4 ms·

As much as I think the FAA response might be a bit unfair, I think the issue here is what is promised vs delivered Even with a disposable booster you want it t

As much as I think the FAA response might be a bit unfair, I think the issue here is what is promised vs delivered Even with a disposable booster you want it to follow a certain flight path and be discarded at a given area. If you promised that it will land and it doesn't, even if it is inconsequential to the rest of the mission, well...

Sakos 2y ago
I just don't understand the repeated takes that this is unfair. There was a failure, it should be investigated and a fix found. Once SpaceX has done that, they can continue launching rockets. I'm not sure where the problem is. This is what we expect from every plane crash too, or did I imagine the existence and purpose of the NTSB? The same thing happened with the last explosion and the Falcon 9 was eventually allowed to fly again once it was determined there was no public safety issue: https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacexs-falcon-9-cleared-by-authorities-return-space-faa-says-2024-07-26/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacexs-falcon-9-cl... They were even allowed to fly again before SpaceX finished their investigation as soon as the safety question was answered. This isn't a punishment.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > There was a failure There are failures which only cost the company money and there are failures which risks lives. By all indications this is the first kind. It would be entirely different situation if the rocket thumbled out of control and hit the sea in the wrong spot. Then a grounding would be warranted. Here by all accounts they flown to the right spot but did not stick the landing. > This is what we expect from every plane crash too, or did I imagine the existence and purpose of the NTSB? We would not ground the whole fleet of an aircraft model if something adverse but expected happened to one of them.
- saberience 2y ago
  It is kind of ridiculous though, every other rocket launched by any other company or country basically just blows up in the sea or the air. Penalizing SpaceX for being the most successful company seems silly. Are they grounding other companies whose rockets cannot land at all?
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    First, take a deep breath. All other companies are investigated if this happens. It’s news because SpaceX launches so well and so often that it’s out of the norm.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      It is simply not true that “all other companies” are investigated if their rockets fail to make a successful landing on a ship at sea. This is because no other company in the world has ever successfully landed a rocket on a ship at sea.
      - firesteelrain 2y ago
        You are incorrect. Everyone is subject to the same rules. See FAA Rule 450 Final: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/additional_information/faq/SLR2_Final_Rule_450.pdf https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/additional_inf... See 14 CFR Chapter III Subchapter C Part 417: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter-C/part-417 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter...
        philwelch 2y ago
        So you’re telling me every rocket launch from the US prior to 2015 led to an investigation, as well as every rocket launch not performed by SpaceX since then?
        firesteelrain 2y ago
        Yes, in part: "Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data show that 50 commercial space launches from 2000 through mid-January 2023 resulted in “mishaps”—the industry term for incidents such as catastrophic explosions and other failures. This represents about 12 percent of 433 launches during the period and caused no fatalities, serious injuries, or significant property damage to the public." and "When mishaps occur, FAA can conduct an investigation itself or instead authorize launch operators to lead investigations of their own mishaps under FAA oversight, according to FAA. In practice, however, FAA has authorized operator-led investigations for all mishaps where it had lead investigative authority, GAO found." Source: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105561 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105561
- raverbashing 2y ago
  > There was a failure, it should be investigated and a fix found. Yes but you don't need to delay other missions because of this specific failure
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    How do we know this isn’t currently systemic? Time to take a knee and pause then examine what went wrong.
    - raverbashing 2y ago
      Systemic, possibly. Dangerous? Doesn't look like it
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Yeah, what raverbashing said. Let's say it is systemic. Let's say that boosters that have flown more than 10 times have a high rate of collapse and explosion when they land on the barge. OK, so? Why does the FAA care? It's not like the explosion endangers aircraft - the airspace should be cleared because of the booster's descent anyway.
      - firesteelrain 2y ago
        I think FAA cares because it is under their purview and it did not follow their flightplan.
krisoft 2y ago
> you want it to follow a certain flight path It followed the promised flight path all the way to the drone ship and then tipped over. I would understand the consternation if it left the keep out zone and landed in an entirely different area of the sea. But it sounds like that was not the case. > even if it is inconsequential to the rest of the mission, well... Could you finish your sentence please? The job of the FAA is to keep everyone safe. There is no indication that something unsafe happened here. What happened here is the reason why the recovery people are standing-by outside a declared safe zone and not chilling on the drone ship. (In other words this is the reason why the droneship is a drone ship.)
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  The FAA needs to know that if the same failure would have happened at a different point in the sequence, that all human lives would be safe. So if Scott Manley was right and it was a landing leg strut failure, SpaceX could quickly report that and close the investigation. A landing leg strut failure would never threaten human lives so that's all the FCC cares about. OTOH, if it was an engine failure leading to the rocket coming in hot (like others have speculated), it's possible that the same problem at a different point in the flight path could threaten lives. But SpaceX has redundancy in basically all systems for the "going up" portion of the flight so it could just say "yup, if that had happened at a different time the redundant systems would have had to take over". During landing the center engine is a single point of failure. Going up they have 8 other engines and can get to space on just 8.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
firesteelrain 2y ago
FAA is doing their job. If the investigation turns up nothing then that’s fine. If they find something like SpaceX didn’t follow their quality processes then that’s time to pause before someone gets hurt.

