FAA closes SpaceX Starship mishap investigation
apnews.com
apnews.com
1. SpaceX is the one who wrote the mishap report. The FAA approved it, meaning they accepted that it conformed to regulations. In particular, it's SpaceX who came up with the list of 63 corrective actions--not the FAA.
2. That means that SpaceX has had a chance to implement those corrective actions, so I expect many of them (like the Automated Flight Termination System) are already done.
3. The FAA letter says that SpaceX must implement all "corrective actions directly tied to public safety". That implies that any corrective actions /not/ tied to public safety can be implemented later.
All in all, I see this is good news for SpaceX and IFT-2.
Bloomberg: "SpaceX Ordered by FAA to Make Fixes After Starship Blowup : -- FAA blames ‘multiple root causes’ for flawed Starship launch -- SpaceX must apply for, receive FAA license modification"
CNBC: "FAA orders Musk’s SpaceX to take 63 corrective actions on Starship, keeps rocket grounded"
NYT: "F.A.A. Spells Out Needed Fixes for SpaceX’s Starship Rocket"
But then there's the FAA: "Following the launch, the FAA, consistent with its statutory authority [...], required SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation in accordance with its approved mishap plan under FAA oversight.
[...]
The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report. Consequently, the FAA considers the mishap investigation that SpaceX was required to complete to be concluded.
[...]
Launch license VOL 23-129 for Starship authorized SpaceX to conduct one launch. SpaceX is required to apply for a modification to the VOL 23-129 license to allow for subsequent launches. When SpaceX applies for this modification, it will need to demonstrate compliance with 450.173(f) by evidencing the implementation of corrective actions adopted in response to its April 20, 2023 mishap."
As far as I can tell, these journalists looked at the FAA press release, and didn't take the extra 5 minutes to read the linked letter to SpaceX, or the extra hour or so to read the link to how the FAA handles mishap investigations. Add in some pre-existing feelings about Musk or his endeavors and.... BEHOLD! World Class Reporting! And this is the sort of thing that any number of governments are trying to force funding for?
Reading the FAA letter, it looks like nothing more than the routine and procedural review a regulatory agency does when processing paperwork. And everybody probably knew this mishap investigation process would taking place even before the launch just because of the likelihood of the launch actually going to plan.
The old money absolutely does not want these two companies to succeed.
Tesla is the largest EV manufacturing the world, has the best EV margin in the business and is still growing very fast for such a large company.
If that's what 'outcompeted' means, I wish my company was being 'outcompeted.
It isn't. See BYD Auto.
But that's just pedantic and even if it is true, they are still very large and successful.
There's nothing mean or personal about Musk in the NYT either, I don't know what you possibly could have seen to imply that they're journalists publishing info punishing SpaceX and including info about Musk to denigrate him and that it's all so unfair because anyone would beg for SpaceX.
However, digging trivially deeper, you learn this is not what happened. A more honest headline/opening lines would read something like: "FAA Accepts SpaceX Mishap Investigation Report; SpaceX proposes 63 corrective actions; FAA conditions launch license on successful implementation of SpaceX plan."
As far as providing the actual story later in the articles, I find that's still intellectually dishonest after the initial misleading characterization. It's similar to publishing a factually incorrect hit piece on the top of page one, and then later a retraction on page 4 once it's found out.
"F.A.A. Spells Out Needed Fixes for SpaceX’s Starship Rocket"
Did the FAA spell out needed fixes or agree with SpaceX's assessment? Let's review the letter...
"The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report."
And __I__ have an out there reading?! Plain English: The NYT, in their headline (the first thing people see) says the FAA spells out needed fixes. However the FAA in their letter to SpaceX says that the FAA accepts the corrective actions presented in the mishap report authored by SpaceX. And that was the most objective of the headlines I quoted. And as for Bloomberg?
