13 ms·

FAA closes SpaceX Starship mishap investigation

164 points by fnordpiglet 3y ago

danw1979 3y ago
My favourite fact about super heavy is that it generates about 100-130GW of power at launch, which is roughly twice the peak demand of the United Kingdom’s electricity grid.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  The UK grid is generating 26 gigawatts as I type this: https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/
  - danw1979 3y ago
    Corrected my mistake. Thanks !
- stratom 3y ago
  130kW can't be true, maybe a typo?
  - danw1979 3y ago
    yes, I meant gigawatts !
GMoromisato 3y ago
A few observations (which many of you might already know): 1. SpaceX is the one who wrote the mishap report. The FAA approved it, meaning they accepted that it conformed to regulations. In particular, it's SpaceX who came up with the list of 63 corrective actions--not the FAA. 2. That means that SpaceX has had a chance to implement those corrective actions, so I expect many of them (like the Automated Flight Termination System) are already done. 3. The FAA letter says that SpaceX must implement all "corrective actions directly tied to public safety". That implies that any corrective actions /not/ tied to public safety can be implemented later. All in all, I see this is good news for SpaceX and IFT-2. https://www.faa.gov/media/70901 https://www.faa.gov/media/70901
- dmurray 3y ago
  So, does this mean the FAA letter is the weakest it could possibly have been? Or was it plausible they could have said "we know you identified 63 corrective actions, but don't worry about that - so long as you do #3, #18, #31 and make a start on #40 you're good to go on the next launch"?
  - tonyhb 3y ago
    To be fair this is the same as most regulatory bodies. You have specific things you must do for SOC2. There can also be known issues that you must document and, as long as they fall within acceptable risk tolerances and you have a plan to fix them within some defined time period, it can be acceptable (obvs, again, depending on the risks). It's not perfect, but then again... nothing is. Personally I think that being honest about all risks, documenting them, and having a plan in place to fix things is a good place to be. Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk, so you'd expect that the portion of these that can be ignored should be very low risk.
    - skissane 3y ago
      > Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk For space, FAA is primarily concerned with risks to public safety (launch vehicle goes off course and crashes into populated area); and also risk to third party space assets. It also cares about environmental risks, but to a lesser degree (risks of short-term environmental harms can be tolerated, especially if there is a plan being seriously pursued to mitigate them). Very different from FAA for commercial aviation where passenger safety is paramount (or at least that’s what it is supposed to be.) From what I understand, FAA considers all human spaceflight to be experimental, and passengers/crew need to sign a waiver acknowledging there is a significant risk of dying-nobody is asked to sign such a waiver before boarding a commercial flight, which is why the FAA’s commercial aviation division has enormously tougher passenger safety standards than their space division.
  - mlindner 3y ago
    I'm not sure characterizing it as "weak" would be accurate. Well functioning government bureaucracy acts in kind of a mechanical fashion with very strictly used language. It's more accurate to say that it contains neither positive language toward SpaceX nor negative language toward SpaceX. It simply _is_.
dpifke 3y ago
The list of fixes: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700789411279966339 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700789411279966339
fnordpiglet 3y ago
FAA Closes SpaceX Starship Mishap Investigation https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closes-spacex-starship-mishap-investigation https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closes-spacex-starship-mish... There doesn’t seem to be any publicly available copy of the report itself, just this summary: The final mishap investigation report cited a total of sixty-three (63) corrective actions for SpaceX to implement. These included actions to address redesigns of vehicle hardware to prevent leaks and fires, redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness, incorporation of additional reviews in the design process, additional analysis and testing of safety critical systems and components including the Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS), and the application of additional change control practices.
- cmsj 3y ago
  Is it normal the the report would not be public? I'm not often an FAA report enjoyer, but I would quite like to read this one!
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    The same technology that lets you put a payload in space can let you put a nuclear (or conventional) warhead over a city. The first space launchers were repurposed ICBMs, and so space tech falls under ITAR and other export controls. Between that and the fact that the details of the failures and fixes would probably reveal a lot of SpaceX proprietary design info, it's totally unsurprising the full report is not publicly releasable.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      The same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public Trucks aren’t dual use in the same way rockets are.
psunavy03 3y ago
Dollars to donuts developing the fixes was an ongoing process parallel to the mishap investigation, and most of the recommendations are already done. We've already seen that the pad has been rebuilt with a water deluge.
- Avshalom 3y ago
  maybe but the water deluge system seems to drain directly into protected US waters https://blog.esghound.com/i/135551935/spacexs-permitting-woes https://blog.esghound.com/i/135551935/spacexs-permitting-woe...
  - russdill 3y ago
    This is this guy's opinion, it may or may not be a valid interpretation. SpaceX is by far the world's largest operator of space launch deluge systems and other than south texas operates 3 coastal pads, with dozens of launches per year...each. In this case, a retention pond and collection system does exist. However, when the system is starting and stopping there is overspray outside of the launch area that doesn't get collected. This water is potable and ambient temperature though.
    - Avshalom 3y ago
      those other three sites were built by the US government though, SpaceX operates them.
      - bewaretheirs 3y ago
