SpaceX asks the FAA: 'Can we launch our rockets again, please?'
- Reference: 1721238310
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/07/17/spacex_ask_faa_rocket_launch/
- Source link:
A spokesperson for the FAA told The Register that SpaceX made the request on July 15, noting "The FAA is reviewing the request and will be guided by data and safety at every step of the process."
The FAA said in a statement, "When a public safety determination request is received, the agency evaluates safety-critical systems, the nature and consequences of the anomaly, the adequacy of existing flight safety analysis, safety organization performance, and environmental factors.
[1]
"If the FAA agrees no public safety issues were involved, the operator may return to flight while the investigation remains open, provided all other license requirements are met."
[2]
[3]
As far as SpaceX is concerned, there weren't any public safety issues associated with the mishap. The first stage of the Falcon 9 made a nominal landing on a drone ship after the 2235 local time July 11 launch from Vandenburg Space Force Base in California. Things did not go so well for the upper stage which, according to SpaceX, developed a liquid oxygen leak. The first burn of the upper stage's Merlin Vacuum engine went well, but an "anomaly" occurred when the second burn was supposed to take place, leaving the payload of Starlink satellites in a lower-than-planned orbit.
The upper stage survived the "anomaly" and was passivated as usual. However, the malfunction did leave a batch of Starlink satellites in a lower-than-planned orbit. Of the Starlinks, SpaceX said: "The satellites will re-enter Earth’s atmosphere and fully demise."
[4]
"They do not pose a threat to other satellites in orbit or to public safety."
[5]SpaceX's Falcon anomaly could have serious implications for the space industry
[6]SpaceX set to literally rock Florida with more and bigger Starship launches
[7]FAA now requires reentry vehicles to get licensed before launch
[8]You could have heard a pin drop: Virgin Galactic reports itself to the FAA
The FAA's [9]rules for returning to flight following a mishap are clear. There must either be an acceptance from the agency of the final mishap report and corrective actions implemented, or – assuming the mishap didn't involve safety-critical systems or otherwise jeopardize public safety – the FAA could agree to a return to flight operations while the mishap investigation remains open.
While the federal agency had not made a determination regarding SpaceX's request at time of writing, the request itself is an indicator that the company has a good idea of what caused the anomaly and likely has a plan to fix it. The Falcon 9 had also proved to be an extraordinarily reliable workhorse until this mishap.
Otherwise, the FAA would be unable to accept the request for fear of another upper-stage anomaly that would have a less benign outcome.
All of this might bode well for some uncrewed commercial operations, such as slinging more Starlinks into orbit, but launching humans on the Falcon 9 is a different matter altogether. While another upper-stage issue might not present problems for members of the public on the ground, it could be a very bad day for astronauts sitting in a Crew Dragon. ®
Get our [10]Tech Resources
[1] 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=2Zpg@98ofSX3nUL8j0EN7iwAAAQ4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] 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=44Zpg@98ofSX3nUL8j0EN7iwAAAQ4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] 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=33Zpg@98ofSX3nUL8j0EN7iwAAAQ4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%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=44Zpg@98ofSX3nUL8j0EN7iwAAAQ4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/15/spacex_faa_probe/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/10/spacex_starship_florida/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/22/faa_now_requires_reentry_vehicles/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/06/virgin_galactic_report_faa/
[9] https://www.faa.gov/space/compliance_enforcement_mishap
[10] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Horse
"Should they rename Falcon to Pegasus?"
Pegasus is a rocket that's launched from a L1011 aircraft, "Stargazer" based in Mojave, CA.
Re: Horse
Rename it to Phoenix. After all, SpaceX has created a *huge* amount of ashes.
Did you just say “passivated”
‘ The upper stage survived the "anomaly" and was passivated as usual ’
‘The upper stage survived the anomaly and was deactivated as usual’
Re: Did you just say “passivated”
No, passivated is a proper word. For launchers, it means to remove any energetic items that can cause an explosion, eg vent fuel, discharge batteries. That’s not the same as deactivation.
It’s also possible in chemistry to “passivate” a surface, meaning to alter it to make it chemically unreactive such as adding an inert surface layer. I don’t think using “deactivate” would be understood in the same way.
Re: Did you just say “passivated”
It would have been clearer to just say "made safe".
Re: Did you just say “passivated”
An object in space can be both passivated and dangerous, depending on where you are. It's orbit will change only naturally (e.g. drag), but that could still mean that it's going to hit something else if the orbits intersect. Passivated simply means that one can assume it will more or less stay in one piece, and won't suddenly get up and go off into a different orbit. You have to keep an eye on it, but there won't be any surprises.
Grounding human rated is inevitable (and right)
And insurance might want to wait for the report, but they launch enough of their own payloads that they are certainly capable of a continued high cadence even without those categories.
Re: Grounding human rated is inevitable (and right)
Depends. The views of the insurers are moot until the FAA gives some sort of go ahead.
And, just because the payload being launched is crewless doesn't mean there aren't any safety considerations. If a launch is intended to get a boost up to, say, 500km (e.g. StarLink satellites) but only reaches 420km because of a repeat of whatever the fault is, that's on the ISS's level. That's not an ideal place to dump an expended and possibly disintegrating 2nd stage and a bunch of satellites that were hoping to be let go higher.
If it actually happened there'd had to be a rapid assessment of where everything is going to end up in case there were a danger of any of those objects being on an orbit intersecting with the ISS's own... If there were an actual disintegration of a 2nd stage at or above that level, that would be extremely problematic. Ok, so the ISS itself hasn't got many years left but the orbit is supposed to be kept clear for a replacement.
So, whilst they could keep up the high cadence I don't think they're going to be allowed to do so to useful payload altitudes until the FAA is satisfied with whatever changes are required.
Horse
Should they rename Falcon to Pegasus?