Business, Space, Technology and Society

A Rare Event

34 Comments

I noted several years ago that SpaceX had made landing boosters routine, so much so that it was news not when they landed, but when they failed. On this morning’s flight, there was news.

It was a long-lived booster, with twenty-three flights under its belt. It will be very interesting to see what caused it, and if it was fatigue. When I was at the Cape three weeks ago, I was told that the original goal for reuse was ten flights, but with multiple boosters exceeding twenty, the new goal was forty. We’ll see if there is some life-limiting issue that can’t be maintained around.

[Late-morning update]

This is ridiculous.

I could understand their saying “No RTLS until you figure out what happened.” But to stand down launches over a landing failure? How can they justify that?

[Afternoon update]

Bob Zimmerman is less than impressed as well.

34 thoughts on “A Rare Event”

  2. Because the FAA is a political tool, that’s why.

    How heavy were the seas during this landing attempt? If there were reasonably large waves and winds, a landing failure is a distinct possibility. That barge isn’t very big and likely wallows around a bit.

    1. ” But to stand down launches over a landing failure? How can they justify that?”

      They don’t have to justify that. If anything, AST has in the past struggled to justify not standing down launches after a landing failure. It’s in the regulations, and AST is legally bound to carry them out.

      It’s the regulations that are effed up. VP Pence, back in the good old days, did commercial space no favors by directing FAA to “streamline” its launch license regulation by a certain date. He had no idea that FAA regulations couldn’t be done in the time allotted, or that if FAA was directed to do so, the resulting regulation would be much worse than anything it replaced. And so we got a new launch license regulation that was put in place long after the original due date, and contains all of the worst parts of the original, plus added bad parts.

      That’s not because the FAA people are evil, just the opposite. They’re conscientious, and don’t want to leave out anything required by their authorizing legislation. And given a short fuse deadline for putting out a regulation, they don’t have time to really consider what is necessary and what isn’t, and the industry doesn’t have time to give its input.

      The entire approach to government “oversight” of space activities, required by treaty, needs to be rethought. I believe treaty obligations can be satisfied by a far less draconian policy than the current FAA licensing approach. Part 400 should be thrown out in its entirety, and replaced by a set of procedures for flight clearance that don’t represent a set of “range safety” rules that have rigid, statutorily unchangeable form.

      1. The entire approach to government “oversight” of space activities, required by treaty, needs to be rethought. I believe treaty obligations can be satisfied by a far less draconian policy than the current FAA licensing approach. Part 400 should be thrown out in its entirety, and replaced by a set of procedures for flight clearance that don’t represent a set of “range safety” rules that have rigid, statutorily unchangeable form.

        Well said, Michael.

  5. Proposed headline for the Bee:

    SpaceX to announce henceforth it will drop first stages uncontrollably into the sea as launch license permits. Until it can figure out how to land them safely again in order to satisfy FAA investigation. “Hey, we’re no worse than ULA, or NASA said SpaceX founder and CTO Elon Musk”

    About sums it up…

    2. “it will drop first stages uncontrollably into the sea as launch license permits. ”

      Or could just not attempt to land them on droneships. Drop them, near drone ships. Maybe try to go surfing with the first stage rockets. Land up side down in ocean. Have some fun, and maybe recover the stage somehow, once it is safely in ocean.
      Harpoon it, like a whale.

  6. This is ridiculous.

    I know last time you got on your soap box on this. The FAA pretty much cleared it within a business day last time. Their mandate by law requires them to investigate anything that didn’t go according to plan. I suspect this time won’t be anything different and Polaris won’t be delayed beyond the weather issues.

    1. Their mandate by law requires them to investigate anything that didn’t go according to plan.

      That’s not correct. IIRC their mandate is anything that endangers public safety. It’s hard to argue a rocket tipping over off a barge (or drone ship) at sea is a danger to public safety. As Bob Zimmerman points out this has happened many times before. Esp. when SpaceX was still testing landing technology. None of the failed attempts was considered cause “to ground” the Falcon 9. Zimmerman also pretty much outlines the how of how the FAA will wrap its investigation.

      I will point out that when SpaceX finally did pull off a successful landing of the Falcon 9 first stage in December of 2015, it was an RTLS landing. NO PRIOR at sea landing had been successful up to that point.

      1. That’s not correct. IIRC their mandate is anything that endangers public safety.
        That not correct.

        The new FAA regulations describe nine events (see below) that would constitute a mishap (14 CFR 401.7). The occurrence of any of these events, singly or in any combination, during the scope of FAA-authorized commercial space activities constitutes a mishap and must be reported to the FAA (14 CFR 450.173(c)).