"SpaceX Ordered by FAA to Make Fixes After Starship Blowup : -- FAA blames ‘multiple root causes’ for flawed Starship launch -- SpaceX must apply for, receive FAA license modification"
I'm sorry, it's simply disingenuous to call that the more representative statement of what actually happened in light of the letter that the FAA authored. The statement, "FAA blames ‘multiple root causes’ for flawed Starship launch" comes close to crossing the line of simply not being truthful.... in terms of implication it's a long way off from the FAA accepting the root causes and corrective actions in SpaceX's report.
As far as the "I've seen just as many people make the argument..." statement. At best its a non-statement which on its face cannot help us understand anything factual here; truth isn't a popularity contest. There are many wrong people in this world and I can say with great confidence that in this discussion there is at least one wrong person. (I will let anyone eavesdropping make that judgment for themselves, as we're clearly not trying to convince each other of the correctness of our respective positions. :-) )
It's not perfect, but then again... nothing is. Personally I think that being honest about all risks, documenting them, and having a plan in place to fix things is a good place to be.
Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk, so you'd expect that the portion of these that can be ignored should be very low risk.
For space, FAA is primarily concerned with risks to public safety (launch vehicle goes off course and crashes into populated area); and also risk to third party space assets. It also cares about environmental risks, but to a lesser degree (risks of short-term environmental harms can be tolerated, especially if there is a plan being seriously pursued to mitigate them).
Very different from FAA for commercial aviation where passenger safety is paramount (or at least that’s what it is supposed to be.) From what I understand, FAA considers all human spaceflight to be experimental, and passengers/crew need to sign a waiver acknowledging there is a significant risk of dying-nobody is asked to sign such a waiver before boarding a commercial flight, which is why the FAA’s commercial aviation division has enormously tougher passenger safety standards than their space division.
1. Inadequate launch pad let debris fly. - Fixed as proven by SpaceX's static fires.
2. Leaky fuel tank caused all kinds of problems. - Fixed by fixing the launch pad.
3. Faulty FTS - Obviously a huge priority at SpaceX, so probably fixed.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_...
The FAA was not moving forward with a launch license until it was closed. So this is a big deal, even if it takes some time to get the license.
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closes-spacex-starship-mish...
There doesn’t seem to be any publicly available copy of the report itself, just this summary:
The final mishap investigation report cited a total of sixty-three (63) corrective actions for SpaceX to implement. These included actions to address redesigns of vehicle hardware to prevent leaks and fires, redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness, incorporation of additional reviews in the design process, additional analysis and testing of safety critical systems and components including the Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS), and the application of additional change control practices.
Between that and the fact that the details of the failures and fixes would probably reveal a lot of SpaceX proprietary design info, it's totally unsurprising the full report is not publicly releasable.
I thought SpaceX made their IP freely available.
You might be confused by the fact that they don't file a lot of parents. That's only because they know countries like China and North Korea will just use the parents like a recipe book.
Musk has stated in the past that they are explicitly not patenting things or providing IP details freely to prevent other nations from using said IP.
He said he would open-source a "hyperloop patent" but that's dumb, as he didn't come up with it.
They phrase it as having 'an open-source philosophy', but what it really boils down to is that they continue to file patents[0], but choose not to use those patents in an anti-competitive manner, only 'defensively' (on their word).
Now this isn't attempting to conflate patents with 'open-source', but that ship sailed after Elon's memo regarding the concept in 2014.[1]
[0]: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.ht... [1]: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
Trucks aren’t dual use in the same way rockets are.
But we have safeguards in place around SpaceX (at least, that's what it looks like). Trucks are readily accessible.
Trucks are dual use. Like almost everything else.
WMD are called WMD because those weapons are capable of mass destruction. At the scale of cities or entire urban regions (tens of millions of individuals) for a single weapon deployment. Possible more for chemical, radiological, or biological weapons.
The most egregious attack you list saw 86 fatalities. A large number, yes, but fewer than might be caused by, say, a train derailment or collision particularly where riderships are high. (The worst rail accident in Indian history killed up to 800 at Bihar in 1981 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_train_derailment>, as many as 1,700 or more in Sri Lanka following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Sri_Lanka_tsunami_train_w...>; and Europe's worst rail incident at Ciurea in 1917 killed 800--1,000 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciurea_rail_disaster>.)
