NASA worried FAA launch permit delays to Starship/Superheavy will delay first lunar landing
During a public meeting on June 7, 2023, a NASA official expressed concerns that the FAA’s slow launch permit process for SpaceX’s test program for developing Starship/Superheavy will end up seriously delaying the first Artemis manned lunar landing, presently targeting a December 2025 launch date.
The official, Jim Free, was very careful how he worded his comments, but the FAA issue loomed large in his mind.
Free said NASA met with the Federal Aviation Administration recently to discuss the importance of the Starship rocket to the space agency’s moon exploration plans. The FAA is overseeing SpaceX’s investigation into the problems encountered on the April 20 test launch, when the flight termination system took longer to destroy the rocket than expected. The destruct system is designed to terminate the flight before an errant rocket threatens populated areas.
The FAA is not expected to grant SpaceX another Starship launch license until the investigation is complete, and federal regulators are satisfied with changes to the rocket to address any public safety concerns. “They just have to get flying,” Free said of SpaceX. “When you step back and you look at (it), that’s a lot of launches to get those missions done, so our FAA partners are critical to that.”
For the FAA to treat SpaceX’s test program like ordinary launches, requiring a detailed investigation by it after every test flight, will likely delay the development of Starship/Superheavy by years.
Following the early suborbital tests of Starship, the FAA did not “oversee” the investigations. The FAA merely observed closely SpaceX’s investigation, and let it move forward when SpaceX was satisfied. Now the FAA wants to determine for itself when each launch will occur, even though there is no one at the FAA truly qualified to do that. The result will be endless delays and paperwork, and many fewer flights spaced many more months apart, none of which will do anything to aid the development.
NASA is obviously trying to get the FAA to see this, but we must remember that the change in policy at the FAA almost certainly came from the Biden administration, which doesn’t care as much for getting to the Moon as it does wielding its power to hurt Elon Musk, whom it now sees as a political opponent. Expect NASA’s pleas to fall on deaf ears.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
During a public meeting on June 7, 2023, a NASA official expressed concerns that the FAA’s slow launch permit process for SpaceX’s test program for developing Starship/Superheavy will end up seriously delaying the first Artemis manned lunar landing, presently targeting a December 2025 launch date.
The official, Jim Free, was very careful how he worded his comments, but the FAA issue loomed large in his mind.
Free said NASA met with the Federal Aviation Administration recently to discuss the importance of the Starship rocket to the space agency’s moon exploration plans. The FAA is overseeing SpaceX’s investigation into the problems encountered on the April 20 test launch, when the flight termination system took longer to destroy the rocket than expected. The destruct system is designed to terminate the flight before an errant rocket threatens populated areas.
The FAA is not expected to grant SpaceX another Starship launch license until the investigation is complete, and federal regulators are satisfied with changes to the rocket to address any public safety concerns. “They just have to get flying,” Free said of SpaceX. “When you step back and you look at (it), that’s a lot of launches to get those missions done, so our FAA partners are critical to that.”
For the FAA to treat SpaceX’s test program like ordinary launches, requiring a detailed investigation by it after every test flight, will likely delay the development of Starship/Superheavy by years.
Following the early suborbital tests of Starship, the FAA did not “oversee” the investigations. The FAA merely observed closely SpaceX’s investigation, and let it move forward when SpaceX was satisfied. Now the FAA wants to determine for itself when each launch will occur, even though there is no one at the FAA truly qualified to do that. The result will be endless delays and paperwork, and many fewer flights spaced many more months apart, none of which will do anything to aid the development.
NASA is obviously trying to get the FAA to see this, but we must remember that the change in policy at the FAA almost certainly came from the Biden administration, which doesn’t care as much for getting to the Moon as it does wielding its power to hurt Elon Musk, whom it now sees as a political opponent. Expect NASA’s pleas to fall on deaf ears.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
I was hoping you would discuss this article. I had a different take on it and thought it was more of laying the groundwork to take money from SpaceX and further punish them….
“We have a firm fixed price contract with SpaceX, their job is to deliver that to us,” Free said. “And I’m going to hold them accountable to it. So I get a lot of questions, will you make the date? Well, they need to get flying before we can get any kind of assessment.”
This is the quote I was referring to. Anyway, I’m glad you didn’t take it as negative toward SpaceX as I interpreted it..
Ron: Your analysis could be right, I fear. I missed that quote, focusing on Free’s conversations with the FAA. It could very well be that NASA is also under pressure from Biden and his ilk to cut SpaceX off. Now that they have a contract for a manned lunar lander with Bezos’ Blue Origin team, it gives them an out (though one that will likely not produce anything with the speed of SpaceX).
Note too that NASA didn’t hold Boeing to its schedule for either SLS or Starliner. For them, NASA was very forgiving.
Robert, you mean to say that double standards aren’t just for jurisprudence involving Presidential candidates?