        SpaceX had to rework the business end of the deluge systems at LC39A and likely also at the other pads when they were rebuilt to launch the Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy.
  - ars 3y ago
    Is that a problem? It's a kerosene engine, there's nothing harmful in the exhaust. And if there was something in the exhaust (there isn't) it goes in the air and lands on that area anyway.
justrealist 3y ago
The problem with the FAA is only 10% the content of the reports, and 90% waiting interminably months upon months for the reports. So if SpaceX has a list of concrete items to address, it's good news for SpaceX basically regardless of the contents of the report.
- entropicgravity 3y ago
  In this case SpaceX is not the only client the FAA is dealing with. Both the US military and NASA have a lot riding on the timely progress of Starship's shaking out the weak areas so Starship can become viable and reliable.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    The FAA doesn't answer to either of those agencies. They have no motivation to factor NASA timelines into their prioritization unless the executive branch lights a fire under them, and the executive branch is deeply unfocused on technical details like this right now.
    - ilaksh 3y ago
      How do you actually know they don't have military or NASA people breathing down their necks to make it work? And/or someone from the executive branch backing that? My understanding is that SpaceX is critical for NASA ISS and lunar missions and provides currently irreplaceable capabilities to the US military. These rockets can be used to deliver enormous kinetic and nuclear warheads or move huge military assets or personnel with unprecedented speed. SpaceX also has the largest satellite constellation which in my mind is a primary asset for space defense. There aren't any other providers that are very close to the level of these capabilities for NASA and the US military. Whatever the law is about whether they "answer" or not, strategically, the US needs to try everything possible to continue these programs with SpaceX.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe]
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago
  Some earlier posts and discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37434066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37434066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435158
insonable 3y ago
A friend in grad. school would put obvious glaring errors in his preliminary drafts of write-ups so the prof's would then be happy to correct these, feel they'd done their work, and move on, avoiding any actual substantive criticisms requiring actual work on his part to fix.
- qup 3y ago
  That's pretty much a designer/web dev trope, turning in mistakes to the boss that are easy to fix so he can put his stamp on it.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    it works the same way in construction as well. Before inspection of something like electrical, you go introduce an obvious error that is easy to observe, doesn't take long to fix, and doesn't require additional materials. The inspector can write a report indicating the work is substandard and later gets to write another report indicating the work is corrected and the sign off is complete. Everyone gets to go home happy at that point.
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      Inspectors aren't wise to this? They see everything done right except for this one obvious flaw? Or they see the glaring flaw immediately and they stop looking at the rest of the work? Imagining myself as an inspector, if I see something simple that is clearly done wrong, I am now going to go over the whole job with a fine-tooth comb. So this sounds like "urban legend" to me, but maybe there is a grain of truth in it?
      - qup 3y ago
        My health inspector (restaurant) says she can't really turn in perfect reports. Her boss says "nobody is perfect" So she tries to find something very minor, like an unlabeled item, to put on our report, if things are otherwise good. Same with the fire department. They ignore obvious violations and nitpick small ones, and then never follow up to make sure a change was made.
lgats 3y ago
The FAA didn’t release the full mishap report, citing “proprietary data and U.S. Export Control information,” but it did specify that the closure of this investigation “does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica.” https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/08/faa-recommends-63-corrective-actions-to-spacex-in-starship-heavy-incident-report/?guccounter=1 https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/08/faa-recommends-63-correcti... https://www.faa.gov/media/70901 https://www.faa.gov/media/70901
- MR4D 3y ago
  > “does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica.” The FAA was not moving forward with a launch license until it was closed. So this is a big deal, even if it takes some time to get the license.
rnk 3y ago
I've been trying to figure out if launching from boca chica is going to be a continuing thing for years, or will they transition to Florida when it stops blowing up so much and transitions into regular launches? I haven't found any details about the long term vision of the boca chica site. My speculation is they will need 3-5+ years of test launches from there as they test out their extensive technology road map before they reach some near operational level (landing starships, turning it around, being a fuel carrier, refueling, then the landing tests for the moon, and much longer term mars development). But when that happens, will they make commercial launches from there? There aren't that many places to do that in the US, Florida of course, what about the New Mexico space port, or Vandenburg? Hawaii, some southern US ocean site? I've thought about buying (or maybe renting) one of the huge number of cheapo condos there so I could watch some of these launches. I could even imagine working from there remotely instead of sitting at home watching on the net
- avmich 3y ago
  Unless some plans have drastically changed, the idea with Starship is to launch a lot from many locations on Earth. Recent reports mention Gwynne Shotwell describing the factory being built at Starbase as capable of producing around 3 Starships per week. If such a factory works for a year (which doesn't look like a long time for a factory) that's ~150 Starships. 150 Starships each have a chance to launch about twice a year if the launches are daily. Surely numbers should be modified, some of them don't look right. First, we are probably going to have (way) more than 150 Starships. Second, a Starship is likely going to fly (way) more than twice a year. It's not a Space Shuttle after all. Next, what about those plans - Moon flights, which need refueling on low Earth orbit; Mars flights which need the same; all other flights - like orbital stations, sending probes to planets, space telescopes; finally, business class-like suborbital hops for passengers on Earth? All of that requires a lot of places to launch Starships. Unless some plans drastically scaled down, it seems like we'll have to see an industry for launchpads growing and prospering in the near future.