Even allowing that, say, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 had been successful, casualties would likely have been on the order of thousands of deaths, and that's a fairly maximal potential (the original twin-towers WTC saw daily occupancy of about 50k people maximum, though the capacity was as much as six times higher). The 1993 Oklahoma City Bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, a far more typical urban structure, killed 168.
Compare with the loss of life from what are now considered small nuclear weapons, air-dropped rather than missile-delivered, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a combined death toll of from 129 to 226 thousand. Attacks from modern ICBMs could kill many millions.
Vehicle attacks can be mitigated by reasonably simple countermeasures including spike strips, webbing, barricades, blast walls, and bollards. Intercontinental-range missiles pose a somewhat greater challenge.
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=yGeOvLgB9U4>
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=N_OhTL8TYpk>
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XOBvB2ZUuP4>
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4JBgnhnMOtY> (Warning: loud soundtrack)
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Zp85-dBwslE>
Soft targets are of course always vulnerable (by definition). But countermeasures, rapid responses, and surveillance against planned attacks can help minimise total risk.
Is what I was responding to and I only observed that more people have died from truck attacks than from rocket attacks. You'd have to go back all the way to WWII V-weapons to show alternatives but these weren't dual use at all, the 'V' stands for 'Vergeltungswaffen' which is revenge weapon, I don't think anybody would argue they were 'dual use' until many years later some of the technology that went into them was repurposed by von Braun et al to create the American space program. Though I'm sure that the engineers may have thought at the time that they were busy with space travel.
Besides that only one of those really was a rocket, the others are more like primitively guided flying bombs.
SpaceX makes dual use hardware, and just dropping a SpaceX Falcon 9 on some city without a payload would be illustration of that dual use. Trucks normally carry goods from one place to another. But they can also be repurposed as weapons and a single truck attack roughly matches the number of casualties of the V2 rocket attacks, with one hit on a cinema killing more people than the truck attacks but on average the truck attacks appear to be far more deadly. The V2, from a statistics point of view was a complete failure, on average 2 casualties per rocket built and fired, truck attacks kill far more people on average.
And even if they are 'easy to defend' against in principle they aren't easy to defend against in practice because there will always be times when large crowds are present near a road giving access. There must be millions of such situations every year and the vast bulk of them are not protected at all.
The more salient problem is that that really isn't the relevant consideration. In a risks-based assessment, military and security planners in general put far more weight on adversaries who have access to missiles (particularly those with both range and effective targeting and/or navigational capabilities) than they do those who can make, buy, beg, borrow, or steal trucks. And that has implications for incident investigation reports.
It's not about dual purpose. It's about overall strategic threat.
A truck (absent explosives) might kill a few tens of people in direct vicinity if applied against a crowd. It's not going to strike tens, hundreds, or thousands of kilometers away, without warning. Trucks cannot be unleashed against an adversary half a world away within 45 minutes, as a ballistic missile can. Few trucks have been observed travelling faster than the speed of sound, let alone at the hypersonic velocities of an ICBM.
Again: it's not about dual purpose. It's about the overall threat.
And the far more reasonable response to JumpCrisscross would have been to point out the weakness of their argument, replacing it with the far more relevant argument (as I've laid out here), and assessing the initial concern, which psunavy03 expressed clearly:
The same technology that lets you put a payload in space can let you put a nuclear (or conventional) warhead over a city. The first space launchers were repurposed ICBMs, and so space tech falls under ITAR and other export controls.
Which is a plausible and sufficient explanation of why NTSB investigations of rocket incidents are not made public in the same exhaustive detail as one of a truck-based highway accident.
Sometimes it's useful to pull back and look at the overall picture and see if your argument makes sense.
Far fewer entities have access to ICBMs though than to trucks so let's hope that those with that level of access will remain composed enough not to use them. The chances of that are not all that good at the moment, too many idiots with access to them.