Jester Naybor: There is only one standard remaining in Washington, and that is power. Everything is done for the sake of power. Everything.
President GaryMike: FAA Aministrator. How are you today? The reason I called is I order you to streamline approvals of SpaceX launches.
You have until the end of the month to get me your new policies documentation. After that you are retired.
Oh, appropriate memos and letters of direction are forthcoming.
FOIA available.
Arm’s length related:
But let’s wait five hundred million years (500,000,000) before you try it, just to be safe.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12165975/Is-solution-global-warming-Scientist-claims-Earth-away-sun.html
It’s not just garnering and fostering fear using the climate change theme in the 5- and 10-year increments, now its pumping the climate change fear one to two billion years into the future. And no one, and I mean 99% of the people on the planet has any real ability to wrap their brains around a concept like that.
But it is something to add to the growing list of elements of fear layered into the media now fire hose of “Information” to facilitate your compliance and acquiescence.
I put this in the Carl Sagan testimony before the Congress class where he IMO becomes a political tool and disingenuously IMO introduced the concept of the earth turning into a Venus like planet if human beings did not curb their activities. And he gave his hat tip to Al Gore who was sitting on the other side of the microphone: https://youtu.be/QFK0BJVMjeQ
The earth is not scheduled to go Venus level 850 degrees F for a billion or so years. This “Moving the earth” concept in the media is but an extension of that initial offering.
And I am not for one second asserting that humans do not endeavor to clean up and develop cleaner and more efficient methods of producing energy and industrial production. Not at all, not for one second.
As an example: The other day I was speaking with a friend, and we were talking about how close is the nearest star to the earth.
And when I explained it to her, she said that she has no concept about what I was talking about.
And then she asked an honest question: The sun is a star?
And I am not and did not make fun of her or her ignorance about any of it, it’s just not what she in her life concerns herself with. And that is her real reality. Out of sight out of mind.
I think Elon has serious buyers remorse for voting for Joe Biden instead of Trump, as do millions of other Americans.
As soon as we get another Republican president or possibly a more moderate Democrat like RFK Jr, this nonsense will stop. This is no longer a technical problem, it is purely political.
SpaceX is conducting the investigation with FAA oversight. I don’t think this represents any change in policy. This is how it’s been done for years. Where are you getting this?
Gwynne has said they will fly Starship 100 times before putting anyone on it. It’s already mid-2023, so that’s a lot of flight tests in a short period of time to make December 2025. They have to do an uncrewed landing and perfect orbital refueling along the way.
FAA is concerned about the fact that the flight termination system failed to kick in immediately as it was designed to do. There was also particulate matter that ended up six miles away in Port Isabel and on South Padre Island. That was way outside the hazard area. This stuff also landed in sensitive wetlands. That was a direct result of SpaceX using a concrete pad to absorb the engine blast instead of installing a flame diverter. The FAA’s main job is to protect the public and property from injuries and damage during launches.
Bottom line is the FAA is not the only reason the 2025 date might be missed. It’s SpaceX having a lot of flights to conduct and tech to develop in a relatively short period of time. And the consequences of how the first launch went. It’s easy to scapegoat FAA as THE cause of the problem, and speculate about nefarious actions by the Biden Administration.
D. Messier wrote: “Bottom line is the FAA is not the only reason the 2025 date might be missed.”
True, but the concern is that the FAA may slow walk the approval process so that the cadence of test launches is too low to have Starship available in time. The story shows that even NASA is concerned about this.
“FAA is concerned about the fact that the flight termination system failed to kick in immediately as it was designed to do.”
Everybody is concerned about this. In fact, “concerned” may be an understatement. I think we are all shocked that it took so long. No one imagined that this could be a problem, that Starship and Super Heavy were built so strong that its flight termination system (FTS) couldn’t damage the ships enough to do the job well. At the time, no one considered this possibility, until a comment came out of SpaceX that the termination was delayed many seconds after the trigger was pulled. Only then did analysts start to make sense out of some venting that was seen on the two vehicles.
So, we have to hope that the FAA will allow some FTS testing.
“It’s easy to scapegoat FAA as THE cause of the problem, and speculate about nefarious actions by the Biden Administration.”
The FAA made it easy by taking so long to approve the April test launch and taking so long to approve last year’s Merlin engine launch that SpaceX chose to forgo that launch for a Raptor test launch. If the FAA had been prompt, like they were during the Trump administration for the Starship suborbital tests, then no one would be worried that the FAA was slow walking these approvals. I just can’t raise my expectations of the FAA’s behavior. I have similarly low expectations of the Biden Administration, which is clearly continuing Obama’s explicit policy of rewarding friends and punishing enemies, with Musk having been declared an enemy with his offer to purchase Twitter.
