FAA gives SpaceX the nod for Starship Flight 9 but doubles the danger zone
(2025/05/23)
- Reference: 1748007910
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/05/23/faa_spacex_starship_9/
- Source link:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has given SpaceX the go-ahead to launch Starship Flight 9, but has nearly doubled the size of the vehicle's Aircraft Hazard Area (AHA).
SpaceX's Starship exploded during the two preceding flights, showering the Turks & Caicos Islands with debris and causing aircraft to be diverted. Flight 7's destruction was caused by " [1]harmonic response ," resulting in a propulsion leak and subsequent fire. SpaceX has not disclosed the cause of Flight 8's failure, but the sequence of events was at least superficially similar to those before the abrupt end of Flight 7.
SpaceX has not yet detailed how it addressed the issues from Flight 8, but the FAA was satisfied enough [2]to allow it to proceed with Flight 9, which will feature a used Super Heavy Booster.
[3]
Partly because of the booster reuse and partly due to an updated flight safety analysis, the FAA has expanded the AHA for Flight 9 to "approximately 1,600 nautical miles," which "extends eastward from the Starbase, Texas, launch site through the Straits of Florida, including the Bahamas and Turks & Caicos Islands." The AHA for Flight 8 was 885 nautical miles.
[4]
[5]
The FAA said it "is in close contact and collaboration with the United Kingdom, Turks & Caicos Islands, Bahamas, Mexico, and Cuba as the agency continues to monitor SpaceX's compliance with all public safety and other regulatory requirements."
[6]Next week's SpaceX Starship test still needs FAA authorization
[7]SpaceX scores $5.9B lion's share of Space Force launch contracts
[8]SpaceX's 'Days Since Starship Exploded' counter made it to 48. It's back to zero again now
[9]SpaceX loses a Falcon 9 booster and scrubs a Starship
Before Flight 9 could be authorized, the investigation into the Flight 8 incident had to be closed, or the FAA had to determine that going ahead would not risk public safety. Earlier in May, a spokesperson for the FAA told The Register : "SpaceX may not launch Starship again until one of the two options is completed for the Flight 8 mishap and SpaceX meets all other licensing requirements."
This week, the FAA said it had "conducted a comprehensive safety review of the SpaceX Starship Flight 8 mishap and determined that the company has satisfactorily addressed the causes of the mishap, and therefore, the Starship vehicle can return to flight."
Rockets shaking themselves to pieces during launch is not unheard of. In 1968, [10]an uncrewed Saturn V suffered severe longitudinal oscillations called "pogo." These were caused by vacuums in the fuel feed lines reaching the engines and causing them to skip. Two of the five second-stage engines shut down during the launch, and the third stage would not restart. Detuning the rocket engines and using helium in the feed lines before ignition as a shock absorber reduced the effect.
[11]
The launch of Starship Flight Test 9 is likely to occur next week. So maybe don't take that trip to the Caribbean just yet. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/26/spacex_harmonic_response_starship/
[2] https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/statements/general-statements
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aDCbm1U4pQx-mygyLkmlqQAAAcQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aDCbm1U4pQx-mygyLkmlqQAAAcQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aDCbm1U4pQx-mygyLkmlqQAAAcQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/15/next_weeks_spacex_starship_test/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/07/spacex_space_force_contracts/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/07/spacex_starship_mission_fail/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/spacex_loses_falcon_9/
[10] https://www.nasa.gov/history/50-years-ago-solving-the-pogo-effect/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aDCbm1U4pQx-mygyLkmlqQAAAcQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
SpaceX's Starship exploded during the two preceding flights, showering the Turks & Caicos Islands with debris and causing aircraft to be diverted. Flight 7's destruction was caused by " [1]harmonic response ," resulting in a propulsion leak and subsequent fire. SpaceX has not disclosed the cause of Flight 8's failure, but the sequence of events was at least superficially similar to those before the abrupt end of Flight 7.
SpaceX has not yet detailed how it addressed the issues from Flight 8, but the FAA was satisfied enough [2]to allow it to proceed with Flight 9, which will feature a used Super Heavy Booster.
[3]
Partly because of the booster reuse and partly due to an updated flight safety analysis, the FAA has expanded the AHA for Flight 9 to "approximately 1,600 nautical miles," which "extends eastward from the Starbase, Texas, launch site through the Straits of Florida, including the Bahamas and Turks & Caicos Islands." The AHA for Flight 8 was 885 nautical miles.
[4]
[5]
The FAA said it "is in close contact and collaboration with the United Kingdom, Turks & Caicos Islands, Bahamas, Mexico, and Cuba as the agency continues to monitor SpaceX's compliance with all public safety and other regulatory requirements."
[6]Next week's SpaceX Starship test still needs FAA authorization
[7]SpaceX scores $5.9B lion's share of Space Force launch contracts
[8]SpaceX's 'Days Since Starship Exploded' counter made it to 48. It's back to zero again now
[9]SpaceX loses a Falcon 9 booster and scrubs a Starship
Before Flight 9 could be authorized, the investigation into the Flight 8 incident had to be closed, or the FAA had to determine that going ahead would not risk public safety. Earlier in May, a spokesperson for the FAA told The Register : "SpaceX may not launch Starship again until one of the two options is completed for the Flight 8 mishap and SpaceX meets all other licensing requirements."
This week, the FAA said it had "conducted a comprehensive safety review of the SpaceX Starship Flight 8 mishap and determined that the company has satisfactorily addressed the causes of the mishap, and therefore, the Starship vehicle can return to flight."
Rockets shaking themselves to pieces during launch is not unheard of. In 1968, [10]an uncrewed Saturn V suffered severe longitudinal oscillations called "pogo." These were caused by vacuums in the fuel feed lines reaching the engines and causing them to skip. Two of the five second-stage engines shut down during the launch, and the third stage would not restart. Detuning the rocket engines and using helium in the feed lines before ignition as a shock absorber reduced the effect.
[11]
The launch of Starship Flight Test 9 is likely to occur next week. So maybe don't take that trip to the Caribbean just yet. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/26/spacex_harmonic_response_starship/
[2] https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/statements/general-statements
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aDCbm1U4pQx-mygyLkmlqQAAAcQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aDCbm1U4pQx-mygyLkmlqQAAAcQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aDCbm1U4pQx-mygyLkmlqQAAAcQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/15/next_weeks_spacex_starship_test/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/07/spacex_space_force_contracts/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/07/spacex_starship_mission_fail/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/spacex_loses_falcon_9/
[10] https://www.nasa.gov/history/50-years-ago-solving-the-pogo-effect/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aDCbm1U4pQx-mygyLkmlqQAAAcQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Compensation?
Spazturtle
Airlines fly through the hazard zone at their own risk, that is the point of the zone. The FAA is saying that this area of airspace might need to be closed with no notice on a given date, and that airlines take the risk of needing to divert if they fly though it and it gets activated.
The alternative is for the FAA to just close the airspace.
Compensation?
The FAA probably has to consider the possibility of future compensation claims if there is further damage or airlines feel unfairly affected by the hazard area. Note, this will only get worse if regulation gets lighter because the courts might decide to take it up.