FAA Closes Starship Mishap Investigation
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said on Friday (September 8) that it closed the investigation into the failure of SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy rocket in April and that SpaceX must make 63 corrective actions before the booster can launch for a second time.
“Corrective actions include redesigns of vehicle hardware to prevent leaks and fires, redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness, incorporation of additional reviews in the design process, additional analysis and testing of safety critical systems and components including the Autonomous Flight Safety System, and the application of additional change control practices,” the FAA said in a statement.
“The closure of the mishap investigation does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica. SpaceX must implement all corrective actions that impact public safety and apply for and receive a license modification from the FAA that addresses all safety, environmental and other applicable regulatory requirements prior to the next Starship launch,” the agency said.
The FAA noted what went wrong during the April 20 launch in a letter to SpaceX closing out the investigation (PDF).
“During lift-off, structural failure of the launch pad deck foundation occurred, sending debris and sand into the air. On ascent, the vehicle deviated from the expected trajectory, resulting in the Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) issuing a destruct command. After an unexpected delay following AFSS activation, Starship broke up, resulting in the loss of the launch vehicle,” the agency wrote.
The FAA licensed SpaceX for a single launch. The company will need to demonstrate compliance with all corrective actions when it applies for a modified launch license for future flights.
In an update posted on SpaceX’s website, the company acknowledged propellant leaks had occurred during the flight.
“During ascent, the vehicle sustained fires from leaking propellant in the aft end of the Super Heavy booster, which eventually severed connection with the vehicle’s primary flight computer. This led to a loss of communications to the majority of booster engines and, ultimately, control of the vehicle,” SpaceX said.
“SpaceX has since implemented leak mitigations and improved testing on both engine and booster hardware. As an additional corrective action, SpaceX has significantly expanded Super Heavy’s pre-existing fire suppression system in order to mitigate against future engine bay fires,” the post said.
SpaceX said the Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) activated and fired all detonators to destroy the rocket after it veered off course, lost altitude and began to tumble. The booster eventually broke up as it descended. SpaceX said it has enhanced and requalified the Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) to improve its reliability.
“SpaceX is also implementing a full suite of system performance upgrades unrelated to any issues observed during the first flight test. For example, SpaceX has built and tested a hot-stage separation system, in which Starship’s second stage engines will ignite to push the ship away from the booster,” the company said. “Additionally, SpaceX has engineered a new electronic Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system for Super Heavy Raptor engines. Using fully electric motors, the new system has fewer potential points of failure and is significantly more energy efficient than traditional hydraulic systems.”
A launch mount that elevated Starship/Super Heavy off the ground was damaged during the launch. As well the concrete pad on the ground designed to absorb the force of liftoff was also damaged.
“SpaceX also made significant upgrades to the orbital launch mount and pad system in order to prevent a recurrence of the pad foundation failure observed during the first flight test. These upgrades include significant reinforcements to the pad foundation and the addition of a flame deflector, which SpaceX has successfully tested multiple times,” the company said.
21 responses to “FAA Closes Starship Mishap Investigation”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Congratulations to the new owners of this site. You’ve taken a site that once had vibrant discussions and lots of information (from Doug) and turned it into a desert where no one comments and Doug is apparently allowed to post very limited information. You really should be ashamed of yourselves. It would be nice if at least this comment could remain, but I’m sure it won’t, because the new owner’s mantra seems to be a very communistic “no dissent can be tolerated at any cost”.
I have no reason to think this is not Doug on WordPress.
Then you have missed some things. Somewhere around the first of the year, Doug apparently sold the site to Multiverse Media. It wasn’t really advertised, but the format changed, the content really changed, and the commenting system became much less user friendly. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you will see the Multiverse Media branding. If you then go to multiverse.media, you will see the rest of the “mother ship”.
Tom, are you seriously saying you didn’t notice the giant shift in content around the beginning of 2023? And that nearly all the commenters disappeared?
I’m saying it was obvious it moved to WordPress, not a notably commercial host.
It was easy enough to sign up to comment on WordPress, in fact I had already done so probably more than a decade prior.
Do you not agree that this site is a shadow of its former self? When it comes to commenting, I can find no way to subscribe to posts. It is also apparently impossible to edit or delete posts once they are posted. Finally, the actual content here is now much more superficial. And frankly, very repetitive.
I agree – the site is pretty much dead at this point. It just seems to be a place to aggregate press releases. It’s a shame as it used to be good site. I hardly ever bother to look now.
I do not agree any change in ownership or comment posting procedure is the cause of it being “dead”.
Then what are your reasons that this site is “dead”. Because it clearly is. The comments in this tread outnumber all comments combined in the last few months.
While I have no idea why I can not reply to you, I know of no reason other than reluctance to yet another logon to remember — and apparently I can logon via Disqus, at that.
Tom, it has nothing to do with “yet another logon to remember”. I give up. You are clearly incapable of grasping the point Stu and I are trying to make…
“Tom, it has … trying to make” <– The point you are trying to make is not justified by anything factual.
Sure there are factual things.
Fact 1: Comments on articles are now almost non-existent compared to before the sale of the site and subsequent move to WordPress. Very few comments, and a precipitous drop in comments, is a sign of a dead site, at least from the reader’s point of view.
Fact 2: Unlike when Doug was sole owner of the site, there is now very little in the way of analytical articles. It’s 90-95% just repostings of press releases. This is a fact.
I guess my point is that I miss Doug’s reporting and the lively commentary we always had here. I guess you are just happy to read reposted press releases. Those don’t do much for me, though.
You really like jumping to conclusions.
Fact#1 People are as free now to comment on a press release and it’s implications as they have been. Nothing about the change in ownership has changed that.
Fact#2 No, I do not prefer it so “quiet”. I am only disputing the explanations for it you have mooted.
“Jumping to conclusions”???? It’s been at least 8 months since the changes. It’s clear as day that commenting here is a tiny fraction of the previous level. It’s not “jumping to a conclusion” to tie that fall off in the change in ownership, change in content, and change to WordPress.
If you don’t agree these are the factors involved, what’s your explanation in the change in comment frequency and variety of content?
Lee, it is your proposed explanation for a lack of comments which I think is a jump to a conclusion. Plainly, comments can be made easily enough.
So if my reasons don’t explain the fall off in your estimation what does explain it?
Because there are plenty of places else to comment, frankly IDGAF.
TBH, I never liked Messier’s weepy/sensationalist attitude anyway. His job was to report, not emote or opine, far still less to silence those who disagreed with him however vehemently.
I really wonder what Multiverse Media’s objective is in running the site? It can’t be to make money — given there appears to be zero engagement with it any more. Almost seems pointless.
I think the phrase “a desire to control the narrative going forward” has a lot to do with it.
And that is a jump to a conclusion.