  - Beached 3y ago
    what is more likely to happen is that they have 15x Launches for one mission, due to all the refueling needs. all these launches happen in rapid iteration from one to 3 pads over 1, 2 or 3 days. the. everything sits silent for a few weeks to a month. repeat 10 to 20 times a year.
ramesh31 3y ago
>The FAA said Friday, Sept. 8, that multiple problems led to the launch explosion on April 20 over the Gulf of Mexico, off the South Texas coast. What are the odds Elon pushed them to make an unsafe launch to hit his stupid little 4/20 fixation? I'm guessing somewhere around 100%.
- wredue 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Better immature humor then being unnecessarily judgmental. Just my 2c.
    - kanbara 3y ago
      good thing elon is both— he makes crude jokes, likes big-breasted AI women on twitter, and doesn’t hesitate to call out cave-divers, jews, lgbtq people and a host of other stuff.
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    That's also why most don't make rocket ship companies though, even if they are already rich. They think it's too outlandish and unrealistic.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  The initial launch attempt was 4/17.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  This has been repeatedly peddled by ignorant folk who don't care about spaceflight beyond adding in unnecessary snark but it should be obvious to anyone who paid attention that it was sheer coincidence.
- chasd00 3y ago
  what was unsafe about it? I think the biggest health hazard was the dust on South Padre which turned out to be just beach sand.
Dig1t 3y ago
Hopefully the turnaround is quick. Starship is literally sitting on the pad waiting for the bureaucrats to give the okay to launch. Presumably they have already addressed all the concerns in the doc that the article is talking about. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1699233677979390280?s=46 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1699233677979390280?s=46
dpifke 3y ago
SpaceX's response: https://www.spacex.com/updates/index.html https://www.spacex.com/updates/index.html Sounds like they've already implemented most of the fixes.
- justinclift 3y ago
  The latest update there is from May 10th, or has something been pulled?
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Cutting and pasting in case you're right: September 8, 2023 UPGRADES AHEAD OF STARSHIP’S SECOND FLIGHT TEST The first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy was a critical step in advancing the capabilities of the most powerful launch system ever developed. Starship’s first flight test provided numerous lessons learned that are directly contributing to several upgrades being made to both the vehicle and ground infrastructure to improve the probability of success on future Starship flights. This rapid iterative development approach has been the basis for all of SpaceX’s major innovative advancements, including Falcon, Dragon, and Starlink. SpaceX has led the investigation efforts following the flight with oversight from the FAA and participation from NASA and the National Transportation and Safety Board. Starship and Super Heavy successfully lifted off for the first time on April 20, 2023 at 8:33 a.m. CT (13:33:09 UTC) from the orbital launch pad at Starbase in Texas. Starship climbed to a maximum altitude of ~39 km (24 mi) over the Gulf of Mexico. During ascent, the vehicle sustained fires from leaking propellant in the aft end of the Super Heavy booster, which eventually severed connection with the vehicle’s primary flight computer. This led to a loss of communications to the majority of booster engines and, ultimately, control of the vehicle. SpaceX has since implemented leak mitigations and improved testing on both engine and booster hardware. As an additional corrective action, SpaceX has significantly expanded Super Heavy’s pre-existing fire suppression system in order to mitigate against future engine bay fires. The Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) automatically issued a destruct command, which fired all detonators as expected, after the vehicle deviated from the expected trajectory, lost altitude and began to tumble. After an unexpected delay following AFSS activation, Starship ultimately broke up 237.474 seconds after engine ignition. SpaceX has enhanced and requalified the AFSS to improve system reliability. SpaceX is also implementing a full suite of system performance upgrades unrelated to any issues observed during the first flight test. For example, SpaceX has built and tested a hot-stage separation system, in which Starship’s second stage engines will ignite to push the ship away from the booster. Additionally, SpaceX has engineered a new electronic Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system for Super Heavy Raptor engines. Using fully electric motors, the new system has fewer potential points of failure and is significantly more energy efficient than traditional hydraulic systems. SpaceX also made significant upgrades to the orbital launch mount and pad system in order to prevent a recurrence of the pad foundation failure observed during the first flight test. These upgrades include significant reinforcements to the pad foundation and the addition of a flame deflector, which SpaceX has successfully tested multiple times. Testing development flight hardware in a flight environment is what enables our teams to quickly learn and execute design changes and hardware upgrades to improve the probability of success in the future. We learned a tremendous amount about the vehicle and ground systems during Starship’s first flight test. Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable launch system capable of carrying satellites, payloads, crew, and cargo to a variety of orbits and Earth, lunar, or Martian landing sites.
macinjosh 3y ago
This article was at least partly written by AI. The give away is that after every use of an imperial unit of distance a metric conversion comes right after in parens. This happens even after unspecific uses like: “… for miles (kilometers) around…” That makes no sense and only a bot would do that.
- cbozeman 3y ago
  [flagged]

