The FAA to SpaceX “Nice company you got here.
Sure would be a shame if something happened to it.”
In the past week the FAA proved unequivocally that it is abusing its regulatory powers for political reasons, imposing much harsher regulatory restrictions on SpaceX while allowing other companies much more free rein.
That reality became most evident first with the FAA response to the serious failure of one of the strap-on solid-fueled boosters during the second test launch of ULA’s Vulcan rocket on October 4, 2024. During that launch something went seriously wrong with that booster 38 seconds after launch, involving an explosion and what appeared to be ejection of that booster’s nozzle. Though the launch succeeded in placing its payload into the correct orbit, it required the rocket’s main engines to compensate aggressively.
Despite this, the FAA decided no investigation by it was necessary.
The Federal Aviation Administration, which licenses commercial space launches in the United States, said in a statement that it assessed the booster anomaly and “determined no investigation is warranted at this time.” The FAA is not responsible for regulating launch vehicle anomalies unless they impact public safety.
This decision is correct, but the contrast with the FAA’s treatment of SpaceX is quite striking. If the FAA applied the absurd standard it has been using against SpaceX, it would claim that this Vulcan launch threatened public safety because the incident occurred 38 seconds after launch and was thus relatively close to Florida, where an out of control rocket could potentially threaten public safety.
Such a threat of course really doesn’t exist, as the FAA correctly concluded, because the rocket has a self-destruct system to prevent it from crashing in habitable areas.
Yet the agency failed to use this logic with SpaceX. Instead the FAA decided anything SpaceX launches that doesn’t work perfectly poses a serious public safety threat, no matter where or how it happens, and thus has repeatedly grounded SpaceX launches. A first stage, flown already 23 times, falls over after soft-landing successfully on its drone ship in the middle of the Atlantic, and somehow this justified the FAA grounding SpaceX due to the threat to public safety. A second stage, after successfully placing two astronauts into orbit, misfires during its de-orbit burn but still lands in the middle of the ocean, far from any habitable regions, and somehow this justified the FAA grounding SpaceX due to the threat to public safety.
And the fact that a Superheavy returning to its launchpad at Boca Chica will cause a sonic boom — as do every Falcon 9 landings at Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg — is now justification for grounding Starship/Superheavy test launches, even though sonic booms pose zero threat to anyone other than startling them with the sudden noise.
The FAA further illustrated its bias against SpaceX when it decided to allow the company to do its launch this morning of Europe’s Hera asteroid mission, but specifically stated that the company’s other launches remain grounded.
» Read more
