Business, Law, Political Commentary, Space, Technology and Society

The Falcon Failure

12 Comments

I can obviously understand the need for an investigation, and if SpaceX wants to do it with the FAA, that’s fine, but the FAA should have no say in when it flies again; that would be them doing mission assurance, which is not part of their charter. NASA, Jared Isaacman, or any of SpaceX’s other customers can decide when and whether they trust the vehicle, but FAA advisement should be just that. There was no public danger from this event (other than potential Starlink debris falling to earth), or reason to think there would be from any future similar failure.

12 thoughts on “The Falcon Failure”

  2. Starlink debris isn’t much of an issue, they are designed to burn up after a limited lifespan and many have already done so.

    But completely agree that the FAA ought to be doing nothing more than rubber-stamping the investigation outcome here. They have no real expertise here.

  3. … but the FAA should have no say in when it flies again; that would be them doing mission assurance, which is not part of their charter.

    Since the FAA issues launch licenses how can they have no say in when Falcon 9 flies again?

    1. Their only responsibility is to ensure the safety of the uninvolved third-party public. They cannot legally deny a license on the basis that they are concerned that the mission won’t succeed. They do not, and have never had any official interest in that. That’s the law (unlike with aviation). Which is why licensing should never have been given to the FAA, and why the Office of Commercial Space Transportation should be pulled back out of the FAA, and made a separate office reporting to the SECDOT, as it did originally after we passed the OCST in 1984.

      1. They cannot legally deny a license on the basis that they are concerned that the mission won’t succeed.

        No, but they won’t characterize their decision that way. You might think it’s an open and shut case of regulatory overreach but I’m guessing SpaceX and Musk will do what it takes to keep the FAA happy.

        1. I’m describing the legal situation. The politics are an entirely separate issue. SpaceX will make nice with the FAA as long as they continue to consider it advantageous to do so. If the FAA is holding things up when the customers are not, things will change.

    1. Still much more reliable than Shuttle ever was.

      Yes. I’m surprised that there hasn’t been a spectacular landing failure yet. When that does happen, I expect to see calls from SpaceX’s competitors and the Musk-haters to cease and desist with Shuttle-length stand-downs lasting for years.

        1. Yeah. They’ve had years of success, which makes forgetting the early failures easy. But now it’s all become routine, and the detractors are looking for anything that can’t be called successful.

          Which is why a rational person will not be surprised by a few Starship fiascos followed by making it all routine. (If the FAA, EPA, et.al. ever let them launch…)

          (Since the second stages are not built to be reused, are the standards different from the first stages? Note also how the Europeans just had there own little Ariane upper stage problem…)

  5. SpaceX will find the problem, fix it and return to flight in a timeframe probably dictated mostly by FAA “review” of the SpaceX investigation. The finding and fixing will not take long and may already be finished. The FAA, well, who knows?

Comments are closed.