I'd focused on ICBMs as those are the most likely application of SpaceX-scale technology --- certainly Starship, but also Falcon.
That said, far smaller rockets from tactical (< 300 km) to theatre (< 3,500 km) can be and have been devastating. Some are used for precision strikes, and designs such as the US "flying ginsu" are tasked with killing a single individual or small group, others are intended for specific and limited targets --- command-and-control sites, individual ships, bunkers, or installations. Interestingly, it's the less sophisticated weapons which tend to be used as if not weapons of mass destruction, then weapons of mass terror. Russian dumb bombs have relatively low individual kill efficacy, but at scale threaten and intimidate entire cities and populations. Their inaccuracy and randomness are part of their terror effect.
I'm reminded that Adam Smith commented on this effect in Wealth of Nations, in one of only two passages which contain the word "invisible", this being the one in which it appears twice:
Regularity, order, and prompt obedience to command are qualities which, in modern armies, are of more importance towards determining the fate of battles than the dexterity and skill of the soldiers in the use of their arms. But the noise of firearms, the smoke, and the invisible death to which every man feels himself every moment exposed as soon as he comes within cannon-shot, and frequently a long time before the battle can be well said to be engaged, must render it very difficult to maintain any considerable degree of this regularity, order, and prompt obedience, even in the beginning of a modern battle. Regularity, order, and prompt obedience to command are qualities which, in modern armies, are of more importance towards determining the fate of battles than the dexterity and skill of the soldiers in the use of their arms. But the noise of firearms, the smoke, and the invisible death to which every man feels himself every moment exposed as soon as he comes within cannon-shot, and frequently a long time before the battle can be well said to be engaged, must render it very difficult to maintain any considerable degree of this regularity, order, and prompt obedience, even in the beginning of a modern battle.
<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_V/...>
And those short- and intermediate-range missiles do seem to be gaining in spread and use, along with aerial and sea-based drones. The idiots are gaining access.
What drones offer is a combination of both range and targetablity. Current limitations are on either remote control, where range, detection, and jamming are all considerations, and autonomous operation, with the usual problems of attainability as well as moral and philosophical dilemmas over removing the human from the loop.
A 9/11-style attack still relies on a significant aircraft, and there's a trade-off between drone-size and damage which can be inflicted. Much the destructive power of the 9/11 attacks came from tonnes of aviation fuel which were distributed through the crash sites (north & south WTC towers, and the Pentagon). Small aircraft don't have similar destructive potential. A payload of ANFO or other high-explosive could change that dynamic, though it's interesting to note that liquid hydrocarbon fuels carry roughly 10x the total energy potential of most explosives, though the delivery of that energy is over time --- heating rather than concussive impact.
More likely would be the spread of highly-targeted long-range attacks, which have been something of a specialty of the US over the past several years. "Softer" rather than "soft" targets of significant (though not necessarily executive) politicians, heads of significant companies or organisations, or other key personnel, could become much more common.
Addenda to my prior comment: the V-1 and V-2, along with urban bombing campaigns, are all earlier versions of mass terror weapons. Not tactical in application (aerial bombing was tremendously ineffective against specific targets in WWII), but effective in terrorising entire populations. In the case of the British Isles, this was the first time since 1066 that an invading force was effective at projecting power into the islands, and in being able to harm civilians at will. The psychological and morale effects were profound.
And indeed the V1 and V2 were weapons of fear, not weapons of mass destruction. Except for that lucky hit if you compute the average #kills / weapon they were complete failures. This in part was due to the poor targeting capability of the time, as well as the limited payload.
Targeting was entirely inertial. The circular error probability (radius within which 50% of launches landed) was 4.5 km. 100% landed within 18 km of target.
<http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/v2.htm>
<https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/8426/how-good-was-...>
Effective countermeasures were limited to destroying or disabling launch sites and misinforming the enemy about target locations.
