Hacker News Reader

Comment by GMoromisato | Hacker News Reader

A few observations (which many of you might already know):

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.

https://www.faa.gov/media/70901

View on HN

This. Thanks for actually... you know... reporting accurately on the subject. It's interesting to see how this is characterized in the press by professional journalists.

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.

There's clearly A LOT of money in play with regards to Tesla and SpaceX succeeding, and I think it has become extremely common to bash both companies at every possible opportunity.

The old money absolutely does not want these two companies to succeed.

It’s a lot simpler than that. A lot of people dislike Elon Musk and so negative stories and/or misleadingly negative headlines related to him generate engagement.

Which is entirely his fault though. People dislike him for his behavior, not because he's rich or upsets the established companies.

Couldn’t agree more.

Still implies that the journalists involved are deliberately spreading misinformation due to a personal vendetta. The primary victims are the ones who trust them.

Tesla/SpaceX had way just as many negative headlines when Elon himself was pretty popular.

Wildly different cases, though. SpaceX occupies a unique and valuable space as a contractor, tesla is a consumer manufacturer being outcompeted at their own game.

> being outcompeted at their own game.

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.

> Tesla is the largest EV manufacturing the world.

It isn't. See BYD Auto.

If you count PlugIn Hybrids, not BEV only. I don't, because there is good evidence that many people use them more like normal hybrids then EV. Then you just have a less efficient expensive hybrid.

But that's just pedantic and even if it is true, they are still very large and successful.

This is BS, NYT spells this out exactly, and if I had to bet, based on tone, CNBC/Bloomberg shared similar info.

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.

All of the opening statements that I quoted suggest that the FAA performed an investigation and are forcing SpaceX to perform 63 remediations before they can resume their test campaign. To be fair, this is suggested by the FAA press statement as well.

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.

That is an _out there_ reading of it. Note I've seen the opposite argument: that the headlines are honest but the body copy is dishonest: i.e. I've seen just as many people make the argument that it's unfair that FAA is forcing this, and turning a checklist into disciplinary action, and the media is helping cover it up by framing it as voluntary.

Huh? Here's the NYT article's title:

"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. :-) )

I don't disagree that fevered sweaty rants about persecution can be justified, I am pointing out to you they can (and are) being justified in either direction, thus showing they are fevered sweaty rants.

So, does this mean the FAA letter is the weakest it could possibly have been? Or was it plausible they could have said "we know you identified 63 corrective actions, but don't worry about that - so long as you do #3, #18, #31 and make a start on #40 you're good to go on the next launch"?

To be fair this is the same as most regulatory bodies. You have specific things you must do for SOC2. There can also be known issues that you must document and, as long as they fall within acceptable risk tolerances and you have a plan to fix them within some defined time period, it can be acceptable (obvs, again, depending on the risks).

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.

> Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to 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.

I'm not sure characterizing it as "weak" would be accurate. Well functioning government bureaucracy acts in kind of a mechanical fashion with very strictly used language. It's more accurate to say that it contains neither positive language toward SpaceX nor negative language toward SpaceX. It simply _is_.

Look at the big concerns:

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.

This probably doesn't add anything to the discussion but fun to note a name collision: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [0]

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com