164 points by fnordpiglet 3y ago

danw1979 3y ago

My favourite fact about super heavy is that it generates about 100-130GW of power at launch, which is roughly twice the peak demand of the United Kingdom’s electricity grid.

resolutebat 3y ago
The UK grid is generating 26 gigawatts as I type this: https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/
- danw1979 3y ago
  Corrected my mistake. Thanks !
stratom 3y ago
130kW can't be true, maybe a typo?
- danw1979 3y ago
  yes, I meant gigawatts !

GMoromisato 3y ago

A few observations (which many of you might already know): 1. SpaceX is the one who wrote the mishap report. The FAA approved it, meaning they accepted that it conformed to regulations. In particular, it's SpaceX who came up with the list of 63 corrective actions--not the FAA. 2. That means that SpaceX has had a chance to implement those corrective actions, so I expect many of them (like the Automated Flight Termination System) are already done. 3. The FAA letter says that SpaceX must implement all "corrective actions directly tied to public safety". That implies that any corrective actions /not/ tied to public safety can be implemented later. All in all, I see this is good news for SpaceX and IFT-2. https://www.faa.gov/media/70901 https://www.faa.gov/media/70901

dmurray 3y ago
So, does this mean the FAA letter is the weakest it could possibly have been? Or was it plausible they could have said "we know you identified 63 corrective actions, but don't worry about that - so long as you do #3, #18, #31 and make a start on #40 you're good to go on the next launch"?
- tonyhb 3y ago
  To be fair this is the same as most regulatory bodies. You have specific things you must do for SOC2. There can also be known issues that you must document and, as long as they fall within acceptable risk tolerances and you have a plan to fix them within some defined time period, it can be acceptable (obvs, again, depending on the risks). It's not perfect, but then again... nothing is. Personally I think that being honest about all risks, documenting them, and having a plan in place to fix things is a good place to be. Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk, so you'd expect that the portion of these that can be ignored should be very low risk.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk For space, FAA is primarily concerned with risks to public safety (launch vehicle goes off course and crashes into populated area); and also risk to third party space assets. It also cares about environmental risks, but to a lesser degree (risks of short-term environmental harms can be tolerated, especially if there is a plan being seriously pursued to mitigate them). Very different from FAA for commercial aviation where passenger safety is paramount (or at least that’s what it is supposed to be.) From what I understand, FAA considers all human spaceflight to be experimental, and passengers/crew need to sign a waiver acknowledging there is a significant risk of dying-nobody is asked to sign such a waiver before boarding a commercial flight, which is why the FAA’s commercial aviation division has enormously tougher passenger safety standards than their space division.
- mlindner 3y ago
  I'm not sure characterizing it as "weak" would be accurate. Well functioning government bureaucracy acts in kind of a mechanical fashion with very strictly used language. It's more accurate to say that it contains neither positive language toward SpaceX nor negative language toward SpaceX. It simply _is_.

