from the Sergeant-Schultz-Solution-Succeded? dept.
SpaceX ignored last-minute warnings from the FAA before December Starship launch
Minutes before liftoff, Elon Musk's SpaceX ignored at least two warnings from the Federal Aviation Administration that launching its first high-altitude Starship prototype last December would violate the company's launch license, confidential documents and letters obtained by The Verge show. And while SpaceX was under investigation, it told the FAA that the agency's software was a "source of frustration" that has been "shown to be inaccurate at times or overly conservative," according to the documents.
[...] Neither SpaceX nor Musk has publicly commented on the SN8 violation. SpaceX didn't respond to a request for comment. The FAA confirmed the violation after a report by The Verge in January. But a confidential five-page report by SpaceX and letters between Shotwell and Monteith reveal what SpaceX employees knew before liftoff and detail how the company responded to its violation in the aftermath.
[...] SpaceX employees left the FAA meeting for the company's launch control room ahead of SN8's launch. Minutes before liftoff, an FAA safety inspector speaking on an open phone line warned SpaceX's staff in the launch control room that a launch would violate the company's launch license. SpaceX staff ignored the warning because they "assumed that the inspector did not have the latest information," the SpaceX report said.
[...] SpaceX agreed to take over a dozen corrective measures but defended its own data and decision-making. The company criticized the FAA's launch-weather modeling software. The software's results, SpaceX said, can be intentionally interfered with to provide "better or worse results for an identical scenario."
SpaceX has complained to the FAA in the past about the software, but "this feedback has not driven any action, contributing to the situation described above," the report said. A "closer and more direct dialogue" with FAA officials would've smoothed the FAA discussions before SN8's launch, SpaceX added.
[...] FAA investigators couldn't determine whether the SN8 license violation was intentional, according to people involved in and briefed on the investigation, speaking on the condition of anonymity. That's partially why the FAA review of the violation wasn't a more in-depth investigation that could have resulted in fines or stronger consequences. FAA officials also believed grounding Starship and foisting a two-month investigation on a multibillion-dollar company focused heavily on speedy timelines would be a more effective penalty than imposing relatively trivial fines, the people said.
Previously: Attempt #2 of Spacex 12.5 km Test Launch of Starship SN8 Went Boom! [Updates 4]
FAA Ineptitude?
Related Stories
2020-12-09 23:23:24 UTC: Launch went smoothly as did ascent to altitude and leanover to "bellyflop" orientation. Was able to right itself back to vertical but had too much speed at time of reaching earth. Got big boom on impact. SN9 has been waiting patiently in the wings (as well as SN10 through SN15, in different degrees of completion). Which one will be next and how soon will it be? Can't wait to find out! --martyb
2020-12-09 21:25:12 UTC: Tentative T-0 now at 4:40 PM CST / 2240 UTC.
2020-12-09 21:03:13 UTC at T-02:06: "Clock paused. Standing by for new T-0."
2020-12-09 20:44:45 UTC: SpaceX has put up a new live feed for their SN8 (Serial Number 8) Starship test flight. The feed is currently active; launch is expected in the next few minutes. --martyb
Original story follows.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @08:19PM (1 child)
Betcha Bezos put 'em up to it
Every time one gets a contract, the other complains until they get one too
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @12:34PM
Boeing has far more clout than BO ever dreamed of having and Starship is a direct threat to their SLS program. There was also serious question at the time about which of the two would reach orbit first, so it wouldn't be surprising if their supporters were the ones behind it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @08:42PM (13 children)
So he was warned that, if he were to launch, he would be violating his launch license.
He still launched.
What are the repercussions? Any? Any at all?
Is it me or did the internet just help bring to light the fact that rick people bear no consequences for their actions?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 16 2021, @08:52PM (8 children)
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 17 2021, @01:35AM (7 children)
I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA couldn't figure out if a license violation happened in the first place. The FAA claims seem to be made on shaky models of weather and shockwaves rather than any sort of genuine evidence:
If there was that safety risk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @02:37AM
Couple of crates of Special Select Emerald Whiskey, and even the FAA can develop "doubts"...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sonamchauhan on Thursday June 17 2021, @12:44PM (5 children)
Was the engineer complaining about those O-rings and cold weather [nasa.gov] also being speculative?