We know that SpaceX is not the cause of the problem, because their history shows that they can do rapid iterations from rapid development testing, and their current inventory of several Starships and Super Heavies ready for test shows that they have plans and high expectations of being able to perform rapid developmental testing. Having a solution to the pad destruction already in the pipeline at the time of the test launch shows that SpaceX has plans for improvements and an enthusiasm for testing what they have now rather than wait for the perfect test article. Learn by doing, and do early and often.
So, if it isn’t SpaceX that is the cause of the problem, and it isn’t the IRS, then it has to be one of the government agencies that is involved, such as the FCC or the FAA.
Edward:
FAA approval took a while. It’s the largest, most powerful rocket in the world being launched for the first time from a new spaceport that is surrounded by sensitive marshland and wildlife refuge.
You have suspicions that it’s something more than the license being complicated, but you’ve presented no real evidence of anything beyond that. An orbital flight is an exponential step above the low-altitude flight tests they were doing previously.
Even after it got approval, SpaceX still wasn’t ready with a suppression system to deal with 33 Raptor engines on the most powerful rocket ever made. So they went with a giant concrete slab that was destroyed, threw up big chunks of concrete that might have caused a number of engines to fail, and caused debris to land in a city six miles away. The flight termination system was clearly not ready for flight. The FAA’s main role is preventing impacts on people and property not involved in a launch.
SpaceX could have waited to install a proper suppression system and perhaps had a much better result with the launch. It might have done more testing on the FTS. Now it’s dealing with the fallout and delay that an accident like this occasions. That would be the case for any company who conducted a launch with this sort of result.
Edward, “The FAA made it easy by taking so long to approve the April test launch and taking so long to approve last year’s Merlin engine launch that SpaceX chose to forgo that launch for a Raptor test launch.”
I don’t understand, please elaborate.
D. Messier, the debris that landed six miles away was… dust. As a native Texan I can assure you it wasn’t the first time, nor the last, that residents in this area faced an inconvenient cloud of dust.
BTW I don’t trust a dang thing Jim Free says. The same guy who thinks SpaceX is the long pole for Artemis III, also thinks Boeing and Northrop can turn SLS into a paying commercial venture. And watch him during press conferences—he absolutely exudes arrogance and disdain for the press and public.
The first time I heard about a faulty flight termination system was on the Patriot missile system in GW1.
The missile is supposed to terminate inside 5 seconds if it leaves the main radar systems area of coverage. Apparently at least one did not and when the software was examined it turned out the missile overrode the command because it thought that it could catch the target inside those 5 seconds.
It did catch it but it scared the heck out of the programmers and the software was changed.
Evidently those first systems had more software changes than they did news reports.
Space X more than likely has a “black box: system and knows exactly what happened but the government is just milking it for the political points.
Just like the Patriot haters did during the first Golf War. Quoting how many missiles ‘missed’ their targets and how much the whole thing costs. It turned out they were just programed wrong and it took real combat to work out the troubles. The real hit to miss numbers were very low.
I say let Space X make all the mistakes they want as long as they do not risk human life on the ground outside their company. As long as the rocket did not comeback to land then all is fine.
It might have thought it was still inside of an acceptable trajectory and didn’t think it needed to self destruct. Which would just take a software correction.
Patrick, it was more than just dust.
Now I’m not as much a doom and gloomer as you be.
Once the redesigned pad supports a few launches, things will lighten up.
Now, I could see a return to Mike Griffin’s plan by Falcon Heavy on one pad and SLS on the other.
EOR and LOR both.
Musk just needs a hypergolic lander-easy peasy.
No refueling.
That gets us on Luna before China’s EELV type landing…and Starship isn’t rushed except as a cargo deal.
But at some point, Elon has got to learn to use hydrogen. Upper stage for Falcon…and yes, on Starship too as the element is needed for ISRU refueling via sabatier method.
Though I am an SLS fan…my hate for Boeing only increases…so out of intellectual honesty I am going to suggest a way by which he can lash out at Boeing AND master LH2:
He should help fund Wilson Aerospace’s lawsuit in a generous fashion…and they could give him fueling pointers.
Be generous Elon…
Bezos can fund the ecos—you fund Wilson.
Just a link for the reasons Musk wants MethOx engines for the moon and especially Mars.
https://provscons.com/heres-why-spacex-uses-methane-in-starship/
Work it out now and the future is easier.
D. Messier, please elaborate. Genuinely curious.
Wow, “sensitive marshland and wildlife reserve”. Translated to non woke, it is a coastal salt swamp which in times gone by would get someone (rightly) a medal for draining it.
The area should be declared the site of a project of national importance, all enviro garbage suspended and the only FAA approval should be an airspace clearance for a launch in progress.
Having wrecked private aviation the FAA is going on to bigger and better things to wreck private spaceflight.
