Elon Musk needs to adapt to his role in the Space Industry
First, before the fan boys destroy me. I am a HUGE fan of Elon Musk, and SpaceX. This comment is meant as constructive criticism to advance our shared goal of opening up space to settlement and industrialization.
Recently, in responce to delays caused by the FAA, Elon Musk tweeting out "Unlike its aircraft division, which is fine, the FAA space division has a fundamentally broken regulatory structure. Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.".
This subject should not have been addressed by Musk through a tweet. Without further exploration of the issue [1] of the sort that length-limited forums like twitter are poorly adapted for, this tweet is nothing but a billionaire whining that the little people, sheltered in their government jobs, with their small minds, and their petty concerns are getting in his way. Getting upset that a federal government agency is designed to handle only the sorts of things that it has historically handled is more than just a little dumb... You don't look to government for forward thinking and adaptability (Proof: ISS, SLS, & the Orion Capsule... Game. Set. Match.). Someone like Musk should have the sophistication to know that.
Elon is an entrepreneur and engineer. He is in his comfort zone leading a technologically bleeding edge startup out to disrupt an industry. But SpaceX is not a start up anymore! Not even marginally close! SpaceX is the leading launch provider in the whole world, with 42.8% of all orbital launches in 2020; that's more than the sum of it's next 3 rivals for 2020 combined! SpaceX is not not disrupting an industry of establishment giants anymore... that chapter of it's existence is well and truly OVER! SpaceX is ITSELF now the establishment giant! That means Elon Musk's role in the space industry as a whole has changed. He must adapt and change his approach to dealing with organizations like the FAA to fit his new role.
Some might call his tweet a "Call for Change", but that is naive to the way that real regulatory change is effectively managed. You have to hold the government's hands and accept that the government just can not change as fast as industry can change, not won't, can't! This more gentle but typically much more successful approach generally starts by establish think-tanks, and advocacy institutes, and offering grants to academics, who can in turn author policy white-papers, and regulatory update suggestions, that advance your vision of how the feds should do business in easily digestible packets that policy makers and government bureaucrats know how to digest on their own terms. Emphasis at this point is placed on the sort of regulatory change that can be implemented without new legislative action, but rather by reinterpriting the current laws. Eventually, you groom former-industry-leaders turned academics and think-tank-directors and lobbyists to be appointed (in exchange for a few strategic campaign contributions of course) to LEAD organizations like the FAA and then clean house from the inside.
This is how regulatory capture is handled by every other industry. It's a tried and true approach that is a standard part of business-as-usual in all regulated-capitalist societies like the USA. This approach is not new and not controversial (outside of the rhetoric spouted by a few idealists that nobody listens to trapped in dead-end appointments in university humanities departments that have words like "studies" or "justice" in their names). Did anyone imagine that New Space would or even could be any different? It's about time Musk stopped thinking like a disruptive startup CEO and started using the tools of the tycoons.... HE IS ONE! It's about time he took advantage of it! And along the way propels humanity to the stars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. His tweet is nothing but an INTRODUCTION to an interesting and important subject. One is left with nothing but questions:
How does the regulatory structure of an agency meant to regulate a hand full launches from a few government sites a year differ from the regulatory structure that one would need to launch those same few launches from non-government sites?
How does making those launches more frequent change the regulatory structure that making them from non government sites didn't?
How does them not being expendable launches further change the regulatory structure (beyond merely making those flights more common)?
He contrasts FAA-aircraft with FAA-space... does that imply that he believes that FAA-space should be reorganized along the lines of FAA-aircraft?