I'm pretty sure that SpaceX has already made the changes the FAA and SpaceX wanted. It isn't approved until the FAA officially approves it. That is bureaucracy and that can take a while for the "approval."
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SpaceX Starship - Integrated Flight Test #2 - Starbase TX - Including Post Launch Dissection
- Thread starter Grendal
- Start date
Updated Berger article at Ars about this: Starship is stacked and ready to make its second launch attempt
I wonder if the FAA feels SpaceX has not addressed something, or they are just still evaluating all the changes....
On edit: Didn't originally see the post from @Grendal above on the subsequent page... I wonder if there's chance of this happening in time for their current launch window...
Last edited:
Why? Are you of the opinion SpaceX and FAA haven't been communicating this entire time and SpaceX was not aware of the 63 items? Mishap process requires submittal of corrective items, the report is not going to short circuit that and say they are already done.
(And, like I told you at dinner last night, that's not what gaslighting means anyway)
Has SpaceX applied for a launch license?
Are you of the opinion Musk was actually expecting FAA approval for the next launch?
They have a launch license. They need a license modification for a second launch. Do you have a source that supports your view that SpaceX has not yet submitted the needed data for granting said modification, perhaps in their mishap response document?
SpaceX submits Starship mishap report to the FAA
A tweet from former SpaceX mission director Abhi Tripathi:
I've seen dozens of "Twitter experts" misunderstand this (often time by adding "Breaking..." to their post for extra clicks) so let me reiterate and further explain what Chris Bergin tweeted.
SpaceX LEADS the investigation. SpaceX issues the corrective actions. They pre-write a mishap investigation plan before they even launch. Then they execute their plan if they have an actual mishap. The FAA formally reviews the plan and also the investigation results and SpaceX-recommended corrective actions (but...informally they already know what's coming because of close coordination). The FAA provides feedback, and could recommend adding something if warranted. Their main job is to verify and enforce that SpaceX does what SpaceX said it will do once they approve the final report. In reality, 90% or more of corrective actions may be finished before the report is even formally submitted. Just depends on how well the root cause(s) are understood and easy to fix.
The general public often believes the FAA writes all the corrective actions and has a large team of people conducting the investigation with a heavy hand (e.g. "the big bad government"). No way. I doubt that will ever be the case for any mishap or anomaly. That is simply not how the government is staffed.
The FAA (and their NASA colleagues who have the relevant technical expertise) are typically in super close contact with the SpaceX team through the head of SpaceX Flight Reliability (where the chief engineers reside).
The statements released by the government are usually kept vague but factual, often to the great dismay of social and traditional media (as well as "stans") who want a juicy bite, ideally brimming with conflict. It is in a government agency's best interest to maintain flexibility and work with who they are overseeing...while keeping the politicians and click-bait journalists and influencers away. Inflammatory statements could rally politicians to one side or the other, and then SpaceX and the FAA's job could become charged and harder. Many people want to see that happen for many reasons.
If the final approval stalls, often times it is over a corrective action that was too open to interpretation. As an example of what I mean, if a corrective action is worded as such:
"Redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness."
Ooh boy. So you want to break that down into discrete actions defining what "robustness" means.
I've seen dozens of "Twitter experts" misunderstand this (often time by adding "Breaking..." to their post for extra clicks) so let me reiterate and further explain what Chris Bergin tweeted.
SpaceX LEADS the investigation. SpaceX issues the corrective actions. They pre-write a mishap investigation plan before they even launch. Then they execute their plan if they have an actual mishap. The FAA formally reviews the plan and also the investigation results and SpaceX-recommended corrective actions (but...informally they already know what's coming because of close coordination). The FAA provides feedback, and could recommend adding something if warranted. Their main job is to verify and enforce that SpaceX does what SpaceX said it will do once they approve the final report. In reality, 90% or more of corrective actions may be finished before the report is even formally submitted. Just depends on how well the root cause(s) are understood and easy to fix.
The general public often believes the FAA writes all the corrective actions and has a large team of people conducting the investigation with a heavy hand (e.g. "the big bad government"). No way. I doubt that will ever be the case for any mishap or anomaly. That is simply not how the government is staffed.
The FAA (and their NASA colleagues who have the relevant technical expertise) are typically in super close contact with the SpaceX team through the head of SpaceX Flight Reliability (where the chief engineers reside).
The statements released by the government are usually kept vague but factual, often to the great dismay of social and traditional media (as well as "stans") who want a juicy bite, ideally brimming with conflict. It is in a government agency's best interest to maintain flexibility and work with who they are overseeing...while keeping the politicians and click-bait journalists and influencers away. Inflammatory statements could rally politicians to one side or the other, and then SpaceX and the FAA's job could become charged and harder. Many people want to see that happen for many reasons.
If the final approval stalls, often times it is over a corrective action that was too open to interpretation. As an example of what I mean, if a corrective action is worded as such:
"Redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness."