Every time there is a mishap, two investigations run concurrently. The Aircraft Mishap Board conducts a safety investigation, and another officer conducts a legal investigation to ascertain criminal culpability. The safety investigation takes priority for resources, access to evidence, etc. The legal investigation is FOIA-able. The safety investigation is privileged and confidential under Federal law, cannot be released to the public, and individuals who testify for it are granted immunity. The goal is to ensure that everyone's cards are on the table and to have complete transparency in private, so that the proper corrective actions can occur.
The investigation reports go up the chop chain to a general officer or flag officer who is authorized to approve them, and each commander along the way can offer their comments or propose alternative interpretations of the evidence. The approving commander then orders the proper changes in procedures or rules to be applied, or orders discipline or administrative sanctions if warranted.
And yes, if classified information was deemed germane to an investigation because it related to one of the assessed causal factors, the investigation would be classified appropriately. Or perhaps there might be a classified annex attached to an otherwise unclassified report to simplify handling, with notes saying "see reference (a)." when appropriate. Or if Controlled Unclassified Information was involved, that information would be blocked from release if there was ever a FOIA.
I'm an aviation guy, so I've only ever looked at aviation related NTSB reports, but whenever a final report is issued, the full investigation docket is also released which includes a ton of raw evidence and investigatory information.
That seems reasonable since obviously it isn't the FAA's job to dictate how specific fixes should be done, their role is just to ensure that the safety issues from last time have been addressed satisfactorily.
Sounds like they've already implemented most of the fixes.
September 8, 2023
UPGRADES AHEAD OF STARSHIP’S SECOND FLIGHT TEST
The first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy was a critical step in advancing the capabilities of the most powerful launch system ever developed. Starship’s first flight test provided numerous lessons learned that are directly contributing to several upgrades being made to both the vehicle and ground infrastructure to improve the probability of success on future Starship flights. This rapid iterative development approach has been the basis for all of SpaceX’s major innovative advancements, including Falcon, Dragon, and Starlink. SpaceX has led the investigation efforts following the flight with oversight from the FAA and participation from NASA and the National Transportation and Safety Board.
Starship and Super Heavy successfully lifted off for the first time on April 20, 2023 at 8:33 a.m. CT (13:33:09 UTC) from the orbital launch pad at Starbase in Texas. Starship climbed to a maximum altitude of ~39 km (24 mi) over the Gulf of Mexico. During ascent, the vehicle sustained fires from leaking propellant in the aft end of the Super Heavy booster, which eventually severed connection with the vehicle’s primary flight computer. This led to a loss of communications to the majority of booster engines and, ultimately, control of the vehicle. SpaceX has since implemented leak mitigations and improved testing on both engine and booster hardware. As an additional corrective action, SpaceX has significantly expanded Super Heavy’s pre-existing fire suppression system in order to mitigate against future engine bay fires.
The Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) automatically issued a destruct command, which fired all detonators as expected, after the vehicle deviated from the expected trajectory, lost altitude and began to tumble. After an unexpected delay following AFSS activation, Starship ultimately broke up 237.474 seconds after engine ignition. SpaceX has enhanced and requalified the AFSS to improve system reliability.
SpaceX is also implementing a full suite of system performance upgrades unrelated to any issues observed during the first flight test. For example, SpaceX has built and tested a hot-stage separation system, in which Starship’s second stage engines will ignite to push the ship away from the booster. Additionally, SpaceX has engineered a new electronic Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system for Super Heavy Raptor engines. Using fully electric motors, the new system has fewer potential points of failure and is significantly more energy efficient than traditional hydraulic systems.
SpaceX also made significant upgrades to the orbital launch mount and pad system in order to prevent a recurrence of the pad foundation failure observed during the first flight test. These upgrades include significant reinforcements to the pad foundation and the addition of a flame deflector, which SpaceX has successfully tested multiple times.
Testing development flight hardware in a flight environment is what enables our teams to quickly learn and execute design changes and hardware upgrades to improve the probability of success in the future. We learned a tremendous amount about the vehicle and ground systems during Starship’s first flight test. Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable launch system capable of carrying satellites, payloads, crew, and cargo to a variety of orbits and Earth, lunar, or Martian landing sites.
