6 ms·

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

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_.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  Look at the big concerns: 1. Inadequate launch pad let debris fly. - Fixed as proven by SpaceX's static fires. 2. Leaky fuel tank caused all kinds of problems. - Fixed by fixing the launch pad. 3. Faulty FTS - Obviously a huge priority at SpaceX, so probably fixed.
sbuttgereit 3y ago
This. Thanks for actually... you know... reporting accurately on the subject. It's interesting to see how this is characterized in the press by professional journalists. Bloomberg: "SpaceX Ordered by FAA to Make Fixes After Starship Blowup : -- FAA blames ‘multiple root causes’ for flawed Starship launch -- SpaceX must apply for, receive FAA license modification" CNBC: "FAA orders Musk’s SpaceX to take 63 corrective actions on Starship, keeps rocket grounded" NYT: "F.A.A. Spells Out Needed Fixes for SpaceX’s Starship Rocket" But then there's the FAA: "Following the launch, the FAA, consistent with its statutory authority [...], required SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation in accordance with its approved mishap plan under FAA oversight. [...] The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report. Consequently, the FAA considers the mishap investigation that SpaceX was required to complete to be concluded. [...] Launch license VOL 23-129 for Starship authorized SpaceX to conduct one launch. SpaceX is required to apply for a modification to the VOL 23-129 license to allow for subsequent launches. When SpaceX applies for this modification, it will need to demonstrate compliance with 450.173(f) by evidencing the implementation of corrective actions adopted in response to its April 20, 2023 mishap." As far as I can tell, these journalists looked at the FAA press release, and didn't take the extra 5 minutes to read the linked letter to SpaceX, or the extra hour or so to read the link to how the FAA handles mishap investigations. Add in some pre-existing feelings about Musk or his endeavors and.... BEHOLD! World Class Reporting! And this is the sort of thing that any number of governments are trying to force funding for? Reading the FAA letter, it looks like nothing more than the routine and procedural review a regulatory agency does when processing paperwork. And everybody probably knew this mishap investigation process would taking place even before the launch just because of the likelihood of the launch actually going to plan.
- grecy 3y ago
  There's clearly A LOT of money in play with regards to Tesla and SpaceX succeeding, and I think it has become extremely common to bash both companies at every possible opportunity. The old money absolutely does not want these two companies to succeed.
  - 3y ago
reaperman 3y ago
This probably doesn't add anything to the discussion but fun to note a name collision: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_...

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_.
RecycledEle 3y ago
Look at the big concerns: 1. Inadequate launch pad let debris fly. - Fixed as proven by SpaceX's static fires. 2. Leaky fuel tank caused all kinds of problems. - Fixed by fixing the launch pad. 3. Faulty FTS - Obviously a huge priority at SpaceX, so probably fixed.

sbuttgereit 3y ago

This. Thanks for actually... you know... reporting accurately on the subject. It's interesting to see how this is characterized in the press by professional journalists. Bloomberg: "SpaceX Ordered by FAA to Make Fixes After Starship Blowup : -- FAA blames ‘multiple root causes’ for flawed Starship launch -- SpaceX must apply for, receive FAA license modification" CNBC: "FAA orders Musk’s SpaceX to take 63 corrective actions on Starship, keeps rocket grounded" NYT: "F.A.A. Spells Out Needed Fixes for SpaceX’s Starship Rocket" But then there's the FAA: "Following the launch, the FAA, consistent with its statutory authority [...], required SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation in accordance with its approved mishap plan under FAA oversight. [...] The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report. Consequently, the FAA considers the mishap investigation that SpaceX was required to complete to be concluded. [...] Launch license VOL 23-129 for Starship authorized SpaceX to conduct one launch. SpaceX is required to apply for a modification to the VOL 23-129 license to allow for subsequent launches. When SpaceX applies for this modification, it will need to demonstrate compliance with 450.173(f) by evidencing the implementation of corrective actions adopted in response to its April 20, 2023 mishap." As far as I can tell, these journalists looked at the FAA press release, and didn't take the extra 5 minutes to read the linked letter to SpaceX, or the extra hour or so to read the link to how the FAA handles mishap investigations. Add in some pre-existing feelings about Musk or his endeavors and.... BEHOLD! World Class Reporting! And this is the sort of thing that any number of governments are trying to force funding for? Reading the FAA letter, it looks like nothing more than the routine and procedural review a regulatory agency does when processing paperwork. And everybody probably knew this mishap investigation process would taking place even before the launch just because of the likelihood of the launch actually going to plan.

grecy 3y ago
There's clearly A LOT of money in play with regards to Tesla and SpaceX succeeding, and I think it has become extremely common to bash both companies at every possible opportunity. The old money absolutely does not want these two companies to succeed.
- 3y ago

reaperman 3y ago

This probably doesn't add anything to the discussion but fun to note a name collision: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_...