Sakos 2y ago

I just don't understand the repeated takes that this is unfair. There was a failure, it should be investigated and a fix found. Once SpaceX has done that, they can continue launching rockets. I'm not sure where the problem is. This is what we expect from every plane crash too, or did I imagine the existence and purpose of the NTSB? The same thing happened with the last explosion and the Falcon 9 was eventually allowed to fly again once it was determined there was no public safety issue: https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacexs-falcon-9-cleared-by-authorities-return-space-faa-says-2024-07-26/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacexs-falcon-9-cl... They were even allowed to fly again before SpaceX finished their investigation as soon as the safety question was answered. This isn't a punishment.

krisoft 2y ago
> There was a failure There are failures which only cost the company money and there are failures which risks lives. By all indications this is the first kind. It would be entirely different situation if the rocket thumbled out of control and hit the sea in the wrong spot. Then a grounding would be warranted. Here by all accounts they flown to the right spot but did not stick the landing. > This is what we expect from every plane crash too, or did I imagine the existence and purpose of the NTSB? We would not ground the whole fleet of an aircraft model if something adverse but expected happened to one of them.
saberience 2y ago
It is kind of ridiculous though, every other rocket launched by any other company or country basically just blows up in the sea or the air. Penalizing SpaceX for being the most successful company seems silly. Are they grounding other companies whose rockets cannot land at all?
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  First, take a deep breath. All other companies are investigated if this happens. It’s news because SpaceX launches so well and so often that it’s out of the norm.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    It is simply not true that “all other companies” are investigated if their rockets fail to make a successful landing on a ship at sea. This is because no other company in the world has ever successfully landed a rocket on a ship at sea.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      You are incorrect. Everyone is subject to the same rules. See FAA Rule 450 Final: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/additional_information/faq/SLR2_Final_Rule_450.pdf https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/additional_inf... See 14 CFR Chapter III Subchapter C Part 417: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter-C/part-417 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter...
      - philwelch 2y ago
        So you’re telling me every rocket launch from the US prior to 2015 led to an investigation, as well as every rocket launch not performed by SpaceX since then?
        firesteelrain 2y ago
        Yes, in part: "Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data show that 50 commercial space launches from 2000 through mid-January 2023 resulted in “mishaps”—the industry term for incidents such as catastrophic explosions and other failures. This represents about 12 percent of 433 launches during the period and caused no fatalities, serious injuries, or significant property damage to the public." and "When mishaps occur, FAA can conduct an investigation itself or instead authorize launch operators to lead investigations of their own mishaps under FAA oversight, according to FAA. In practice, however, FAA has authorized operator-led investigations for all mishaps where it had lead investigative authority, GAO found." Source: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105561 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105561
raverbashing 2y ago
> There was a failure, it should be investigated and a fix found. Yes but you don't need to delay other missions because of this specific failure
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  How do we know this isn’t currently systemic? Time to take a knee and pause then examine what went wrong.
  - raverbashing 2y ago
    Systemic, possibly. Dangerous? Doesn't look like it
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Yeah, what raverbashing said. Let's say it is systemic. Let's say that boosters that have flown more than 10 times have a high rate of collapse and explosion when they land on the barge. OK, so? Why does the FAA care? It's not like the explosion endangers aircraft - the airspace should be cleared because of the booster's descent anyway.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      I think FAA cares because it is under their purview and it did not follow their flightplan.

krisoft 2y ago

> you want it to follow a certain flight path It followed the promised flight path all the way to the drone ship and then tipped over. I would understand the consternation if it left the keep out zone and landed in an entirely different area of the sea. But it sounds like that was not the case. > even if it is inconsequential to the rest of the mission, well... Could you finish your sentence please? The job of the FAA is to keep everyone safe. There is no indication that something unsafe happened here. What happened here is the reason why the recovery people are standing-by outside a declared safe zone and not chilling on the drone ship. (In other words this is the reason why the droneship is a drone ship.)

bryanlarsen 2y ago
The FAA needs to know that if the same failure would have happened at a different point in the sequence, that all human lives would be safe. So if Scott Manley was right and it was a landing leg strut failure, SpaceX could quickly report that and close the investigation. A landing leg strut failure would never threaten human lives so that's all the FCC cares about. OTOH, if it was an engine failure leading to the rocket coming in hot (like others have speculated), it's possible that the same problem at a different point in the flight path could threaten lives. But SpaceX has redundancy in basically all systems for the "going up" portion of the flight so it could just say "yup, if that had happened at a different time the redundant systems would have had to take over". During landing the center engine is a single point of failure. Going up they have 8 other engines and can get to space on just 8.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

firesteelrain 2y ago

FAA is doing their job. If the investigation turns up nothing then that’s fine. If they find something like SpaceX didn’t follow their quality processes then that’s time to pause before someone gets hurt.