dpifke 3y ago

The list of fixes: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700789411279966339 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700789411279966339

fnordpiglet 3y ago

FAA Closes SpaceX Starship Mishap Investigation https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closes-spacex-starship-mishap-investigation https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closes-spacex-starship-mish... There doesn’t seem to be any publicly available copy of the report itself, just this summary: The final mishap investigation report cited a total of sixty-three (63) corrective actions for SpaceX to implement. These included actions to address redesigns of vehicle hardware to prevent leaks and fires, redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness, incorporation of additional reviews in the design process, additional analysis and testing of safety critical systems and components including the Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS), and the application of additional change control practices.

cmsj 3y ago
Is it normal the the report would not be public? I'm not often an FAA report enjoyer, but I would quite like to read this one!
- psunavy03 3y ago
  The same technology that lets you put a payload in space can let you put a nuclear (or conventional) warhead over a city. The first space launchers were repurposed ICBMs, and so space tech falls under ITAR and other export controls. Between that and the fact that the details of the failures and fixes would probably reveal a lot of SpaceX proprietary design info, it's totally unsurprising the full report is not publicly releasable.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    The same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public Trucks aren’t dual use in the same way rockets are.

psunavy03 3y ago

Dollars to donuts developing the fixes was an ongoing process parallel to the mishap investigation, and most of the recommendations are already done. We've already seen that the pad has been rebuilt with a water deluge.

Avshalom 3y ago
maybe but the water deluge system seems to drain directly into protected US waters https://blog.esghound.com/i/135551935/spacexs-permitting-woes https://blog.esghound.com/i/135551935/spacexs-permitting-woe...
- russdill 3y ago
  This is this guy's opinion, it may or may not be a valid interpretation. SpaceX is by far the world's largest operator of space launch deluge systems and other than south texas operates 3 coastal pads, with dozens of launches per year...each. In this case, a retention pond and collection system does exist. However, when the system is starting and stopping there is overspray outside of the launch area that doesn't get collected. This water is potable and ambient temperature though.
  - Avshalom 3y ago
    those other three sites were built by the US government though, SpaceX operates them.
    - bewaretheirs 3y ago
      SpaceX had to rework the business end of the deluge systems at LC39A and likely also at the other pads when they were rebuilt to launch the Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy.
- ars 3y ago
  Is that a problem? It's a kerosene engine, there's nothing harmful in the exhaust. And if there was something in the exhaust (there isn't) it goes in the air and lands on that area anyway.

justrealist 3y ago

The problem with the FAA is only 10% the content of the reports, and 90% waiting interminably months upon months for the reports. So if SpaceX has a list of concrete items to address, it's good news for SpaceX basically regardless of the contents of the report.

entropicgravity 3y ago
In this case SpaceX is not the only client the FAA is dealing with. Both the US military and NASA have a lot riding on the timely progress of Starship's shaking out the weak areas so Starship can become viable and reliable.
- justrealist 3y ago
  The FAA doesn't answer to either of those agencies. They have no motivation to factor NASA timelines into their prioritization unless the executive branch lights a fire under them, and the executive branch is deeply unfocused on technical details like this right now.
  - ilaksh 3y ago
    How do you actually know they don't have military or NASA people breathing down their necks to make it work? And/or someone from the executive branch backing that? My understanding is that SpaceX is critical for NASA ISS and lunar missions and provides currently irreplaceable capabilities to the US military. These rockets can be used to deliver enormous kinetic and nuclear warheads or move huge military assets or personnel with unprecedented speed. SpaceX also has the largest satellite constellation which in my mind is a primary asset for space defense. There aren't any other providers that are very close to the level of these capabilities for NASA and the US military. Whatever the law is about whether they "answer" or not, strategically, the US needs to try everything possible to continue these programs with SpaceX.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe]

ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Some earlier posts and discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37434066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37434066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435158

insonable 3y ago

A friend in grad. school would put obvious glaring errors in his preliminary drafts of write-ups so the prof's would then be happy to correct these, feel they'd done their work, and move on, avoiding any actual substantive criticisms requiring actual work on his part to fix.

qup 3y ago
That's pretty much a designer/web dev trope, turning in mistakes to the boss that are easy to fix so he can put his stamp on it.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  it works the same way in construction as well. Before inspection of something like electrical, you go introduce an obvious error that is easy to observe, doesn't take long to fix, and doesn't require additional materials. The inspector can write a report indicating the work is substandard and later gets to write another report indicating the work is corrected and the sign off is complete. Everyone gets to go home happy at that point.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    Inspectors aren't wise to this? They see everything done right except for this one obvious flaw? Or they see the glaring flaw immediately and they stop looking at the rest of the work? Imagining myself as an inspector, if I see something simple that is clearly done wrong, I am now going to go over the whole job with a fine-tooth comb. So this sounds like "urban legend" to me, but maybe there is a grain of truth in it?
    - qup 3y ago
      My health inspector (restaurant) says she can't really turn in perfect reports. Her boss says "nobody is perfect" So she tries to find something very minor, like an unlabeled item, to put on our report, if things are otherwise good. Same with the fire department. They ignore obvious violations and nitpick small ones, and then never follow up to make sure a change was made.

lgats 3y ago

The FAA didn’t release the full mishap report, citing “proprietary data and U.S. Export Control information,” but it did specify that the closure of this investigation “does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica.” https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/08/faa-recommends-63-corrective-actions-to-spacex-in-starship-heavy-incident-report/?guccounter=1 https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/08/faa-recommends-63-correcti... https://www.faa.gov/media/70901 https://www.faa.gov/media/70901

MR4D 3y ago
> “does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica.” The FAA was not moving forward with a launch license until it was closed. So this is a big deal, even if it takes some time to get the license.

rnk 3y ago

I've been trying to figure out if launching from boca chica is going to be a continuing thing for years, or will they transition to Florida when it stops blowing up so much and transitions into regular launches? I haven't found any details about the long term vision of the boca chica site. My speculation is they will need 3-5+ years of test launches from there as they test out their extensive technology road map before they reach some near operational level (landing starships, turning it around, being a fuel carrier, refueling, then the landing tests for the moon, and much longer term mars development). But when that happens, will they make commercial launches from there? There aren't that many places to do that in the US, Florida of course, what about the New Mexico space port, or Vandenburg? Hawaii, some southern US ocean site? I've thought about buying (or maybe renting) one of the huge number of cheapo condos there so I could watch some of these launches. I could even imagine working from there remotely instead of sitting at home watching on the net

avmich 3y ago
Unless some plans have drastically changed, the idea with Starship is to launch a lot from many locations on Earth. Recent reports mention Gwynne Shotwell describing the factory being built at Starbase as capable of producing around 3 Starships per week. If such a factory works for a year (which doesn't look like a long time for a factory) that's ~150 Starships. 150 Starships each have a chance to launch about twice a year if the launches are daily. Surely numbers should be modified, some of them don't look right. First, we are probably going to have (way) more than 150 Starships. Second, a Starship is likely going to fly (way) more than twice a year. It's not a Space Shuttle after all. Next, what about those plans - Moon flights, which need refueling on low Earth orbit; Mars flights which need the same; all other flights - like orbital stations, sending probes to planets, space telescopes; finally, business class-like suborbital hops for passengers on Earth? All of that requires a lot of places to launch Starships. Unless some plans drastically scaled down, it seems like we'll have to see an industry for launchpads growing and prospering in the near future.
- Beached 3y ago
  what is more likely to happen is that they have 15x Launches for one mission, due to all the refueling needs. all these launches happen in rapid iteration from one to 3 pads over 1, 2 or 3 days. the. everything sits silent for a few weeks to a month. repeat 10 to 20 times a year.

ramesh31 3y ago

>The FAA said Friday, Sept. 8, that multiple problems led to the launch explosion on April 20 over the Gulf of Mexico, off the South Texas coast. What are the odds Elon pushed them to make an unsafe launch to hit his stupid little 4/20 fixation? I'm guessing somewhere around 100%.