"Weather and shockwaves" can also affect rockets like SN8.
Besides, it's not like Starships rockets have a good safety record.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @09:05PM (1 child)
You have that backwards. The FAA's claim was that if the rocket exploded then local weather conditions could reflect the shockwave down towards the ground, potentially causing damage.
What is wrong with Starship's safety record? Yes, they explode. Testing to destruction does that. Every explosion has been within the predicted margins and has been contained to the evacuation zone.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Saturday July 03 2021, @10:52PM
Thanks. You got that right. But it's a minor semantic point.
Yes, SpaceX can test to destruction if they want. But exploding where there is a decent chance to kill people is a no-no. And knowingly overriding government regulation doing so? It's drunk-driving -- drunk on their own Kool-aid.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/02/02/faa-approves-next-starship-launch-after-saying-spacex-violated-safety-rules-on-previous-flight/ [spaceflightnow.com]
Humanity doesn't need to take shortcuts to get to Mars.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 18 2021, @03:05AM (2 children)
He had actual evidence of a problem backed by a subsequent accident caused by that problem that killed seven astronauts.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Saturday July 03 2021, @10:59PM (1 child)
So did the FAA engineering group.
Let's put it this way: a cop tells me, "hey my breathalyser says you're drunk. do not drive". But I say, "Hey, your breathalyser must be broken. Because my hastily-assembled breathalyser says I'm stone-cold sober." And I take to the road. No accidents. Does this mean I am really stone-cold sober?
More importantly, what does it mean to rule-of-law, or to the next drunk that decides to drive a car, or the principle of not being reckless with other people's lives?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 04 2021, @12:42AM
Well, let's consider each in turn. First, it doesn't mean much to rule of law. Rule of law doesn't have to be safe. Being reckless with other people' lives can be covered by the rules. And the principles of equal application rule of law apply weakly. The engineering group deciding go/no-go of the Shuttle, never risked their own lives because they never flew. So there is no such thing as equal application of the rules. Similarly, there were no established rules here because the accident in question hadn't happened before. It's little appreciated how many people have to die in order to establish rules for risky endeavors.
The next drunk that decides to drive a car? Well, what if their breathalyzer is no more hastily assembled than the cop's? The problem here is that the FAA's models are also hastily assembled (and allegedly can be gamed to a preferred decision). And the FAA's primary interest is in covering their ass. Protecting third parties from risk of SpaceX launches is second or third. Similarly, SpaceX has more important things than exposing people to slight risk. That's why they launch instead of not.
Finally, we get to the principle of "not being reckless with other people's lives". Any bureaucracy like the FAA has considerable power. If they really thought that SpaceX's actions were out of bounds - or they just wanted to make an example, they could do a lot more to them than the present hand slap. The lack of punishment indicates that they aren't too concerned about this bout of rule breaking. That indicates to me that there was no real risk involved in the launch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @11:16PM
>> ...rick people bear no consequences for their actions?
You're right- they blame it all on Morty... and get away with it, too.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday June 17 2021, @07:31AM (1 child)
I don't think this is a comment about rick people or even rich people but more that if they'd obeyed all the FAA rules and regulations they'd still be a decade away from their first static ground test while they spent everything they've spent on development so far on FAA paperwork instead. Sometimes you just need to damn the torpedoes and Get Shit Done, and argue with the bureaucrats afterwards. Which is generally made a lot easier when you've succeeded and they come across as sour-grapes spoilsports.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday June 17 2021, @11:35AM
Until you kill someone...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @12:05PM
The consequences were a two month grounding for an investigation that never went anywhere but let them mandate that an FAA official be on site to fly, then they didn't show up until a day or two into the next allowed launch window. I've been saying from the start that the grounding was politically motivated.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 16 2021, @08:42PM
launch-weather meddling software?
