FAA to “investigate” SpaceX launch failure
In what appears to be a perfect example of bureaucratic hubris, the FAA announced right after the Falcon 9 upper stage failure on July 11, 2024 that it “is requiring an investigation” and that it “will be involved in every step of the investigation process and must approve SpaceX’s final report, including any corrective actions.” The agency added:
A return to flight is based on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety. In addition, SpaceX may need to request and receive approval from the FAA to modify its license that incorporates any corrective actions and meet all other licensing requirements.
It is difficult to count all the ways this announcement is arrogant and political.
First, why has the FAA made no such similar demands upon Boeing and its Starliner capsule, during any of its three flights, all of which have had serious issues? On the present manned flight, the failure of its thrusters during docking posed a safety issue to the crew then, and poses a clear safety issue to the public when it comes time for the capsule to return to Earth. If those thrusters don’t fire as planned Starliner could crash anywhere.
Yet the FAA has been entirely uninterested. Could it be because Boeing is not owned by Elon Musk, and the Biden administration isn’t demanding the FAA come down hard on it?
Second, does the FAA really think SpaceX wouldn’t do an investigation of the upper stage failure without an order from the FAA? If anything, left to its own devices it is more likely the FAA would do nothing — as it has done with Boeing with both Starliner and the issues that have occurred with both SLS and Orion. SpaceX however will do an investigation without question, because the company takes such incidents very seriously, and always fixes the problem so that it does not pop up again.
Third, there is absolutely no one at the FAA qualified to do this investigation, or to determine if SpaceX’s “corrective actions” are the right choice. These are bureaucrats, not cutting edge engineers. All they are going to do is watch SpaceX’s people do the work, kibitz a bit here and there, and then rubberstamp the conclusions of the company’s engineers, after making SpaceX wait while it retypes SpaceX’s report.
To claim the FAA has the ability to “approve” any engineering actions here is absurd.
Fourth, to threaten to deny SpaceX’s launch license for future Falcon 9 rockets — the most reliable and dependable rocket ever built — illustrates again the partisan nature of this action. The specificity of the agency’s demands here runs very counter to its demands after other past launch anomalies, involving both SpaceX and others. It is as if the agency has gotten orders to do whatever it can to micromanage everything SpaceX does in order to hinder its operation.
I still expect SpaceX to finish its investigation within weeks, and be ready to fly by the end of July, when the Jared Isaacman manned mission is scheduled. I also now expect the FAA to block that schedule and cause an additional several week delay as it slowly retypes SpaceX’s conclusions.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in the past two weeks has the mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuses to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
In what appears to be a perfect example of bureaucratic hubris, the FAA announced right after the Falcon 9 upper stage failure on July 11, 2024 that it “is requiring an investigation” and that it “will be involved in every step of the investigation process and must approve SpaceX’s final report, including any corrective actions.” The agency added:
A return to flight is based on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety. In addition, SpaceX may need to request and receive approval from the FAA to modify its license that incorporates any corrective actions and meet all other licensing requirements.
It is difficult to count all the ways this announcement is arrogant and political.
First, why has the FAA made no such similar demands upon Boeing and its Starliner capsule, during any of its three flights, all of which have had serious issues? On the present manned flight, the failure of its thrusters during docking posed a safety issue to the crew then, and poses a clear safety issue to the public when it comes time for the capsule to return to Earth. If those thrusters don’t fire as planned Starliner could crash anywhere.
Yet the FAA has been entirely uninterested. Could it be because Boeing is not owned by Elon Musk, and the Biden administration isn’t demanding the FAA come down hard on it?
Second, does the FAA really think SpaceX wouldn’t do an investigation of the upper stage failure without an order from the FAA? If anything, left to its own devices it is more likely the FAA would do nothing — as it has done with Boeing with both Starliner and the issues that have occurred with both SLS and Orion. SpaceX however will do an investigation without question, because the company takes such incidents very seriously, and always fixes the problem so that it does not pop up again.
Third, there is absolutely no one at the FAA qualified to do this investigation, or to determine if SpaceX’s “corrective actions” are the right choice. These are bureaucrats, not cutting edge engineers. All they are going to do is watch SpaceX’s people do the work, kibitz a bit here and there, and then rubberstamp the conclusions of the company’s engineers, after making SpaceX wait while it retypes SpaceX’s report.
To claim the FAA has the ability to “approve” any engineering actions here is absurd.
Fourth, to threaten to deny SpaceX’s launch license for future Falcon 9 rockets — the most reliable and dependable rocket ever built — illustrates again the partisan nature of this action. The specificity of the agency’s demands here runs very counter to its demands after other past launch anomalies, involving both SpaceX and others. It is as if the agency has gotten orders to do whatever it can to micromanage everything SpaceX does in order to hinder its operation.
I still expect SpaceX to finish its investigation within weeks, and be ready to fly by the end of July, when the Jared Isaacman manned mission is scheduled. I also now expect the FAA to block that schedule and cause an additional several week delay as it slowly retypes SpaceX’s conclusions.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in the past two weeks has the mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuses to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
SLS upper stage performed fine—the Clipper folks are enjoying karma now.
Then why did FAA relent with Starship?
That’s your knee-jerk libertarian bias.
Had an upper stage failed Starliner—there would have been an investigation there as well.
Jeff, rockets beyond atmosphere thick enough for wing lift are not “aviation” and thus are not an issue for aviation safety. Nor is a payload of satellites an issue of passenger flight safety.
