Discussion of Landing Failure of B1062 and FAA Grounding

[Grendal]

From

Alejandro Alcantarilla Romera​

For those keeping track, these regulations formally changed in March 2021 after a drafting process dating back to mid 2018. These were meant to streamline operations and make launches easier... but that also meant there was a lot more to cover under the definition of "mishap"

Edit: I've attached the part where it mentions WHEN exactly these regulations entered into effect. The last landing failure prior to this was in February 2021 so SpaceX missed them by a month. Also for anyone coming with the usual political crap... these regulations were done under the previous administration.

FAA grounds SpaceX after booster rocket mishap

Following an incident involving the Falcon 9 booster, the Federal Aviation Administration has grounded SpaceX launches.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Electroman]

but did they ground all F9 launches until this investigation is complete ?

If that is true then this is asnine

https://twitter.com/x/status/1828871642472210806

 

[JB47394]

If that is true then this is asnine

I assume this is just bureaucrats being bureaucrats. They enforce the rules, no matter how stupid those rules are. In this case, I assume the rule is that the flight was off-nominal, so there must be an investigation. The really stupid bit is that SpaceX could have included "possible loss of booster" in the mission parameters (which the FAA would have to agree to) and then there would be no investigation because the booster loss is within the mission parameters.

That's what they did for Starship flight 4, allowing them to drop a 200 ton booster into the Gulf of Mexico and then blow it up with explosives. Exactly as planned.

 

[bxr140]

If that is true then this is asnine

Why?

The rocket didn’t work as intended. Until the FAA is satisfied that the issues is identified and contained it makes total sense to ground the fleet.

While the video is compelling, it would be quite inappropriate to simply hand-wave the anomaly as “it was the landing leg, case closed, send the next one”. Thats not the way the process works.

For instance, what if it was actually a guidance system issue and the leg was simply an effect. What if the issue was a sensor or actuator or something on the leg that is common across the vehicle?

It’s most likely the grounding will only last a short period of time. Let the process work.

 

[Grendal]

but did they ground all F9 launches until this investigation is complete ?

If that is true then this is asinine

https://twitter.com/x/status/1828871642472210806

It is SpaceX itself that came up with the parameters (along with the FAA) for grounding their fleet. So they added a failed landing on a drone ship as one of the parameters. The change happened on March 10, 2021. Which is why it hasn't happened in recent times, since the last landing failure happened prior to 3-10-2021.

 

[ecarfan]

Eric Berger in ars: For the first time in more than three years, SpaceX misses a booster landing

Prior to Wednesday's landing failure, SpaceX had landed 267 boosters in a row. The company's last failure occurred in February 2021. The cause of the failure was not immediately clear, and SpaceX said "teams are assessing the booster's flight data and status." Based on video of the landing, it is possible there was an engine burn timing issue.

It was the 23rd mission for B1062.

 

[fholbert]

Former FAA employee (Air Traffic Controller) and pilot for 52 years here. This is how the system works, and how it should work.

When Alaska Airlines lost a MD-80 off Ventura California killing all 88 on board the entire fleet was grounded by the FAA for a jackscrew inspection. Inspection of the fleet revealed the near failure in several other MD-80’s.

When America Airlines lost a DC-10 in Chicago killing 273 people the fleet was grounded by the FAA. Investigation revealed the engines were being changed incorrectly damaging the mounts. Inspection of the fleet revealed several other DC-10’s were on the verge of the same failure.

Both of these models had millions of hours when the accidents occurred.

Recently the FAA decided Boeing could sign off paperwork that had earlier required FAA approval. Do I need to tell the story of the 737 Max?

 

[JB47394]

This is how the system works, and how it should work.

For aircraft with people onboard, sure. For unmanned rockets that fall over after they safely land, not so much. Perhaps a better example is the case of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400, which was grounded by the FAA because of landing gear failures. It took multiple such failures before the type was grounded, and it was a passenger aircraft, so it's still a bit odd that the FAA would jump on this particular failure. Rockets are clearly held to a different standard.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Thing is we don’t know if the landing leg was the culprit. It could be an engine problem, in which case, you’d want to know why the engine underperformed.

I saw a rumor on X that SpaceX was zeroing in on the cause and it would be resolved quickly (at least on their end).

 

[fholbert]

For aircraft with people onboard, sure. For unmanned rockets that fall over after they safely land, not so much.

Thing is we don’t know if the landing leg was the culprit. It could be an engine problem, in which case, you’d want to know why the engine underperformed.

That ^^^^

The FAA not only has to protect aircraft in the air, they also need to protect people and property on the ground. If a failure caused parts to rain back to earth, that’s a problem.

 

[Grendal]

 

[JB47394]

So the legs are pneumatic (helium), not hydraulic, meaning there was no contribution to the fire. Scott correctly points out that the bottom of the booster contacted the deck, and I assume that it's a result of the leg performance. Not just the one that failed, but all of them. They just didn't hold up, with one coming apart. The fire definitely seems like a propellant fire as a result of damage to the engine section of the booster, allowing RP-1 and LOX to be released.

 

[Electroman]

Given that all other launches other than from SpaceX crashes and burns and explodes in the ocean even today, then FAA should be grounding all of them . At the most it makes sense if FAA instruct SpaceX to not do any RTLS landing. What did FAA do for all the F9 landings that failed initially?

Update: The tweet that I posted earlier, it now has a "Community Notes" that states: "The FAA is not grounding the Falcon 9. However, it is requiring SpaceX to investigate the incident." Now that makes sense.

