the local Preserve the Lesser-Spotted Newt group when somebody was trying to decide where to build a new chip fab - might be a good use of my secret defense budget.
A Google search shows no such organisation with this name.
Soviet (specifically KGB) involvement with peace groups in the West was a common trope of Cold War thrillers, along with the neocons of the Reagan White House (along with MHD drives for Soviet submarines).
In fact the USSR set up their own organisations. like the World Peace Council to campaign for this. Actual investigations by the CIA in 1967 and MI5 &6 in the early 80's (Here) showed little or no contact.
Since the #2 in the London KGB office at the time was working for MI6 their visibility of UK KGB operations would have been quite good.
I don't like Westinghouse (or whoever owns them this week. Some hedge fund?) and I can quite well believe they would do such a thing.
However on this occasion I'm calling bu***hit.
This post has been deleted by its author
Yes, I couldn't remember the name of the actual group. It was deliberately chosen to be close to several legitimate groups called things along the lines of Preservation/Rural/Countryside and I didn't want libel any of them.
>Since the #2 in the London KGB office at the time was working for MI6 their visibility of UK KGB operations would have been quite good.
At the same time that most of the heads of MI6 were working for the KGB
If the USSR were spending $Bn on ABM defences when they could have just thrown a few DM at some student groups in the 70s/80s then they deserved the trip to the Gulag. Just like any Gasprom executives that didn't think investing a few $K in directorships for retired German chancellors was worth it to get German nuclear power shutdown more recently.
You're not doing very well here, are you?
"At the same time that most of the heads of MI6 were working for the KGB"
Well no, Kim Philby was the closest the KGB got to head of MI6, although he was head of the Russia section IIRC.
Perhaps you mean MI5, where Roger Hollis was Head and Peter Wright (in his book Spycatcher) was fairly sure a)There was a mole b)Hollis was it?
BTW Hollis retired as Head in 1965, long before the any plans for foreign backed nuclear construction in the UK. He died in 1973
Perhaps a bit more research and a bit less typing?
"A Google search shows no such organisation with this name."
That's ok. If you use AI to do your research, you get an out if you wind up with utter tripe. Unless you're an attorney. At least one has been disbarred for not vetting an AI generated brief where the machine was making things up.
Lots of things are possible and some might sound likely on first listen, but a lot is lorry loads of organic fertilizer. Some might even be the blamed entity starting the rumor that they interfered with something so they didn't have to spend the money and take the risk in the first place but wound up with the results they wanted. A nation such as China has to be careful they don't go too far and wind up getting slapped with trade embargoes or high tariffs. If they donate to fringe groups, it can't be in large amounts and has to be in ways that aren't particularly traceable.
Sadly *anything* to do with Elon Musk provokes a red mist of hatred nowadays for most on this site !
Their hatred overrides anything to do with the goal of reaching Mars & beyond.
Let them all live in caves without progress if that is what they really want.
So sad that politics has spoilt this website.
It is quite possible to both consider Musk a prize knob, and yet still have admiration and respect for what he is achieving. A complex mindset, sure, but what can you do?
Ferdinand Porsche has already been mentioned. Henry Ford was an actual published Nazi sympathiser and antisemite. IBM, Hugo Boss, Volkswagen, all got started to some extent supplying Hitler's Nazis. OK, we could live without Hugo Boss, I grant you, but the rest have all made good contributions to their respective industries, and no doubt there are many other examples.
GJC
Geoff:
I'll say it again.
Elon has *money* and lots of it at times. He himself is a goddamn doorknob. What he has, several times, done, is take a set of decent ideas, found or buy a company that engenders those ideas, and then find bodies with the relevant experience, talent and skills to bring those ideas to life. Gwen Shotwell is the reason that SpaceX has made it to where it is. Elon is the mouthpiece that happens to have the bulk of the stock, Gwen runs the show, and found the engineers, designers and other staff that make things happen. The only credit he really deserves here is splashing cash around at the right moments.
As for Twitter/Twatter/X or Xitter or whatever that cesspool is being labelled these days, I'm fairly sure it will become a business management course study in how not to run a company in the future. I suspect the whole episode is Elon's midlife crisis writ large upon the internet social media history.
<shrug>
And I will say it again:
He may not be deciding on every nut and bolt in his cars or rockets, but he made those cars and rockets happen, when other business leaders didn't, and arguably couldn't. Recognise his achievements, whilst also recognising his (many and varied) shortcomings.
GJC
The whole Xitter saga reeks of him being forced into buying it after blowing smoke and being told by regulators to put up or shut up
That said, the hiustory of the Internet is littered with the corpses of once-dominant social media sites which imploded after sale to "private investors" who invariably want to recover their purchase price in less than 2 years, so jack up prices and asset-strip without realising that even users with heavily established presences on ZYX platform are highly mobile
"The whole Xitter saga reeks of him being forced into buying it after blowing smoke and being told by regulators to put up or shut up"
He signed the contract, plain and simple. Had he not immediately gone on a rant disparaging the company in ways expressly prohibited by that contract, he could have paid them a cancellation fee and walked away. When he bought a load of stock, Elon was invited to be on the Board, but he declined. That position would have given him all the insight into the company that he could want. It wasn't regulators that forced him to do anything. It was his lawyers that finally convinced him that he was going to lose the court case or at the very least looked really bad if he managed to win.