        Serious injury or fatality
        Malfunction of a safety-critical system
        Failure of a safety organization, safety operations or safety procedures
        High risk of causing a serious or fatal injury to any space flight participant, crew, government astronaut, or member of the public
        Substantial damage to property not associated with the activity
        Unplanned substantial damage to property associated with the activity
        Unplanned permanent loss of the vehicle
        Impact of hazardous debris outside of defined areas
        Failure to complete a launch or reentry as planned

        Bob Zimmerman points out this has happened many times before. Esp. when SpaceX was still testing landing technology. None of the failed attempts was considered cause “to ground” the Falcon 9. Zimmerman also pretty much outlines the how of how the FAA will wrap its investigation.

        Those were under the old rules were

        Mishap means a launch or reentry accident, launch or reentry incident, launch site accident, failure to complete a launch or reentry as planned, or an unplanned event or series of events resulting in a fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2), or resulting in greater than $25,000 worth of damage to a payload, a launch or reentry vehicle, a launch or reentry support facility or government property located on the launch or reentry site.
        Reentry accident
        Citation14 CFR 401.5 “Reentry accident”

        (1) Any unplanned event occurring during the reentry of a reentry vehicle resulting in the impact of the reentry vehicle, its payload, or any component thereof, outside a designated reentry site;

        (2) An event that causes a fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2) to any person who is not associated with the reentry;

        (3) An event that causes damage estimated to exceed $25,000 to property not associated with the reentry and not located within a designated reentry site; and

        (4) For a reentry that takes place with a person on board, a fatality or serious injury to a space flight participant or crew member.

        As far as Zimmerman talking out of his ass it will end like this

        FAA public safety determination: The operator may request the FAA make a public safety determination based on information that the mishap did not involve safety-critical systems or otherwise jeopardize public safety. The FAA will review the request, and if in agreement, authorize a return to flight operations while the mishap investigation remains open and provided the operator meets all relevant licensing requirements.

        Like it did in July before the next schedule launch.

        1. …and nowhere does it say an FAA investigation is required. Or a grounding of flight systems. Only that it should be reported. Zimmerman doesn’t speak from his ass as far as you can tell. Tell me what NEW evidence will the FAA produce on its own to evaluate? In what specific areas of expertise will the FAA be able to characterize the correctness of the information given them or is it because the FAA has a predictive computer model based on statistics? I had no idea the FAA was in the business of engineering Falcon 9s. I suppose they have people that can thumb through a McMaster reference too. Or will it rely solely on what SpaceX tells them? And say, well that’s logical… Stamp meet rubber. BTW do you have a date for when those “new rules” were drafted and adopted? Just curious.

          If there were a systemic trend then MAYBE the FAA could offer some systemic process improvements. Maybe. But this field is so new. It’s not like we have 120 years of experience flying reusable rockets.

          2. BTW do you have a date for when those “new rules” were drafted and adopted? Just curious.
            The answer to that question was already provided in the links above if you only could read but I guess I shouldn’t expect you to have more competence than you and Bob accuses the FAA of being.
            BTW the new rules were drafted in Trump’s FAA on December 10 of 2020 to take effect March 10 2021. Here a link to the change notes and public comments.

            https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/10/2020-22042/streamlined-launch-and-reentry-license-requirements#page-79707

            Based on industry comments, the FAA reverts to the original phrase, “failure to complete a launch or reentry as planned,” but adds a citation to a regulatory requirement that narrows the scope of this criterion. Failure to complete a launch or reentry according to the parameters provided by the operator under the pre-flight reporting requirements of § 450.213(b) [183]

            will constitute a mishap. This criterion more accurately reflects the scope of activities that the FAA deems to be a mishap and alleviates the commenters’ concerns about mission assurance.

            As far as your rest of the diatribe maybe more thoroughly read this already provided link for details on what happened when a mishap occurs and how the FAA handles it for answer to those questions

            https://www.faa.gov/space/compliance_enforcement_mishap

          3. There were no adoption dates in the first link unless it was under one of the dozen plus other links off that page.

            The second link you provided (old rules) had an amendment publish date of Dec. 10, 2020. There is nothing wrong with the Find tool in my browser.

            The fact that I don’t chose to endeavor into a snipe hunt doesn’t mean I’m reading challenged. But I do thank you for the new links that have that information.

            Your non-answer to the remainder of my questions is noted.

          4. The second link you provided (old rules) had an amendment publish date of Dec. 10, 2020. There is nothing wrong with the Find tool in my browser.

            Ding ding now at least you as competent as you accused the FAA of being now what happens when you click that light blue text to the left , Dec. 10 2020.
            So everything was at the link provided if you were slightly more competent than you accused the FAA of being.

