FAA orders Musk's SpaceX to take 63 corrective actions on Starship, keeps rocket grounded

CNBC ^ | 9/8/23 | Lora Kolodny

[CFW]

KEY POINTS

The Federal Aviation Administration said Elon Musk's SpaceX must keep its Starship Super Heavy rocket grounded.

The federal agency had been probing the April launch, which saw SpaceX's Starship explode in mid-flight.

The FAA called for SpaceX to take 63 corrective actions before it launches another Starship test flight.

The Federal Aviation Administration on Friday said Elon Musk's SpaceX must keep its Starship Super Heavy rocket grounded, saying the company needs to take 63 corrective actions before it is cleared for another test flight.

The FAA has now wrapped its probe into the April launch, which saw the rocket explode mid-flight.

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk had claimed Tuesday, in a post on X (formerly Twitter) which he now owns, that "Starship is ready to launch, awaiting FAA license approval."

[pierrem15]

The main issue is his refusal to censor Twitter (now X) as it was in the past.

[CodeToad]

“To suggest that it did not raise legitimate safety considerations is absurd.”

It is obvious you have never been part of a space program of any sort. Thereis no such ting as a perfectly safe flight and everything you said has been part of other flights.

[CodeToad]

You compltely missed the entire points of the Boeing and SpaceX situations. Seems you have a hatred for Musk.

[pierrem15]

Boeing executives knowingly expanded the number and scope of projects while slashing engineering and quality control and moved production from skilled union labor to unskilled non-union labor.

The end result was tankers that the Air Force refused to accept due to quality issues including tools and parts bouncing around fuel tanks and the deaths of hundreds of passengers due to flaws in 737-Max.

Meanwhile, Boeing also got billions in contracts from NASA for the Starliner capsule that is so riddled with defects it will probably never fly.

Both SpaceX and Boeing are private companies. Boeing used to be a jewel in the crown of American tech and engineering, but the same rapacity that saw GE and others hollowed out in the pursuit of fraudulent "cost-cutting" designed to boost stock prices artificially and executive compensation have ruined the company. So of course the corporate-fascist regime indicts a handful of low level employees and demands no clawback from the executive class for whom they really work.

[NorthMountain]

Is it now the new normal for the FAA to force changes on experimental flights on unmanned vehicles?

FAA has always had authority over any flight, manned or otherwise. Talk to the Amateur Rocketry crowd about that.

[NorthMountain]

You’re doing a really good job of jumping to false conclusions based on lack of evidence.

Best for you just to stop, before you make your situation worse.

[RainMan]

Ah, so you are pissed cause that was your car parked at the launch site. Sorry about the back window. <\sarc> (there are pic's of a car parked extremely close to the pad which got pretty damaged during the launch. Apparently they used it as a mobile camera platform for ground level video.)

FAA v NASA, I did not go back and catch it was the FAA that is ordering the corrections. My bad, and no reason for you to talk down to me. As another poster said however, where the hell were they when Challenger blew up ... so not really a non-sequitur. The Challenger disaster was actually a case study we went thru in my Master's program and my guess is the FAA is involved now because NASA could not govern themselves and the result was Challenger.

I am down in Florida near the Space Coast and watch launches whenever they are at a convenient time. (lately most seem to be overnight). Anyway ... since you saw it live I am assuming that you were not privy to watch the live broadcast. They went in depth on setting expectations prior to launch, and my core point was that the launch exceeded expectations, and comparing it to 737-Max is the non-sequiter.

The launch pad, as you know was purpose built for this rocket, and yes, they did not have a fire trench, did not have a water supression system, etc etc ... There is a reason they did not launch this from 39A in Florida. It was the most powerful rocket ever launched, and yes, they should have done more to protect the pad.

One interesting thing I did just find out, is that the FAA did not actually do their own investigation into this launch ... SpaceX did the investigation and the FAA just reviewed it, so none of the 63 corrective actions are things that SpaceX disagrees with, they suggested them. https://www.faa.gov/media/70901

That said, this article is really nothing more than clickbait because it is nothing that was unexpected by SpaceX or the FAA. SpaceX designed and built everything, got a license from the FAA for the launch, launch happened, blew up, SpaceX figured out what went wrong, submitted a report to FAA in compliance with their launch license, FAA approved their plan for corrective actions. No deep state conspiracy here.

[markman46]

Thank you for that comment, sounding the voice of reason. Knowing how fast a pace spacex works. I am sure most of the 63 items are completed.

[Political Junkie Too]

This reminds me of when Bill Clinton went after Microsoft during the Netscape browser wars. Bill Gates wasn't a major donor back then, so Clinton complained that Microsoft wasn't giving a good enough government discount for Microsoft Office, and then sued Microsoft alleging that integrating Internet Explorer into the operating system was an anti-competitive practice.

After Microsoft lost the lawsuit, Gates opened up the wallet and started donating bigly to Democrats.

-PJ

[grobdriver]

The FAA killed the original Starship (Rutan design then Beechcraft tried to certify it) with their "we know best" changes.

SSDD.

[CodeToad]

What situtation, Sunshine? You seem to think someone thinks of you as their hero, and you’re not. You’re just another poorly educated and experienced opinion on the Internet.

[1Old Pro]

so the FAA knows more about Starship than SpaceX ?

Probably that well known nuclear scientist, Pete Buttegeig making the call.

[patriot torch]

yup

[windsorknot]

The Deep State thugs are on a roll.

[daku]

I bet one of the recommendations is a more inclusive hiring process

[windsorknot]

Do you really believe that this is a safety issue?

[omegatoo]

My question was mainly to point out that perhaps the FAA is just another example of unneeded, overreaching, overpowerful federal involvement in everything.

I have absolutely no confidence that the FAA knows more about anything involving aviation than the engineers and scientists and developers in the aviation industry.

I’m sure at one time they did have a valid role in keeping things safe, but as all government programs do, they have now completely outgrown their mission.

No company could survive if their products continually failed, so safety and success are crucial to them without requiring government oversight. The FAA does not appear to prevent those failures, but to jump on board and act as though they had higher authority and knowledge after accidents happen. In fact, all of the failures were previously approved by them, so exactly what benefit did they bring by even having any input ahead of time?

The fact that they are weighing in on an experimental launch, which they approved, to make it seem as though they know better what should have happened, and how things could be improved, seems to prove that. Were they surprised that it exploded?

And no, I don’t think that the aviation industry should have no oversight. I just believe that the FAA has taken it way too far.

Just my two cents,

Love,
O2

[Blennos]

Excellent summation of the situation.

[dynoman]

The corrective actions have been largely completed.

Here’s a way better source than MSNBC;
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1700148557641097474

[Zathras]

FAA
Item #1: “Stop backing Trump”
Item #2: “See item #1”