Now Elon/SpaceX have a fixed price contract to deliver an uncrewed lander to the moon and back up to lunar orbit. 2/3rds of the contract has been paid and there is still no functioning prototype of the core vehicle, not to mention the orbital depot, tankers or even the space-rated cryo couplers needed to transfer propellants in orbit. SpaceX hasn't even delivered a mock up of the lander interior to NASA so it can be evaluated and the design smoothed out. The tortoise may wind up delivering a lunar lander before SpaceX has half of the technology ready for their architecture.
"Gwen Shotwell is the reason that SpaceX has made it to where it is."
I'd argue that it was Tom Mueller, the architect of the Falcon 9. Elon is no engineer and it would take an infinite number of fresh-out uni grads on an infinite number of computers to randomly come up with the same vehicle.
In a word. No.
They chose to supply or involve themselves either for the money they could make or their personal agreement with the Nazi ideology.
Most (all?) of them were doing quite nicely beforehand.
So can that "We all done a few dodgy deals to get started" BS.
That was not actually my contention, I was saying that major and well-loved companies down the ages have often had odious scumbags at the helm, which I thought was rather obvious from the context of Musk that the discussion was about.
But I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to air what is obviously an important stance to you.
GJC
"No doubt I'll get a lot of downvotes for this one but I suspect that a lot of Red Chinese money is going into environmental groups for the purpose of bollixing things up. Not just SpaceX, bridges, pipelines, power plants, highways, any sort of needed infrastructure."
It's possible, but I doubt it. They do have a rapidly growing number of "independent" rocket companies now, at least one of which is currently testing re-usable 1st stages (pretty much just behind SpaceX Grasshopper level). Whether it's stolen tech/knowledge or just working with "we know this can be done" advantage I leave for the reader to decide. It's still a developing industry, but has high aims set by The Party, so I'd not be too surprised if some day we find they were stealing tech and spreading FUD in aid of their home grown industry.
How much pollution could we have without government interference? How many anti-consumer scams could we have without government interference? How much bigger a gap between rich and poor could we have without government interference? How much smaller could our nature reserves be without government interference???
Funnily enough we have government interference in order to reduce the likelihood that "progress" from giant corporations, doesnt throw the rest of us under a bus. I quite like there being Nature reserves that are actually wildlife havens. I quite like there being a regulator that is making sure that before a rocket launches its not going to cause massive problems for everyone within 100kms. I quite like having regulators looking after things and trying to rein in the worst excesses of the corporations, who absolutely do not have the best interests of anyone who spends their time on El Reg in mind (I doubt very much anyone here on El reg is one of the 1% of the world... We're all too busy actually doing real stuff...).
If you cant see the good that Regulators try to do, then your Reality must be pretty damn Basic after all...
I know US food standards are utter dogshit compared to much of the world, but imagine the toxins the giant conglomerate food industry would put in if they had no regulation.
Now repeat for environmental issues, water (ignore Flint), monetary controls.
You'd have even bigger toxic cesspools of life than you currently do.
"and suppliers put all sorts of poisonous shite in the food and drink of the day,"
In trying to make bread more white, they poisoned their customers. Fast forward to today and people are keen on "organic" rustic loaves that are wheat colored and have bits in. I don't see a point in bleaching flour so I buy unbleached. My bread looks like bread and the house smells amazing when I'm baking.
Get somebody drunk and you might be in with a chance. Feed them a good home cooked meal and you may have to fight them off. There's that whole thing of not being charged with crimes that's a bonus to the latter approach. Carbs as aphrodisiacs.
"How much progress could we have without government interference?"
Depends how you define progress. If you mean purely production levels and technological advancement, probably more than currently. But the cost to the population as a whole is the cost most are not willing to pay. Look up the "robber barons" to see where cartels, monopolies and lack of regulation get you.
ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.....
If like mr musky your'e a serious "uber-humanist" then it all makes sense...
You eventually come to the dark dark realisation that you're really a "uber-the cleverest-bestest-humanist"
By the way hitler was also a serious "uber-humanist" too, but unlike musky his specialiation was "uber-germanic-humanism"
Hey whiner "The Register", lets put your business in the hands of bureaucrats that have different rules for different organizations and see how you do.
Has NASA EVER had to do the same wild life testing as SpaceX? No!
Has NASA EVER been held to the same level of environmental scrutiny as SpaceX? No!
Has NASA EVER been held up by the FAA when their rockets have gone awry? No!
So be careful making "Pram" jokes you ignoramus.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