“Sensitive marshland and wildlife reserve” is hardly a woke description. As a person who’s spent countless hours duck hunting over previous decades, marshlands/wetlands/coastal flats/estuaries/etc are all quite important and the ever dwindling amount in this country deserve appropriate protection.
The reserve was there long before Musk set his gaze upon the adjoining land. What will be interesting is to see how the environmental fallout from this launch is handled by all the parties. The initial environmental studies done in support of the facility were based on a usage profile different than what the base is evolving into. That’s not a negative thing necessarily, just something that will bare watching I think.
It’s mostly concrete. OMG! Rocks in a swamp! The horror. Even if it contains rebar, so what? Steel rusting in a swamp isn’t going to cause problems for anything living there.
D. Messier,
You wrote: “FAA approval took a while. It’s the largest, most powerful rocket in the world being launched for the first time from a new spaceport that is surrounded by sensitive marshland and wildlife refuge.”
That is an excellent and convincing argument. It wouldn’t have been convincing at all if the FAA hadn’t been such a driving factor in the SLS launch, the previous largest, most powerful rocket in the world being launched for the first time from a spaceport that is surrounded by sensitive marshland and wildlife refuge. Everyone fretted so much at the FAA-induced delays of SLS.
Despite Robert’s point of this post and despite NASA’s concerns, the FAA would not delay Starship any longer than it delayed SLS.
“You have suspicions that it’s something more than the license being complicated, but you’ve presented no real evidence of anything beyond that”
Thank you for pointing out that empirical evidence is no evidence at all. Up to this point, I had thought that empirical evidence had some amount of value.
“Even after it got approval, SpaceX still wasn’t ready with a suppression system to deal with 33 Raptor engines on the most powerful rocket ever made.”
Nor were they ready to go orbital. This is a developmental program, right now. What is your point?
“The flight termination system was clearly not ready for flight.”
You are one of the very many people who just don’t understand development. As I already noted, everyone thought that the FTS was adequate.
“SpaceX could have waited to install a proper suppression system and perhaps had a much better result with the launch.”
Or, better yet, they could have waited until they had a rocket that was ready to take men and materiel to Mars, which is the purpose of the rocket. Rapid development is overrated. It results in operational Falcons in much less time than it took to get an operational SLS, which was made from existing parts, therefore required significantly less development effort.
“That would be the case for any company who conducted a launch with this sort of result.”
If it were an operational flight, yes, but this is a developmental flight, and everyone should know to expect the unexpected. That is what development test is all about. It is why the FTS is so important. It is why I already noted that we hope that the FAA will allow FTS testing.
“Patrick, it was more than just dust.”
Patrick, to elaborate: yes, it was also sand in the dust cloud, which also gets kicked up in Texas dust storms. Your error, Patrick, was to not enumerate the many devastating and possibly deadly consequences of airborne sand.
The pad problem is a nothing problem. The FTS is the first priority. The broken windows is something that must have only been rumor, because I don’t hear much about it, anymore. Reaching orbit is a larger problem than the pad. The pad problem is only a problem if the rocket is to be used often and without excessive cost. Having large, heavy debris fly about is one of the reasons why launch pads are kept clear for such large distances. If it were only to prevent death or damage by a possible fireball, the clearance distance would be much less.
_____________________
Patrick Underwood,
You requested: “I don’t understand, please elaborate.”
Which part do you not understand? In October 2021, the FAA had said that Starship launch would be approved/disapproved in December 2021. When March 2022 came and approval was still just as far away, SpaceX chose to abandon its plan to launch a Starship to orbit using Merlin engines and go straight for the Raptor engines, which by that time were accumulating in sufficient numbers to use on a Superheavy and a Starship. That switch took a year to complete, including the wait for FAA approval.
_______________
pzatchok wrote: “As long as the rocket did not comeback to land then all is fine.”
No, not really. If headed for a populated area shortly after liftoff (as happened in the 1990s in China), then it would have been imperative for the FTS to act in a timely manner. Otherwise an entire town could have been burned to the ground (as happened in the 1990s in China). For this reason, range safety and the flight termination system are vitally important to any flight, operational or test. Being alarmed that the FTS took so long to finally destroy the out of control rocket is an appropriate reaction.
________________
David wrote: “As a person who’s spent countless hours duck hunting over previous decades, marshlands/wetlands/coastal flats/estuaries/etc are all quite important and the ever dwindling amount in this country deserve appropriate protection.”
As Robert has noted on several occasions, rocket launch sites are one of the best ways to assure appropriate protection for wildlife preserves. With the possibility of a large explosion, few people are willing to drain the swamp in order to build housing or industrial structures for miles around.
“The initial environmental studies done in support of the facility were based on a usage profile different than what the base is evolving into.”
This is why there was a second environmental study in 2021, the initial excuse that the FAA used to delay launch approval. The difference in the expected debris flung about is that an exploding rocket throws metal everywhere.