It took them a while to get to it, but the FAA has imposed a "Do Not Launch" order onto SpaceX for Starship Version 3 due to the failure of the Super Heavy booster to perform it's intended flight during Friday's first test flight.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) just declared the May 22 Starship V3 launch a mishap and is requiring an investigation before the huge vehicle can take to the skies again.
"A return to flight of the Starship-Super Heavy vehicle is based on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety," FAA officials wrote in an update today (May 27).
Super Heavy was intended to perform a soft splashdown in the Gulf of America instead of returning to the new launch pad it had left minutes earlier, but instead was unable to perform the engine burns needed for this controlled return and ended up "experiencing a hard splashdown" in the Gulf, as SpaceX wrote in their mission update.
Following stage separation, the Super Heavy booster performed a directional flip maneuver and attempted its boostback burn. It was unable to light all planned engines and performed a partial boostback burn that ended early. Super Heavy attempted to reignite its engines for the landing burn before experiencing a hard splashdown in the Gulf of America.
Doesn't "hard splashdown" sound nicer than "disintegrated when it hit the water at Mach 1"?
As I write, this Space.com news story says it was published six hours ago. I don't expect this launch prohibition to last very long, given the relative rates that SpaceX works at and similar holds that have been put in place before. You may remember the FAA grounded the world's busiest rocket workhorse, Falcon 9, this past February. That was resolved in just four days. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if this issue was solved already and it takes longer to communicate the fix to the FAA than to implement it.
SpaceX's first Starship V3 megarocket launches from the Starbase site in South
Texas on May 22, 2026. (Image credit: SpaceX)
It was a "safe" failure. No one was injured or even vaguely endangered. Mission planners do plan for such failures. Spacex lost a booster. It is in Spacex' best interest to identify the problem and fix it. So why is the FAA inflicting more paperwork on Spacex? Does anyone honestly believe that the FAA is contributing anything to the safer space flight or better rockets?
ReplyDeleteWhy would the FAA do that? Fear of their jobs being cut as useless overhead makes them try to prove they're doing something to help the masses. They're just not aware enough to realize that useless overhead is exactly what it looks like.
DeleteThe area they send the booster to is in a Notice to Mariners that pretty much says, "stay out of this area - something may fall on you and you don't want to be there." I haven't seen anything saying it missed that area, just that SpaceX didn't get the soft landing they wanted.
The US is responsible for any damage caused by vehicles launched from out country. The FAA has been assigned responsibility to protect against that. Grounding a launch provider is the only tool they have to perform that function.
DeleteWhat responsibility does the person bear? The "injured party" as they like to say.
DeleteIn this case, the Fed.gov published a NOTAM and Notice to Mariners that said a huge, heavy thing will fall out of the sky in some area, so don't be there. If someone goes there and gets hit, do they get told "we told you not to be out there so, sorry, but you're outta luck" or do they get paid damages? AFAIK, the only issue with the rocket was that it came down too fast.
The FAA seems to be working from the viewpoint that SpaceX isn't going to fix the rocket for their own reasons and nothing would happen without the FAA ordering it under penalty of law.
That's just insane. It's outdated. I don't know how many millions of dollars SpaceX would be throwing away but it doesn't fit the "rapidly reusable" missions Starship is being developed for.
The issue would not necessarily be settled in a US court. And other countries might be less inclined to put any blame on the victim, although with the record of US courts for many years now, I would not bet on a favorable ruling for SpaceX from them today either!
DeleteIt seems like getting the engines to work would be kind of important.
ReplyDelete