Trump orders deregulation of the commercial Launch market

Michel Van

Michel Van

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
13 August 2007
Messages
10,425
Reaction score
18,116
Last edited by a moderator:
Let see from Positive side:

With FAA overregulation trow over board, the Rocket industry can flourish.
the cape can have row of Launch Towers like good old time of Space Race.
and not only at Cape, Texas will authorise more launch site at there coast.
I hope other US state follow them...
 
Okay realistically, I think this is a good thing at least for defense. The only thing bad about this is that it gives even less incentive to fund NASA, which means that space launches might well walk the way of shipbuilding, where the national agencies responsible for building rockets don't know how to design them anymore.

But regarding the environmental impact, everyone loves to harp and bemoan what future holes deregulation will dig while at the same time complain that we don't have enough manufacturing or rare earth metal refining in this country. But the environmental and human cost is the price you pay for being a manufacturing power. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't expect to do anything quickly enough when you've got a telephone books worth of regulations that you need to go through in order to build and launch anything. As a manufacturing powerhouse, China didn't over regulate their factory or mine building to the extent that we regulate ours. It's not surprising that the cost to do business is so high here when it takes years to build and do anything here thanks to all the regulatory paperwork you have to fill out - even if it's just to add a fucking urinal into your shed in the back yard.

If you actually want to increase independence for things like rare earth metals, you'd have to develop the refineries here. If you want to develop better batteries, you have to do cobalt mining. If you want to increase shipbuilding capacity, you need more ship yards and less waterline resorts and vacation homes for Jeff Zuckerberg. If you want affordable drones in the US, maybe the FAA needs to put in a little more effort to develop guidelines for safely operating drones. Similar payoffs apply to everything, including space launches. Regulations do need to be in place, but they shouldn't be so limiting that you can't get anything done anymore. In this country, there are a lot of things that are over regulated, that completely destroyed and hampered industries that could use a little reforming, especially if you actually want to increase manufacture and production.

Besides, space launch isn't something you can offload to a third world country, not to mention how deplorable it is to be imposing the human and environmental cost of any of that upon other countries in the first place....
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
Okay realistically, I think this is a good thing at least for defense. The only thing bad about this is that it gives even less incentive to fund NASA, which means that space launches might well walk the way of shipbuilding, where the national agencies responsible for building rockets don't know how to design them anymore.
Click to expand...
1000%. As terrible as they are now, at least their stay is, for the record till now, permanent.
Reddington777 said:
If you actually want to increase independence for things like rare earth metals, you'd have to develop the refineries here.
Click to expand...
No, scrap that off. I'll tell you, having toured a small pre-refinery over here in Vietnam where our authorities illegally granted permits for Chinese to enter and mine REEs, that stuff STINKS, in all quantifiable means of environmental impact.
 
Reddington777 said:
Okay realistically, I think this is a good thing at least for defense. The only thing bad about this is that it gives even less incentive to fund NASA, which means that space launches might well walk the way of shipbuilding, where the national agencies responsible for building rockets don't know how to design them anymore.
Click to expand...
it doesn't really affect defense. And it has nothing to do with NASA. NASA should be building its own (like SLS) anymore in the first place. NASA can buy it rides like it has since 1990 for robotic missions (an almost 200). Many of the people involve for NASA use to work at contractors.
 
You already have that with experimental aircraft.

Trains likely need governmental help.
Spaceflight is experimental.

Rail traffic is more understood. Positive Train Control is a must, or should be considered so.

Winged rockets? That's tougher.
Even over water, LVs have range safety--but planes don't.

The general rule of thumb is that---the fewer number of folks under threat--the more slack you can dole out.

As more lives are at risk, scrutiny increases. Except for Wall Street--who write their own regs.

I consider spaceflight as still being in its fledgling stage.
I'd rather not kill it in its crib.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
why does spaceflight deserve special treatment versus other modes of transportation an endeavors/
Click to expand...
Because it's still an economically emerging transportation mode, as opposed to firmly established major avenues such as rail, road/highway, waterway/canal, lake, ocean, and subsonic (yuck!) flight, since it mercifully cuts down on travel duration. Time marches on...
 
martinbayer said:
Because it's still an economically emerging transportation mode, as waterway/canal, lake, ocean...
Click to expand...
I joked elsewhere about the Chinese ship collision--bringing up HOW TO AVOID HUGE SHIPS.