Ooh boy. So you want to break that down into discrete actions defining what "robustness" means.
FAA closes Starship mishap investigation, directs 63 corrective actions for SpaceX
The FAA has completed the mishap investigation in SpaceX’s first Starship launch but is not ready yet to approve a second launch of the vehicle.
spacenews.com
Good on him for clarifying the situation. I am seeing so many news stories from mostly reputable organizations that completely misunderstand what is going on.
If those are "space" news organizations then they may certainly have decent information. If it is regular media then I doubt they understand much about anything related to space, let alone SpaceX.
I'd be surprised if anyone other than those of us are involved in Tesla and SpaceX, would understand that the whole response from Elon to the FAA was a joke. Most people thought he was serious. We know that SpaceX and the FAA work to resolve the issues. So, of course, Elon is aware of what was on the list of 63 issues.
These items (guessing they were simplified for public dissemination)
So now will we see the numerous news organizations that got their story about this so deeply wrong issue prominent corrections? Probably not…
Just found this SpaceX photo of the water deluge system test from a very cool point of view (this is not just before the booster static fire because the LOX tank is not frosty). Apologies if this was already posted, it was new to me. Or I simply forgot that I had seen it before, which is always possible!
Just found this SpaceX photo of the water deluge system test from a very cool point of view (this is not just before the booster static fire because the LOX tank is not frosty). Apologies if this was already posted, it was new to me. Or I simply forgot that I had seen it before, which is always possible!
I disagree. I think Elon was out of the loop. That tweet was completely tone deaf. It had neither humor nor wit behind it. Not even in hindsight.
Thanks for the post.
I have to admit being fooled by all the talk of 63 corrective actions as well - even after reading through the FAA letter. I just assumed that all 63 had to be completed before they could fly again. But that's not what the letter says.
Okay. Sixty-three actions.
Okay. So complete all 63, right?
Oh. The only ones that SpaceX has to address are those directly tied to public safety (and we don't have that information). That will fulfill the requirements of 450.173(f) which is needed for the launch license modification to allow for the second flight. I'd love to have seen the list when it was first created. Were all the items that are shown as Completed originally listed as Future Action (like the remaining uncompleted ones) or were they listed as Required Action (suggesting that they were a mandatory part of the 450.173(f) work)?
Edit: I also wanted to mention that SpaceX was recently doing igniter testing. I don't know if they're trying to check off another corrective action from the list or just collecting data for a "Future Action".
Heh. It would be nice if sites were required to post corrections with the same prominence as the original article. But even then, I fear that sites would just spin that into another opportunity for more clicks, making drama out of their own corrections.
Last edited:
Not the way I read Elon’s tweet, which states that 6 of the 63 items do not need to be resolved before the next launch, they are for “later flights’. The list shows that all items required to be resolved for the next flight have been addressed.
Or am I missing something?
It was a rhetorical question answered in the next section...
"Oh. The only ones that SpaceX has to address are those directly tied to public safety (and we don't have that information). That will fulfill the requirements of 450.173(f) which is needed for the launch license modification to allow for the second flight"
That explanation from Abhi Tripathi you posted @Grendal is a great treatise on the process.
So, given the close cooperation, and the fact that the issues needing to be addressed are primarily generated BY SpaceX, and approved by the FAA, any thoughts as to why SpaceX believed they were reedy to go Friday and on the cusp of getting FAA approval, only to have to delay as a result of the FAA's action?
Is this a case of "The FAA... could recommend adding something if warranted."? If so, any ideas what additional things they thought were warranted that SpaceX originally did not?
So, given the close cooperation, and the fact that the issues needing to be addressed are primarily generated BY SpaceX, and approved by the FAA, any thoughts as to why SpaceX believed they were reedy to go Friday and on the cusp of getting FAA approval, only to have to delay as a result of the FAA's action?
Is this a case of "The FAA... could recommend adding something if warranted."? If so, any ideas what additional things they thought were warranted that SpaceX originally did not?
What is this delay of which you speak?
SpaceX is busy upgrading Stage 0 and setting up Starship tests.
As your post pointed out above:
After the ship was stacked, Elon tweeted about be ready to go. These were subsequently cancelled.
So it seems like SpaceX anticipated FAA approval as of Friday, but there's been some delay?
Elon tweeted "Starship is ready to launch". As Elon said it, it should be assigned no significance at all.
I'm waiting for temporary flight restrictions to be posted. They only seem to pop up when there's a real chance of something happening. We've already had two notices to mariners that proved to be false alarms. The TFRs show up very close to the start of the launch window. I don't recall the timing for the first launch, but they may come out at pretty much the same time as the launch license. Both come from the FAA.
Right now, there are no space operations TFRs in effect for the Brownsville area (other than the one that covers Starbase itself).
Similar threads
- Article