wredue 3y ago
[flagged]
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Better immature humor then being unnecessarily judgmental. Just my 2c.
  - kanbara 3y ago
    good thing elon is both— he makes crude jokes, likes big-breasted AI women on twitter, and doesn’t hesitate to call out cave-divers, jews, lgbtq people and a host of other stuff.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  That's also why most don't make rocket ship companies though, even if they are already rich. They think it's too outlandish and unrealistic.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
The initial launch attempt was 4/17.
dotnet00 3y ago
This has been repeatedly peddled by ignorant folk who don't care about spaceflight beyond adding in unnecessary snark but it should be obvious to anyone who paid attention that it was sheer coincidence.
chasd00 3y ago
what was unsafe about it? I think the biggest health hazard was the dust on South Padre which turned out to be just beach sand.

Dig1t 3y ago

Hopefully the turnaround is quick. Starship is literally sitting on the pad waiting for the bureaucrats to give the okay to launch. Presumably they have already addressed all the concerns in the doc that the article is talking about. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1699233677979390280?s=46 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1699233677979390280?s=46

dpifke 3y ago

SpaceX's response: https://www.spacex.com/updates/index.html https://www.spacex.com/updates/index.html Sounds like they've already implemented most of the fixes.

justinclift 3y ago
The latest update there is from May 10th, or has something been pulled?
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Cutting and pasting in case you're right: September 8, 2023 UPGRADES AHEAD OF STARSHIP’S SECOND FLIGHT TEST The first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy was a critical step in advancing the capabilities of the most powerful launch system ever developed. Starship’s first flight test provided numerous lessons learned that are directly contributing to several upgrades being made to both the vehicle and ground infrastructure to improve the probability of success on future Starship flights. This rapid iterative development approach has been the basis for all of SpaceX’s major innovative advancements, including Falcon, Dragon, and Starlink. SpaceX has led the investigation efforts following the flight with oversight from the FAA and participation from NASA and the National Transportation and Safety Board. Starship and Super Heavy successfully lifted off for the first time on April 20, 2023 at 8:33 a.m. CT (13:33:09 UTC) from the orbital launch pad at Starbase in Texas. Starship climbed to a maximum altitude of ~39 km (24 mi) over the Gulf of Mexico. During ascent, the vehicle sustained fires from leaking propellant in the aft end of the Super Heavy booster, which eventually severed connection with the vehicle’s primary flight computer. This led to a loss of communications to the majority of booster engines and, ultimately, control of the vehicle. SpaceX has since implemented leak mitigations and improved testing on both engine and booster hardware. As an additional corrective action, SpaceX has significantly expanded Super Heavy’s pre-existing fire suppression system in order to mitigate against future engine bay fires. The Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) automatically issued a destruct command, which fired all detonators as expected, after the vehicle deviated from the expected trajectory, lost altitude and began to tumble. After an unexpected delay following AFSS activation, Starship ultimately broke up 237.474 seconds after engine ignition. SpaceX has enhanced and requalified the AFSS to improve system reliability. SpaceX is also implementing a full suite of system performance upgrades unrelated to any issues observed during the first flight test. For example, SpaceX has built and tested a hot-stage separation system, in which Starship’s second stage engines will ignite to push the ship away from the booster. Additionally, SpaceX has engineered a new electronic Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system for Super Heavy Raptor engines. Using fully electric motors, the new system has fewer potential points of failure and is significantly more energy efficient than traditional hydraulic systems. SpaceX also made significant upgrades to the orbital launch mount and pad system in order to prevent a recurrence of the pad foundation failure observed during the first flight test. These upgrades include significant reinforcements to the pad foundation and the addition of a flame deflector, which SpaceX has successfully tested multiple times. Testing development flight hardware in a flight environment is what enables our teams to quickly learn and execute design changes and hardware upgrades to improve the probability of success in the future. We learned a tremendous amount about the vehicle and ground systems during Starship’s first flight test. Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable launch system capable of carrying satellites, payloads, crew, and cargo to a variety of orbits and Earth, lunar, or Martian landing sites.

macinjosh 3y ago

This article was at least partly written by AI. The give away is that after every use of an imperial unit of distance a metric conversion comes right after in parens. This happens even after unspecific uses like: “… for miles (kilometers) around…” That makes no sense and only a bot would do that.

cbozeman 3y ago
[flagged]