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @08:49PM (3 children)
Since it is SpaceX, they are the hip upstart Breakfast Club teen against the FAA's school principal. That stodgy old FAA holding back the entire future of humanity!! Were it Blue Origin, they would be Lethal Weapon 2's Arjen Rudd, the arrogant villain who thinks he's untouchable by the law.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 16 2021, @08:59PM (2 children)
As long as Musk gets Starship fully operational in a timely manner, I don't care what he has to do.
Dead wildlife, dead locals...
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @09:11PM (1 child)
The let's hope it will be a dead you.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 16 2021, @09:34PM
Don't burst a blood vessel.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday June 16 2021, @09:40PM (1 child)
Isn't that the same FAA that made them cancel a launch because they couldn't be bothered to get an 'FAA safety officer' on site in time?
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @12:08PM
This 'violation' was the excuse they used to set up that stunt. That isn't stupidity, it is malicious enforcement. The question is who was behind it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @10:00PM (1 child)
... Nothing whatsoever. No change was made to the vehicle, ground station, or even the protocols for civilian safety. This is about nothing more than the FAA trying to show who's boss.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @12:30PM
The whole thing started right as the Biden administration was ousting Bridenstine to replace him with Nelson. At the time that looked bad for NewSpace though it has since proven unfounded. Also, the Trump administration had loosened the rules by allowing SpaceX to do batch filings* which are no longer allowed, so I wonder if someone at the FAA was trying to suck up to the new boss by showing how strict they could be, only for it to fall on deaf ears.
*For example SN8-11 all had the same flight profile, so under Trump SpaceX could file once for all four tests instead of having to file four identical applications with a review (and delay) for each.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @10:14PM (7 children)
NASA: Gus Grisson, Ed White, Roger Chaffee, Frank Scobee, Michael Smith, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Gregory Jarvis, Christa McAuliffe, Rick Husband, Bill McCool, Mike Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Ilan Ramon, Laurel Clark
Space X: <this space intentionally left blank>
For bonus points, which space agency has had multiple reports citing a broken culture that puts politics before lives?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @10:34PM (2 children)
Fuck SpaceX. Who has blown up more rockets? Me or SpaceX?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @03:19AM
Well, fuck you. Who considers a blown-up rocket to be a problem? You, or SpaceX?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @11:13AM
Considering that the department of defense is quite an active part of the government in this regard, I'd say that the government wins this one? How you're scoring in this I have no clue...
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16 2021, @11:20PM (1 child)
Normalize your count of dead astronauts by the total number of those launched before you compare, or you're just another turd that's talking shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @01:42AM
To normalize sounds fair, but even a normalized zero is still the same and pretty cool.
Faa appears to be claiming that NASA has a better safety plan. That is X is more willing to put expediency before safety.
So far, the numbers show the reverse. NASA has definitely launched when they shouldn't have and paid a heavy price.
X seems to celebrate their unscheduled disassembys, but so far have not paid a price.
If X were fundamentally unsafe, there have been enough missions that the odds should have shown a cost.
Faa has a hard problem to find the right range safety balance between supporting this agile operation without allowing it to run wild.
Perhaps there are some retired AirForce folks that could boot strap the range safety in Texas?
Alternatively, is X big eough to try for a canal zone sort of lease for a space port just a bit South.
(It would be interesting if Mexico turned out to house the space capital of the world.;)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @08:09AM (1 child)
Don't be a turn and don't be an arrogant turd.
SpaceX launches will definitely result in dead people. It's only a matter of time. The only reason they would remain at zero is if they fail as a company. Risk management is the important factor here. This is why you have cars with seat belts and are told not to do stupid ass things while driving. Yet, most crashes and deaths caused by them are a result of people being fucking stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17 2021, @12:43PM
And yet SpaceX's Falcon 9 has one of the best safety records of any rocket ever flown, and that isn't due to lack of flying. Does that mean that they will never have a fatal accident? Certainly not. But the point about NASA being called out twice for completely irresponsible risk management directly causing fatalities, and having learned exactly nothing from it, stands on its own.