This is a pretty big deal. Musk has mentioned this a long time ago as being something that will happen.
SpaceX is moving to direct electric motors rather then having a pressure base system in between.
This improves the T/W ratio of the engine and should be both more reactive and less error prone.
Not sure if any large rocket engine has ever done this, I imagine not.
Guessing they're using a CDN or something and I just got an old version of the site first time around. :smile:
September 8, 2023
UPGRADES AHEAD OF STARSHIP’S SECOND FLIGHT TEST
The first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy was a critical step in advancing the capabilities of the most powerful launch system ever developed. Starship’s first flight test provided numerous lessons learned that are directly contributing to several upgrades being made to both the vehicle and ground infrastructure to improve the probability of success on future Starship flights. This rapid iterative development approach has been the basis for all of SpaceX’s major innovative advancements, including Falcon, Dragon, and Starlink. SpaceX has led the investigation efforts following the flight with oversight from the FAA and participation from NASA and the National Transportation and Safety Board.
Starship and Super Heavy successfully lifted off for the first time on April 20, 2023 at 8:33 a.m. CT (13:33:09 UTC) from the orbital launch pad at Starbase in Texas. Starship climbed to a maximum altitude of ~39 km (24 mi) over the Gulf of Mexico. During ascent, the vehicle sustained fires from leaking propellant in the aft end of the Super Heavy booster, which eventually severed connection with the vehicle’s primary flight computer. This led to a loss of communications to the majority of booster engines and, ultimately, control of the vehicle. SpaceX has since implemented leak mitigations and improved testing on both engine and booster hardware. As an additional corrective action, SpaceX has significantly expanded Super Heavy’s pre-existing fire suppression system in order to mitigate against future engine bay fires.
The Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) automatically issued a destruct command, which fired all detonators as expected, after the vehicle deviated from the expected trajectory, lost altitude and began to tumble. After an unexpected delay following AFSS activation, Starship ultimately broke up 237.474 seconds after engine ignition. SpaceX has enhanced and requalified the AFSS to improve system reliability.
SpaceX is also implementing a full suite of system performance upgrades unrelated to any issues observed during the first flight test. For example, SpaceX has built and tested a hot-stage separation system, in which Starship’s second stage engines will ignite to push the ship away from the booster. Additionally, SpaceX has engineered a new electronic Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system for Super Heavy Raptor engines. Using fully electric motors, the new system has fewer potential points of failure and is significantly more energy efficient than traditional hydraulic systems.
SpaceX also made significant upgrades to the orbital launch mount and pad system in order to prevent a recurrence of the pad foundation failure observed during the first flight test. These upgrades include significant reinforcements to the pad foundation and the addition of a flame deflector, which SpaceX has successfully tested multiple times.
Testing development flight hardware in a flight environment is what enables our teams to quickly learn and execute design changes and hardware upgrades to improve the probability of success in the future. We learned a tremendous amount about the vehicle and ground systems during Starship’s first flight test. Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable launch system capable of carrying satellites, payloads, crew, and cargo to a variety of orbits and Earth, lunar, or Martian landing sites.
I've thought about buying (or maybe renting) one of the huge number of cheapo condos there so I could watch some of these launches. I could even imagine working from there remotely instead of sitting at home watching on the net
Recent reports mention Gwynne Shotwell describing the factory being built at Starbase as capable of producing around 3 Starships per week. If such a factory works for a year (which doesn't look like a long time for a factory) that's ~150 Starships. 150 Starships each have a chance to launch about twice a year if the launches are daily.
Surely numbers should be modified, some of them don't look right. First, we are probably going to have (way) more than 150 Starships. Second, a Starship is likely going to fly (way) more than twice a year. It's not a Space Shuttle after all. Next, what about those plans - Moon flights, which need refueling on low Earth orbit; Mars flights which need the same; all other flights - like orbital stations, sending probes to planets, space telescopes; finally, business class-like suborbital hops for passengers on Earth?