            What piece of your comment would you like me to address ?
            Zimmerman speaking out of his ass , since he couldn’t do some basic research look up the rules and know the rules were changed I call that talking out of your ass. Then he references 2 other incidents he thought should be ruled Mishap but 1 did not qualify by the rules and the other hasn’t qualified yet but give it time.
            At What point has the FAA ever taken credit for Mishap report performed by the operator as Bob stated?
            My link provided quite clearly states the FAA can perform the investigation or delegate the investigation to the operator and provide concurrence.
            My link also stated that the operator for license to provide a plan for mishap investigation and the FAA oversight that the mishap investigation follow said plan. I’m sure the FAA has guidelines what the mishap investigation plan must contain.

            Now this is slightly interesting the GAO complaining about no set rules for when the FAA allow the operator to do the investigation or the FAA do it themselves, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105561
            Assumed the GAO investigation started due to the mess that was Starship 1 launch. At the moment the FAA doesn’t have the personal to do a full investigation themselves or the funding for a 3rd party to do it.

      1. No, it just means you are correct on a technicality…

        SpaceX has to simply posit that a rocket tipping over at sea on an uncrewed vessel and exploding (perhaps, didn’t get to see that, but seems likely) poses no hazard that requires FAA action. Then the FAA has to simply agree, or not.

        Or the FAA *could* have ruled on its own that the reported mishap posed no threat to safety and spared us all. C…. Y…. A….

        1. But I agree with Rand, a restriction on RTLS would have made the most sense in this situation. Not grounding a National Security mission.

          1. What National Security mission been grounded?

            As Far RTLS banned without review, who is being capricious and not following the rules now?

          2. “What National Security mission been grounded?”

            NROL-113 is scheduled to launch on Sept. 2, with a window of 6:56 PM – 11:26 PM PDT. from Space Launch Complex 4E, Vandenberg SFB. To make that launch window, they need to know…pretty quickly now.

            I believe that SpaceX has already requested a permission to resume launching while the investigation is underway, but I expect that the DoD will also weigh in on their behalf if the FAA does not quickly grant it.

          1. I repeat what National Security mission got grounded?

            So a whole bunch of right wing reactionary space enthusiast, got their panties in a bunch over nothing. While nashing their teeth at perceived political enemies. Was any actual flight scheduled delay?
            Yes Spacex rushed to launch another couple dozen Starlinks to keep up their launch cadence and hit a goal to gloat about in press release or xitter post by the end of the year.

            Though funny Bob Zimmerman was quietly backing away from his stance as he retreats to his motte and hobby horse. That organization shouldn’t be seeking permissions to do anything from the government, FREEDOM. The policy that gave us the Hudson River thanks to GE. Noted how he commented about the Streamed Line Launch Rules, and referenced there might even be good intention people at the FAA , Per Mr.Kelly experience as he has post here a few times about over the past 2 years. After implying they were a bunch of politically animated mobsters, not civil servants following the agreed upon rules as written.

            Mr. Eastman if you still lurking Okay now this is more a direct shot at Mr Zimmerman but still not posting over on BTB. I really don’t frequent his site much other than occasionally look at posts when Rand linked to and in this case when David S was using him in augment from authority.

  8. SpaceX has every incentive to figure it out and get it right. They don’t need the FAA’s “help” for that.

  9. SpaceX has every incentive to figure it out and get it right. They don’t need the FAA’s “help” for that.

    For the most part you are right but much like Facebook demanding to be regulated. It gives them cover and some liability protection along with the bonus benefit of incurring cost on entry upon any upstart.

  10. Who created the new FAA regulations? FAA or Congress? If the former, SCOTUS ruling ending Chevron means the FAA is over-stepping the law.

  11. How about Spacex simply files new flight criteria that expect a 40% chance of failure based on past flights. Then every landing failure is within the expected criteria. Thus no mishap. QED.

  12. So over at Behind The Black, David Eastman posted an interesting response that back pings to here.

    David I know you post here as well. From your response, I did a little searching and came up with 14 CFR 450.173 “Mishap plan—reporting, response, and investigation requirements.” Which as you said over at BTB and if I’ve identified the CFR you were quoting correctly, seems to put the onus on SpaceX to “identify and implement” preventative measures. Subpart (f) as you identified.

    That assumes a lot. Like there is enough of the booster left to “identify” what failed. There is probably some info to be gained from telemetry but often that requires a lot of “reading between the lines” to root cause an issue.

    It will be interesting to see where we go from here. If SpaceX can root cause what happened from debris, (some which might be at the bottom of the Atlantic). And whether SpaceX can obtain permission from FAA to continue launches while the investigation is under way.

    Eric Berger thinks that is highly likely.

    I have to say when I first saw the video without analyzing it frame-by-frame as Scott Manley has done, I too thought it was a metal fatigue failure on one of the landing legs. Not sure why, post landing, there was so much fire coming out of it. So maybe a combination of things. Again is there enough left to really know?

    And what if there isn’t enough data to resolve paragraph (f)? What then?

Comments are closed.