 

[Electroman]

Meanwhile the media is going gaga and jumping with glee with their explosive headlines.

"Musk's rocket crashes into the ocean"
"SpaceX launches suspended after exploding rocket disaster in fresh blow to Elon"

 

[ecarfan]

So the legs are pneumatic (helium), not hydraulic, meaning there was no contribution to the fire. Scott correctly points out that the bottom of the booster contacted the deck, and I assume that it's a result of the leg performance. Not just the one that failed, but all of them. They just didn't hold up, with one coming apart. The fire definitely seems like a propellant fire as a result of damage to the engine section of the booster, allowing RP-1 and LOX to be released.

Yes, thanks to Scott’s excellent analysis and re-framed slo-mo video replays I could see what wasn’t visible in the SpaceX stream; one leg failed on touchdown, the engine bells then hit the deck and a fire ensued as the booster gracefully fell into the ocean. Scott’s opinion is that the touchdown velocity was not excessively fast and that the leg likely failed due to the accumulated stress of the previous 22 successful landings, and fact that many media reports neglect to mention. 22! How long is it going to be before any other rocket company beats that? Over a decade is my guess, or maybe not in my lifetime. And in the meantime SpaceX may well beat their own record unless Starship takes over in a few years and F9 is retired. And then SH boosters will set their own records, far surpassing the F9.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Jared Isaacman: "While it’s unfortunate she [B1062] didn’t stick the last landing, the cause is well understood,"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1829230986128962029

 

[spacerfc]

Former FAA employee (Air Traffic Controller) and pilot for 52 years here. This is how the system works, and how it should work.

When Alaska Airlines lost a MD-80 off Ventura California killing all 88 on board the entire fleet was grounded by the FAA for a jackscrew inspection. Inspection of the fleet revealed the near failure in several other MD-80’s.

Based on my research, this is not what happened. Alaska Airlines Flight 261 crashed on Jan 31, 2000, but FAA did not immediately ground all MD-80s. MD-80s kept flying until 2 weeks later when the jackscrew becomes the main suspect during NTSB investigation, that's when FAA ordered inspection of jackscrew on all MD-80s. But it is an inspection, not grounding. The inspection is done over the weekend, and the planes passed inspection returned to flight afterwards.

So this is quite different from what happened to Falcon 9, where it is immediately and automatically grounded after an accident, when the investigation is not even started, and SpaceX had to file paperwork in order to get it back to flying again. FAA's spaceflight division is usually more lenient than their civil aviation division, but not in this case. What FAA should do is to keep Falcon 9's launch license valid, follow the investigation, and only ground Falcon 9 if the investigation turns up evidence that the cause of the accident could endanger public safety. If no such evidence is uncovered, Falcon 9 should be allowed to return to flight at SpaceX's own discretion.

 

[JB47394]

What FAA should do is to keep Falcon 9's launch license valid, follow the investigation, and only ground Falcon 9 if the investigation turns up evidence that the cause of the accident could endanger public safety. If no such evidence is uncovered, Falcon 9 should be allowed to return to flight at SpaceX's own discretion.

The FAA is using their procedures from the days of expendable rockets. The idea of exceeding the service life of a vehicle hasn't made its way from aircraft to rockets. The FAA perhaps should ground the oldest boosters in the fleet during the inspection period, but they needn't ground all boosters.

 

[JB47394]

A shot of the remains of the booster when it came back to port. It looks like they have the entire engine section plus at least two legs.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1829561860686827635

 

[bxr140]

Given that all other launches other than from SpaceX crashes and burns and explodes in the ocean even today, then FAA should be grounding all of them .

Why? They're all functioning as intended.

Update: The tweet that I posted earlier, it now has a "Community Notes" that states: "The FAA is not grounding the Falcon 9. However, it is requiring SpaceX to investigate the incident."

I told you it wouldn't last long. The FAA was quickly satisfied that the incident was understood/contained and that it won't impact the casualty risk of future flights.


It's worth pointing out that folks at SX (or at least, not anyone of importance at SX) don't complain about the FAA. In the email everyone in the space industry got from SX on the anomaly (as is the case anytime there's an anomaly) it wasn't "yo these FAA clowns are stuffing us up"; SX was very professional and very clear that they're working hand in hand with internal and external entities including the FAA, and would resume flying based on concurrence from internal and external entities including the FAA.

Despite the way the media and SX fanbase twist information, the FAA isn't in the business of blocking for the sake of blocking. The FAA is very happy to green light when Good Engineering prevails. Put another way, the FAA has zero impact on the way SX addresses any incident; SX has plenty of self-serving reason to ensure appropriate Better Engineering is conducted, which ends up enveloping whatever Good Engineering rigor the FAA needs to also be satisfied.

The FAA is using their procedures from the days of expendable rockets. The idea of exceeding the service life of a vehicle hasn't made its way from aircraft to rockets. The FAA perhaps should ground the oldest boosters in the fleet during the inspection period, but they needn't ground all boosters.

That doesn't check out for me. SX has provided a defensible story to re-certifying equipment for re-flight--a story that is much different than aircraft which racks up many many flights between maintenance intervals. The FAA is on board with that story for F9 and there's no reason for the FAA to go farther than that now or for the foreseeable future (eg, Starship).

TLDR, for Rockets:
1. Rocket company: "this is what we're going to do"
2. FAA: "math checks out, now do what you said you're going to do".