All of that requires a lot of places to launch Starships. Unless some plans drastically scaled down, it seems like we'll have to see an industry for launchpads growing and prospering in the near future.
Let's say you go down in london (originally they thought basically a generic spacesport would let you, which is no longer the case).
You'd need their entire boca chica infrastructure to fly that again...
Maybe the Boca Chica launchpad will get modified/improved to be more compact. It's still at early stages of design/use, so maybe significant improvements could be added. Particularly given that the last redesign took less than half a year.
E.g., a wall around the pad, say, with diameter of ~100 meters and a significant height, would likely protect environment from steam, gas, particles and noise to some degree.
So the question with the word "exactly" doesn't have answer right now.
Worry about it when that’s the priority problem. Tackling that now is like designing blast pads before you have commercial jet liners.
My presumption is BC will be R&D-ish and FL PRD-ish with Vandenburg coming online after FL. If I had to bet, I'd bet on FL being where the first crewed Starship launches but BC where that vehicle class is launched first.
As a result I think the tempo in BC will be more irregular than FL where two Falcon launches in a week aren't rare.
We've already seen that the pad has been rebuilt with a water deluge.
https://blog.esghound.com/i/135551935/spacexs-permitting-woe...
In this case, a retention pond and collection system does exist. However, when the system is starting and stopping there is overspray outside of the launch area that doesn't get collected. This water is potable and ambient temperature though.
So is water with unknown contamination.
Also USA news from literally just few weeks ago - https://apnews.com/article/florida-ocean-heat-climate-coral-...
Environments are much more fragile than you think.
Get a lake. Pour some lukewarm water into it. Let me know how many creatures survive.
> Also USA news from literally just few weeks ago
That is the entire ocean heating up. I think you're getting a bit confused about the thermodynamics.
And spacex launch site is literally surrounded by protected lands, that were there long before their site. Will spacex kill some protected life nearby? We don’t know. But let’s not pretend that dumping hot water is safe.
And that news is about parts near Florida reaching reef threatening levels. Based on your reasoning it’s fine, as only reefs near Florida were impacted, ocean is fine, so what’s the big deal, right?
It’s really stunning to me, that spacex fans, whose mission is to basically “safe humanity” care so little about the environment, that you know, humanity needs to live.
Unless it's very hot (like over 50C) I doubt that would be affected much, and even if it is, so what? I don't think the goal is zero deaths. A few insects and some algae dying does not matter.
The main thing to prevent would be toxic chemicals getting into the environment because unlike hot water they can have long term effects.
> care so little about the environment
I care about things that actually affect the environment. If you cared so much about it you'd spend more time worrying about actual issues.
> Based on your reasoning it’s fine, as only reefs near Florida were impacted, ocean is fine, so what’s the big deal, right?
Ok you really don't understand the scales involved here. Go and look up how much energy is involved in heating the Florida ocean by one degree, and compare that to the energy heating all the water from the deluge system by 100C. It's 1.3 million litres apparently.
So thank you for finally agreeing. Hot water is dangerous.
No one says goal is zero deaths. But brushing over it, "oh, just some things will die" especially if you're talking about wildlife preserve is oil baron type of argument.
> I care about things that actually affect the environment. If you cared so much about it you'd spend more time worrying about actual issues.
You care about things that affect part of the environment you care about, right? Other environments - that's their problem? You know that EPA considers heated water a hazard, right?
> Ok you really don't understand the scales involved here. Go and look up how much energy is involved in heating the Florida ocean by one degree, and compare that to the energy heating all the water from the deluge system by 100C. It's 1.3 million litres apparently.
I don't believe you argue in good faith, if you don't understand why I brought this example, and try to make it sounds, that unless spacex heats the water to 100C, then it's ok. Bye, it's not worth my time.
And if there was something in the exhaust (there isn't) it goes in the air and lands on that area anyway.
They use different engines because there are no petrochemicals on Mars, but there is CO2 and H2O, so you can produce CH4 and O2 locally if you have a power source (presumably solar or RTG).
However this is a problem that needs more study, the are various projects on how to quickly make a functional launch pad.
[1] To Mars and back diagram: https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/
So far, there has not been public information about what they're going to do about it.
A render of the moon landing Starship showed engines higher up that have been speculated to be used for landing and lunch to reduce the problem.
You need a lot less thrust to get off the Moon’s surface. That probably puts the problem back into a familiar envelope.
> apply for a modified FAA license before launching again
... as SpaceX will now need to go through the wait period of a modified FAA license application?
Many of the issues should never have happened. On launch day I remember people commenting within seconds of ignition that there was obvious large debris flying everywhere.
The investigation would never have had to happen with better controls and not outright lying on their reports.
They're learning, they're taking risks and they're doing new things.
Obviously they're not going to get everything flawless the first time around, and they're going to iterate and improve.
innovation can happen while also considering ideas such as “let’s not put a deluge system and just blow up the pad” — tho i suspect elon has something to do with that
You’re right though, they could run it like traditional space… and it would be just like SLS, New Glenn Ariene 6, etc
They’re doing what they’re doing for a reason
This issue is exactly why so many large companies become un-innovative despite having huge R&D budgets.
Above you said he lied on a report, now you're saying he said something on Reddit.
Show us the report he lied on.
He's agreeing with you by saying that because Musk betrayed the "real life Iron Man" image imposed upon him, everything that goes wrong in anything related to him gets the most intentionally negative interpretation possible regardless of evidence, such as this claim about lying on reports.
They have no motivation to factor NASA timelines into their prioritization unless the executive branch lights a fire under them, and the executive branch is deeply unfocused on technical details like this right now.
My understanding is that SpaceX is critical for NASA ISS and lunar missions and provides currently irreplaceable capabilities to the US military. These rockets can be used to deliver enormous kinetic and nuclear warheads or move huge military assets or personnel with unprecedented speed. SpaceX also has the largest satellite constellation which in my mind is a primary asset for space defense.
There aren't any other providers that are very close to the level of these capabilities for NASA and the US military.
Whatever the law is about whether they "answer" or not, strategically, the US needs to try everything possible to continue these programs with SpaceX.
Starship is literally sitting on the pad waiting for the bureaucrats to give the okay to launch.
Presumably they have already addressed all the concerns in the doc that the article is talking about.
“… for miles (kilometers) around…”
So yeah, sometimes as we presented our security policies or documentation, we would highlight an existing problem for which we had a solution or proper executive backing to justify, so that when it was called out, we would haggle and then say "okay, let's fix that". Everyone had done their job.
Off-topic: I was blocked from reading that site using Proton's TX datacenters, but it worked as soon as I switched to Sweden.
Stop blocking VPNs, Rachel.
This control of access to resources is where the name comes from, and its broader use (rather than the highly specific social use we see online) is recently exemplified in the EUs Digital Markets Bill describing large search providers (like google) and social media (facebook) as gatekeepers.
I was given that advice when preparing for my Ph.D. defense. :)
Though I believe the technique has been given many other names as well.
There are people that believe Elon can do no wrong and is always playing 8d chess.
Had this happen during an audit very early in my working life - "where did this excess income come from?" The books I gave them were clean. Fortunately the accountant made an obvious math error that was easy for me to spot, and the next round went smoothly.
Or was it an error? Hmmm ...
So this sounds like "urban legend" to me, but maybe there is a grain of truth in it?
It's real, and inspectors are wise to it, but I guess the subtle acknowledgement that perfection is impossible goes a long way. A lot of "lower risk" inspections are very old-timey/human. You won't get away with it in an aerospace inspection, but somebody looking over the job site or kitchen is playing by different rules.
So she tries to find something very minor, like an unlabeled item, to put on our report, if things are otherwise good.
Same with the fire department. They ignore obvious violations and nitpick small ones, and then never follow up to make sure a change was made.
not if you have a mountain of work to do and hate your low paid thankless job.
What are the odds Elon pushed them to make an unsafe launch to hit his stupid little 4/20 fixation? I'm guessing somewhere around 100%.