The agency exists mostly to keep one aircraft and pilot from endangering another aircraft by enforcing flight rules. Its other mission is to promote passenger safety in commercial aviation. Involving itself in rocket design and incidents that happen in space is beyond mission creep.
Hubris that its personnel are competent to offer anything but bureaucratic interference to SpaceX in a case like this is demonstrative of all that is wrong with a regulatorty state.
“… Jeff, rockets beyond atmosphere thick enough for wing lift are not “aviation” and thus are not an issue for aviation safety. Nor is a payload of satellites an issue of passenger flight safety. ….”
Which agency should have jurisdiction? A “failure in space”, if it is an exploding engine, is a very serious matter because of the resulting space junk. Given the threat to the safe orbit of satellites from a Chinese Starship clone exploding while in orbit, what option is there other than an international agency which certifies orbiting vehicles and investigates space failures?
Steve:
You make fair points, but to Bob’s point Starliner has had multiple issues with its Attitude Control System and is a vehicle designed for and presently docked with the ISS which is an extremely high value MANNED platform. Starliner’s potential loss of attitude control should thus be at least as much an FAA regulatory concern as the issue with Falcon’s second stage which is also used to service ISS..
Bob:
You are wrong wrt the procedure the FAA bureaucrats will take wrt their review. Yes they will kabitz and surf the internet or play Microsoft Solitaire for entertainment as they “investigate”, but they will make no finding in SpaceX’s favor until they give their Bezos overseers a shot at extending the process unnecessarily. Because that’s where they get their “expertise” (in litigious engineering anyway), such as it is.
MDN: Your comment might be the first time in history that someone has accused me of being too nice to bureaucrats in the administrative state. Most amusing.
Of course FAA apparatchiks could act to delay things far longer than a few weeks, but their track record has not followed that pattern. If anything, FAA bureaucrats have shown a desire to avoid slowing things down, even as they are forced to follow orders from above requiring them to dot every “i” and cross every “t”.
The noise you’ve been hearing are heads in Washington exploding as Musk has announced he is endorsing Trump/ Expect this “investigation” to be the slowest walked item the long disreputable history of the permanent government.
Of course FAA apparatchiks could act to delay things far longer than a few weeks, but their track record has not followed that pattern.
Certain very important government agencies depend too heavily on SpaceX’s ability to get their payloads to orbit. Slow-walking Starship licenses is one thing, since it isn’t even operational yet, but Falcon 9/FH is the life-and-death workhorse of the U.S. military industrial and intelligence complex for the time being, and NASA, while not quite as important, has some super important payloads to launch in the coming months. This will temper political kibitzing by the administration, much as it might stick in certain craws. Anyway, that’s what civil rights and environmental lawfare is for.
SpaceX will find out who or what happened and fix it. They have to, it’s their business, there’s no money in unreliable rockets. The feckless FAA can rubber stamp it or not.
As long as the country is stuck on stupid, let’s get the EPA, Fish and Game, OSHA, and/or FBI to go after Elon, I mean Space X.
To Richard M:
Yes, Falcon/SpaceX is the life and death workhorse of America—just like my old Buick is my only car.
That’s a problem—ULA is like a bus you can get on only once in awhile.
China has a plethora of launch options they back as national assets.
Right now, capability is more important than reusability.
I wanted Dynetics’ Pyrios and/or Omega to be supported as national assets similarly—only to have my head bitten off in other forums.
Now matter how good that one car is, it is still one car.
Also—I think it would be wise if Boca had some shot-spotter tech like what inner cities have—just in case.
“Also—I think it would be wise if Boca had some shot-spotter tech like what inner cities have—just in case.”
I have been assuming that Boca security is not discussed for obvious reasons, but I hope I am not being foolish. Elon should be aware since there have been threats to him, encouraged by the Democrats, just like those toward Trump.
Interesting to see if the Chevron Deference ruling is used by SpaceX to prune back the FAA’s over reach.
Steve Richter
July 14, 2024 at 7:27 am
“… Jeff, rockets beyond atmosphere thick enough for wing lift are not “aviation” and thus are not an issue for aviation safety. Nor is a payload of satellites an issue of passenger flight safety. ….”
Which agency should have jurisdiction?…..
Why does any agency need do something? But if a government agency needs be involved it needs the express and specific jurisdiction to be granted it by the people’s representatives in Congress.
Regulation does not prevent the problems in orbit with junk being in orbits. Those are issues for torts and that is how things should work.
David Nudelman: You are welcome to post here, but stop using two different nicknames. You have also posted comments under the nickname “Shallow Minded Reader.” Pick one, though I personally think it best if everyone had the courage to sign their own names under their own words.
Jeff Wright
You mentioned Shot Spotter. A system that was installed in my city years ago. With federal money.
It was advertised as a system that would identify the location of a gun going off and give the cops a better chance of arresting the perpetrators.
The problem is that has never happened. They are all gone long before the cops show up.
Millions of dollars for nothing.
As for the FAA regulation rocket launches. We do need a new group to do that instead.
The reason I want shot-spotter at Boca is to see if any trajectory intersects with the LV/pad.
Part of me wonders if the recent Falcon upper-stage leak came from a nick left behind by a bullet.
Also, only a rocket engineer would know what to shoot at to have a failure occur well away from where forensic experts could examine wreckage.
A “failure in space”, if it is an exploding engine, is a very serious matter because of the resulting space junk.
You’re not wrong, but how is that a “public safety” issue?
Why does any agency need do something?
This. It’s not as if it is in Space X’s best interest to have their second stages failing. They will correct it themselves. Regulation, when it is needed at all, is needed when a company’s best interest and the public interest do not align. In this case, they do align.