But if you read the wiki on that book--you will note how the public at large liked to make fun of the book, pan it, etc.
Aerospace books are perhaps even more niche--apparently beneath the contempt of the masses. While FANGORIA persisted, not even it or wrestling titles could save Starlog--even PENTHOUSE couldn't save OMNI from the internet that hurt it as well.

My point is aerospace needs all the help it can get....there are only a handful of people who could put a weathersat inside a shroud, or launch a rocket.

As for expendable LVs--I think a case can be made that they should still be produced just to keep the craft alive.
Part of me wonders if Starship's troubles are the result of not churning out rocket cores on a regular basis---reuse leading to stagnation.
There are other things to consider besides cost.
 
martinbayer said:
Because it's still an economically emerging transportation mode, as opposed to firmly established major avenues such as rail, road/highway, waterway/canal, lake, ocean, and subsonic (yuck!) flight, since it mercifully cuts down on travel duration. Time marches on...
Click to expand...
That is space launch and not overall space flight with proposed automatic1% GNP funding and administrator for lift.
 
publiusr said:
Part of me wonders if Starship's troubles are the result of not churning out rocket cores on a regular basis---reuse leading to stagnation.
Click to expand...
Currently, Starship has *zero* reuse. They're cranking out hardware as fast as they can: the upcoming tenth Starship launch is scheduled to include booster number 16 and ship number 37.
 
Hobbes said:
Currently, Starship has *zero* reuse. They're cranking out hardware as fast as they can: the upcoming tenth Starship launch is scheduled to include booster number 16 and ship number 37.
Click to expand...
If anything it's because they're iterating so quickly.
 
I still wonder if there is a disconnect between the Falcon guys and Starship guys. Each Starship is new, yes---but there may come a day when everything is not only broken in but worn out.

Over at cosmoquest, one individual (Trebuchet) talked about one of Boeing's higher-ups ask if they even needed engineers anymore.
SpaceX has been insulated from that kind of thing-- so far.

Starship is at one end of the bathtub curve--but Falcon may be approaching the other end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve
My concern is with the industry as a whole...suits may see their companies' RLV do well then lay a lot of folks off--and get caught.
I always expect the worst.

On SpaceX
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/15/technology/spacex-musk-government-contracts-taxes.html
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
I still wonder if there is a disconnect between the Falcon guys and Starship guys.
Click to expand...
There isn't. Falcon 9 had an easier start as a fully expendable vehicle. Starship is starting out as a fully reusable vehicle design.
publiusr said:
Each Starship is new, yes---but there may come a day when everything is not only broken in but worn out.
Click to expand...
How would it get worn out?
 
Turnover, attrition.

The bathtub curve applies to companies as well.
While most blame the internet--SEARS executives who killed the catalog killed that company. No Caprice from GM...Ford killed Crown Vics and looks to kill F-150.

I think we have all seen how things outside smart phones get worse with time.
 
publiusr said:
Turnover, attrition.

The bathtub curve applies to companies as well.
While most blame the internet--SEARS executives who killed the catalog killed that company. No Caprice from GM...Ford killed Crown Vics and looks to kill F-150.

I think we have all seen how things outside smart phones get worse with time.
Click to expand...
meh. Analogy is not applicable to Falcon 9 and Starship

and it was the internet was the blame for Sears and it applies to every brick and mortar anchor store in a mall.
 
publiusr said:
My point is aerospace needs all the help it can get....there are only a handful of people who could put a weathersat inside a shroud, or launch a rocket.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. There are more than can make submarines. The industry is healthy
publiusr said:
As for expendable LVs--I think a case can be made that they should still be produced just to keep the craft alive.
Part of me wonders if Starship's troubles are the result of not churning out rocket cores on a regular basis---reuse leading to stagnation.
Click to expand...
Wait, wait, wait. It just hit me. That is exactly one of the arguments why SLS shouldn't go forward. It won't ever fly enough to build proficiency in assembly and launch operations. it has to be more than two in a year.
publiusr said:
Part of me wonders if Starship's troubles are the result of not churning out rocket cores on a regular basis---reuse leading to stagnation.
Click to expand...

Huh? Come on, use your internet skills for finding real facts and not obscure items that may support your skewed views.
What serial numbers for Super Booster and Starship are going to fly this month? They have built vehicles that will never fly because they became superseded during construction. There have been 4-6 in construction at a time. They want to fly them more often,
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom