So, some perspective on whether the FAA will get involved or not.
The FAA care about safety. If you have anything falling back to Earth you have to prove it is safe. That usually means you have to do some analysis to show your chance of killing someone on the ground is less than 1 in 10,000 (that's the European level, I believe the US level might be tougher).
An easy way to meet this is to land in the middle of the ocean, since there's a lot of space and very few people around, hence SpaceX target the Pacific for the falling second stage.
As part of this you need to identify your expected landing zone, which is then used to warn sailors and aircraft about the risk. But also this is not really enforced - nobody goes out there to check the zone is empty before the launch is authorised, like they do around the launch pad.
But you also need to account for failures in your 1 in 10,000 analysis. So as part of it you look at the probability of something failing and of pushing you off track, and then the risk of killing someone if that happens. Again, this is easy if you are targeting the ocean, since being even a thousand miles off still brings you down in empty water.
So this scenario, where the upper stage fails and comes down in the wrong place, is almost certainly already included in SpaceX’s planning and licensing.
Where the FAA might have questions is whether the probability of failures is correct, or if something has changed in manufacturing to make them more likely.
For SpaceX, obviously, a dodgy second stage is a bigger problem. They need the stage to be reliable for upcoming interplanetary flights and others going beyong LEO. And they'll want to understand what caused it in order to make sure it couldn't happen earlier (which in this case could have been while astronauts were still attached).
So there's a good reason SpaceX are investigating and already announced a pause in flight, and probably a good reason too why the FAA is keeping quiet so far. Behind the scenes I'm sure they're already in contact about the matter.
I don't believe this is completely accurate. Controlled deorbiting of orbital stages (upper stages) is a subject of ongoing FAA rulemaking [0], but it is not currently required AFAICT, and as best as I can find it is *not* done in the majority of non-SpaceX launches [1].
(As a tangential curiosity, Ariane 5 (and perhaps some other LH2/LOX upper stages) lacks any capability [2] to do this, even if they wanted to: because those engines are designed in a way that can only be ignited once. To do a controlled re-entry into the atmosphere, it's a prerequisite that you have a rocket that can be turned on and off at least twice).
It shouldn't matter whether you are controlled or not, you still need to show the risk is under 1 in 10,000. If you have a satellite for example, they usually enter uncontrolled and you still need to calculate the risk of killing someone. This was part of the whole SpaceX trunk thing, since the models showed the risk was very low, but then reality showed they could actually reach the ground.
It's easier generally to meet the threshold with a controlled reentry because you can choose more or less where it re-enters.
> For SpaceX, obviously, a dodgy second stage is a bigger problem. They need the stage to be reliable for upcoming interplanetary flights and others going beyong LEO.
The lunar and interplanetary flights will be on Starship not Falcon.
> you have to do some analysis to show your chance of killing someone on the ground is less than 1 in 10,000
How'd people decide to accept 1 out of 10,000 killing someone? Maybe the metric should be deaths per year since the number will only go up over time. To be fair, I have no idea what it is right now.
At current SpaceX launch rates, 1 in 10,000 would be one fatal crash every hundred or so years. Their OSHA violations are probably going to cause more deaths than the rockets.
I don't know that you can actually do that and I'm not sure there's any federal law which actually requires you to attempt this.
> your chance of killing someone on the ground is less than 1 in 10,000
That's merely a guideline and it's only meant to apply to "large debris" falling from orbit.
> in SpaceX’s planning and licensing.
The FAA has to give you a license unless it can find a defensible reason why you should not have one. They're also allowed to give experimental licenses and they're allowed to waive just about any requirement they feel like. The FAA is not there to give you permission they are there to make sure you aren't doing anything dangerous.
This sounds tautological, but if you ever end up in court, you will find, it absolutely isn't. The difference matters quite a bit here. You have a _right_ to access space. The FAA does not have a right to control it.
If they can't prove what your doing is dangerous they're not actually entitled to stop you. About the only thing you absolutely _can't_ do is advertise in space or send payloads meant for advertising. Everything else is just a waiver request. Which will almost certainly be granted.
> probably a good reason too why the FAA is keeping quiet so far.
It's not their show. Neither USC or any CFR gives them this kind of authority.
"The FAA is aware an anomaly occurred during the SpaceX NASA Crew-9 mission that launched from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida on September 28. The incident involved the Falcon 9 second stage landing outside of the designated hazard area. No public injuries or public property damage have been reported. The FAA is requiring an investigation"
Three failures this close together is problematic! I have no insight, but I wonder if organization or cultural changes are to blame? Plus, SpaceX flouting FAA rules recently, makes me worry about their long term future.
As I said in the other thread, this is total sabotage from Boeing deep cover operatives. Boeing has proven their deep state connections when they murdered whistle blowers on multiple occasions and now they're doing their best to destroy mankind's only chance at surviving the upcoming apocalypse.
Please, for the love of humanity, do your part and donate as much money as you can to Elon Musk so he can save us all.
To be fair, sounds like they're an insider, and even as a huge fan of the plan and goal, there's been some concerning moments. This is definitely one of the them, 3 failures in 3 months breaking a 335-long streak for mission success dating back to 2016(!).
To be fair to SpaceX, the FAA has never cared before when a F9 1st stage hasn't landed properly. Not landing a booster is technically a failure, but I have a hard time giving it similar importance to a 2nd stage malfunction - particularly one that caused the loss of the missions (the first failure).
The FAA doesn't care now either. SpaceX self-grounded and no one is claiming the FAA is involved at all. I trust SpaceX to protect the mission. And also the FAA. Doesn't have to be either/or.
The problem with space launch is that you can't exactly fake it. Your rocket either reaches the orbit or not. Your boosters either land or crash. Your crew capsule either makes it back to Earth or not.
By all these scales, SpaceX does pretty well, compared to other highly established companies, like, say, Boeing. And this is saying nothing about the launch cost.
As much as I dislike Musk, this is really not true at all. It is a order of magnitude cheaper post-SpaceX to launch things into orbit then it was pre-SpaceX
> As much as I dislike Musk, this is really not true at all. It is a order of magnitude cheaper post-SpaceX to launch things into orbit then it was pre-SpaceX
Indeed - not only has SpaceX lowered the cost to get payload to space, they've also pushed other companies like ArianeGroup and ULA to lower their prices in order to compete.
Wouldn't the cost of anything only significantly decrease after a second competitor becomes competitive? Why would SpaceX decrease costs further when they are already the cheapest? Unless the increased market gained by going lower increases total income after expenses, it would be net negative to do that.
> Wouldn't the cost of anything only significantly decrease after a second competitor becomes competitive? Why would SpaceX decrease costs further when they are already the cheapest?
That's certainly the textbook economics answer.
And yet, SpaceX has had industry leading low prices since they debuted the F9. And that was true even when they had a de facto monopoly on medium-heavy launch when both ULA and ArianeGroup discontinued their rockets without having working replacements.
As to why - I guess you'd have to ask them.
It does seem to have helped to enlarge the market. I think SpaceX does on the order of 30 non-Starlink launches every year, and a lot of those are commercial. But I think everyone recognizes that they could probably charge more, and make more money if they wanted to.
That's a silly assertion. Fuel can only cost so much.
Starship is about as large as a 747; Falcon is quite a bit smaller. Neither is completely full of fuel, but fully fueling a 747 takes a couple hundred grand.
Even if Starship is 100% fuel, you're talking about $1M or so max. Less than even one of the engines.
> NASA pays the same price per seat in the Dragon as the Soyuz because they prefer not to fill up all the seats.
That is incorrect. There are now a maximum of 4 seats in Crew Dragon.[1]
While it's true that NASA had plans to take down 6 Astronauts in an emergency, 2 of them would have basically been strapped to cargo pallets. Not something NASA would engage in under normal circumstances.
---
1. > After SpaceX had already designed the interior layout of the Crew Dragon spacecraft, NASA decided to change the specification for the angle of the ship’s seats due to concerns about the g-forces crew members might experience during splashdown.
> The change meant SpaceX had to do away with the company’s original seven-seat design for the Crew Dragon.
> “With this change and the angle of the seats, we could not get seven anymore,” Shotwell said. “So now we only have four seats. That was kind of a big change for us.”
Paying for a full-service crew launch service including ground handling for payload and crew, space suits, life support, docking, and retrieval of the crew/capsule on landing is very different than paying for kg of payload launched to orbit.
The latter has gotten significantly cheaper.
NASA's price to SpaceX for the crew missions also includes development costs of the capsule and suits because there wasn't one on the market available for NASA to use.
And above all of that, price to a customer, especially a government customer with a lot of specific requirements and paperwork, is not the same as the actual cost.
So, some perspective on whether the FAA will get involved or not.
The FAA care about safety. If you have anything falling back to Earth you have to prove it is safe. That usually means you have to do some analysis to show your chance of killing someone on the ground is less than 1 in 10,000 (that's the European level, I believe the US level might be tougher).
An easy way to meet this is to land in the middle of the ocean, since there's a lot of space and very few people around, hence SpaceX target the Pacific for the falling second stage.
As part of this you need to identify your expected landing zone, which is then used to warn sailors and aircraft about the risk. But also this is not really enforced - nobody goes out there to check the zone is empty before the launch is authorised, like they do around the launch pad.
But you also need to account for failures in your 1 in 10,000 analysis. So as part of it you look at the probability of something failing and of pushing you off track, and then the risk of killing someone if that happens. Again, this is easy if you are targeting the ocean, since being even a thousand miles off still brings you down in empty water.
So this scenario, where the upper stage fails and comes down in the wrong place, is almost certainly already included in SpaceX’s planning and licensing.
Where the FAA might have questions is whether the probability of failures is correct, or if something has changed in manufacturing to make them more likely.
For SpaceX, obviously, a dodgy second stage is a bigger problem. They need the stage to be reliable for upcoming interplanetary flights and others going beyong LEO. And they'll want to understand what caused it in order to make sure it couldn't happen earlier (which in this case could have been while astronauts were still attached).
So there's a good reason SpaceX are investigating and already announced a pause in flight, and probably a good reason too why the FAA is keeping quiet so far. Behind the scenes I'm sure they're already in contact about the matter.
I don't believe this is completely accurate. Controlled deorbiting of orbital stages (upper stages) is a subject of ongoing FAA rulemaking [0], but it is not currently required AFAICT, and as best as I can find it is *not* done in the majority of non-SpaceX launches [1].
[0] https://spacenews.com/new-upper-stage-disposal-rules-help-no...
[1] https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/osisite/wp-content/uploads/OS... ("Uncontrolled reentries are currently used for 35% of U.S. missions (62% if we exclude SpaceX)")
(As a tangential curiosity, Ariane 5 (and perhaps some other LH2/LOX upper stages) lacks any capability [2] to do this, even if they wanted to: because those engines are designed in a way that can only be ignited once. To do a controlled re-entry into the atmosphere, it's a prerequisite that you have a rocket that can be turned on and off at least twice).
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00945...
It shouldn't matter whether you are controlled or not, you still need to show the risk is under 1 in 10,000. If you have a satellite for example, they usually enter uncontrolled and you still need to calculate the risk of killing someone. This was part of the whole SpaceX trunk thing, since the models showed the risk was very low, but then reality showed they could actually reach the ground.
It's easier generally to meet the threshold with a controlled reentry because you can choose more or less where it re-enters.
> For SpaceX, obviously, a dodgy second stage is a bigger problem. They need the stage to be reliable for upcoming interplanetary flights and others going beyong LEO.
The lunar and interplanetary flights will be on Starship not Falcon.
> you have to do some analysis to show your chance of killing someone on the ground is less than 1 in 10,000
How'd people decide to accept 1 out of 10,000 killing someone? Maybe the metric should be deaths per year since the number will only go up over time. To be fair, I have no idea what it is right now.
At current SpaceX launch rates, 1 in 10,000 would be one fatal crash every hundred or so years. Their OSHA violations are probably going to cause more deaths than the rockets.
> you have to prove it is safe.
I don't know that you can actually do that and I'm not sure there's any federal law which actually requires you to attempt this.
> your chance of killing someone on the ground is less than 1 in 10,000
That's merely a guideline and it's only meant to apply to "large debris" falling from orbit.
> in SpaceX’s planning and licensing.
The FAA has to give you a license unless it can find a defensible reason why you should not have one. They're also allowed to give experimental licenses and they're allowed to waive just about any requirement they feel like. The FAA is not there to give you permission they are there to make sure you aren't doing anything dangerous.
This sounds tautological, but if you ever end up in court, you will find, it absolutely isn't. The difference matters quite a bit here. You have a _right_ to access space. The FAA does not have a right to control it.
If they can't prove what your doing is dangerous they're not actually entitled to stop you. About the only thing you absolutely _can't_ do is advertise in space or send payloads meant for advertising. Everything else is just a waiver request. Which will almost certainly be granted.
> probably a good reason too why the FAA is keeping quiet so far.
It's not their show. Neither USC or any CFR gives them this kind of authority.
Which stage contains the flight termination system?
Both, but the stage 2 FTS is safed near the end of the second stage burn, right before it has enough velocity to be in orbit.
Great information, thanks.
Statement from the FAA directly:
"The FAA is aware an anomaly occurred during the SpaceX NASA Crew-9 mission that launched from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida on September 28. The incident involved the Falcon 9 second stage landing outside of the designated hazard area. No public injuries or public property damage have been reported. The FAA is requiring an investigation"
[1] https://x.com/jeff_foust/status/1840851200972833175
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689433
Three failures this close together is problematic! I have no insight, but I wonder if organization or cultural changes are to blame? Plus, SpaceX flouting FAA rules recently, makes me worry about their long term future.
Flouting, not flaunting.
Indeed, thank you.
‘Slight under burn’ on the second stage sounds like it may have run out of fuel..
As I said in the other thread, this is total sabotage from Boeing deep cover operatives. Boeing has proven their deep state connections when they murdered whistle blowers on multiple occasions and now they're doing their best to destroy mankind's only chance at surviving the upcoming apocalypse.
Please, for the love of humanity, do your part and donate as much money as you can to Elon Musk so he can save us all.
This company is a circus. It's the fake it till you make it of space.
Edit: can't respond to all the haters. Instead here's something for your viewing pleasure https://youtube.com/watch?v=m23tGqmmiA8
Are you out of your mind? No single company has done as much for space travel as SpaceX in the last 60 years.
To be fair, sounds like they're an insider, and even as a huge fan of the plan and goal, there's been some concerning moments. This is definitely one of the them, 3 failures in 3 months breaking a 335-long streak for mission success dating back to 2016(!).
> 3 failures in 3 months
To be fair to SpaceX, the FAA has never cared before when a F9 1st stage hasn't landed properly. Not landing a booster is technically a failure, but I have a hard time giving it similar importance to a 2nd stage malfunction - particularly one that caused the loss of the missions (the first failure).
The FAA doesn't care now either. SpaceX self-grounded and no one is claiming the FAA is involved at all. I trust SpaceX to protect the mission. And also the FAA. Doesn't have to be either/or.
Not sure what makes you think they're an insider.
Wording in the post and some spelunking.
The problem with space launch is that you can't exactly fake it. Your rocket either reaches the orbit or not. Your boosters either land or crash. Your crew capsule either makes it back to Earth or not.
By all these scales, SpaceX does pretty well, compared to other highly established companies, like, say, Boeing. And this is saying nothing about the launch cost.
> By all these scales, SpaceX does pretty well, compared to other highly established companies, like, say, Boeing
It's been a while since Boeing has launched anything.
But yeah - SpaceX does well compared to ULA, ArianeGroup, Roscosmos, ISRO, and Mitsubishi
Boeing's new crew capsule failed to pass safety checks and recently went back to Earth empty from ISS.
Hiccups happen to everyone. But this was just highly visible.
What is fake about all the milestones they achieved?
Well to me the only milestone that matters is the cost of launching to orbit, and that hasn't improved.
As much as I dislike Musk, this is really not true at all. It is a order of magnitude cheaper post-SpaceX to launch things into orbit then it was pre-SpaceX
> As much as I dislike Musk, this is really not true at all. It is a order of magnitude cheaper post-SpaceX to launch things into orbit then it was pre-SpaceX
Indeed - not only has SpaceX lowered the cost to get payload to space, they've also pushed other companies like ArianeGroup and ULA to lower their prices in order to compete.
Wouldn't the cost of anything only significantly decrease after a second competitor becomes competitive? Why would SpaceX decrease costs further when they are already the cheapest? Unless the increased market gained by going lower increases total income after expenses, it would be net negative to do that.
> Wouldn't the cost of anything only significantly decrease after a second competitor becomes competitive? Why would SpaceX decrease costs further when they are already the cheapest?
That's certainly the textbook economics answer.
And yet, SpaceX has had industry leading low prices since they debuted the F9. And that was true even when they had a de facto monopoly on medium-heavy launch when both ULA and ArianeGroup discontinued their rockets without having working replacements.
As to why - I guess you'd have to ask them.
It does seem to have helped to enlarge the market. I think SpaceX does on the order of 30 non-Starlink launches every year, and a lot of those are commercial. But I think everyone recognizes that they could probably charge more, and make more money if they wanted to.
https://www.aei.org/articles/moores-law-meet-musks-law-the-u...
Lots of words, but the numbers are made up. The vast vast majority of the costs is fuel, and that can't be changed by tech. It's just physics.
> The vast vast majority of the costs is fuel...
That's a silly assertion. Fuel can only cost so much.
Starship is about as large as a 747; Falcon is quite a bit smaller. Neither is completely full of fuel, but fully fueling a 747 takes a couple hundred grand.
Even if Starship is 100% fuel, you're talking about $1M or so max. Less than even one of the engines.
I don't understand how someone can be this misinformed
I honestly think they're just trolling like that ElonChrist guy. Two sides of the same coin.
You're misinformed. NASA pays SpaceX roughly what it was paying the Russians.
You are missing some nuance here.
NASA launches payloads on falcon 9 and falcon heavy for a third of the cost it was before.
NASA pays the same price per seat in the Dragon as the Soyuz because they prefer not to fill up all the seats.
> NASA pays the same price per seat in the Dragon as the Soyuz because they prefer not to fill up all the seats.
That is incorrect. There are now a maximum of 4 seats in Crew Dragon.[1]
While it's true that NASA had plans to take down 6 Astronauts in an emergency, 2 of them would have basically been strapped to cargo pallets. Not something NASA would engage in under normal circumstances.
---
1. > After SpaceX had already designed the interior layout of the Crew Dragon spacecraft, NASA decided to change the specification for the angle of the ship’s seats due to concerns about the g-forces crew members might experience during splashdown.
> The change meant SpaceX had to do away with the company’s original seven-seat design for the Crew Dragon.
> “With this change and the angle of the seats, we could not get seven anymore,” Shotwell said. “So now we only have four seats. That was kind of a big change for us.”
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/07/after-redesigns-the-fi...
Paying for a full-service crew launch service including ground handling for payload and crew, space suits, life support, docking, and retrieval of the crew/capsule on landing is very different than paying for kg of payload launched to orbit.
The latter has gotten significantly cheaper.
NASA's price to SpaceX for the crew missions also includes development costs of the capsule and suits because there wasn't one on the market available for NASA to use.
And above all of that, price to a customer, especially a government customer with a lot of specific requirements and paperwork, is not the same as the actual cost.
NASA administrator Bill Nelson quoted a member of the Joint Chiefs as telling him that SpaceX had saved the US government $40 billion for just launching military payloads. <https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/06/05/did-spacex-really-...>
On the civilian side, SpaceX saved NASA $2 billion for just one payload, Europa Clipper <https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/a-year-from-launch-the...>, so who knows how many billions more from other launches.
They actually make it pretty ok to space
What on earth are you talking about?
We're talking about space!