FAA closes SpaceX Starship mishap investigation(apnews.com)
apnews.com
FAA closes SpaceX Starship mishap investigation
https://apnews.com/article/spacex-starship-launch-accident-faa-a8d6cec63de579af4b6d5f040e51825d
192 comments
This. Thanks for actually... you know... reporting accurately on the subject. It's interesting to see how this is characterized in the press by professional journalists.
Bloomberg: "SpaceX Ordered by FAA to Make Fixes After Starship Blowup : -- FAA blames ‘multiple root causes’ for flawed Starship launch -- SpaceX must apply for, receive FAA license modification"
CNBC: "FAA orders Musk’s SpaceX to take 63 corrective actions on Starship, keeps rocket grounded"
NYT: "F.A.A. Spells Out Needed Fixes for SpaceX’s Starship Rocket"
But then there's the FAA: "Following the launch, the FAA, consistent with its statutory authority [...], required SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation in accordance with its approved mishap plan under FAA oversight.
[...]
The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report. Consequently, the FAA considers the mishap investigation that SpaceX was required to complete to be concluded.
[...]
Launch license VOL 23-129 for Starship authorized SpaceX to conduct one launch. SpaceX is required to apply for a modification to the VOL 23-129 license to allow for subsequent launches. When SpaceX applies for this modification, it will need to demonstrate compliance with 450.173(f) by evidencing the implementation of corrective actions adopted in response to its April 20, 2023 mishap."
As far as I can tell, these journalists looked at the FAA press release, and didn't take the extra 5 minutes to read the linked letter to SpaceX, or the extra hour or so to read the link to how the FAA handles mishap investigations. Add in some pre-existing feelings about Musk or his endeavors and.... BEHOLD! World Class Reporting! And this is the sort of thing that any number of governments are trying to force funding for?
Reading the FAA letter, it looks like nothing more than the routine and procedural review a regulatory agency does when processing paperwork. And everybody probably knew this mishap investigation process would taking place even before the launch just because of the likelihood of the launch actually going to plan.
Bloomberg: "SpaceX Ordered by FAA to Make Fixes After Starship Blowup : -- FAA blames ‘multiple root causes’ for flawed Starship launch -- SpaceX must apply for, receive FAA license modification"
CNBC: "FAA orders Musk’s SpaceX to take 63 corrective actions on Starship, keeps rocket grounded"
NYT: "F.A.A. Spells Out Needed Fixes for SpaceX’s Starship Rocket"
But then there's the FAA: "Following the launch, the FAA, consistent with its statutory authority [...], required SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation in accordance with its approved mishap plan under FAA oversight.
[...]
The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report. Consequently, the FAA considers the mishap investigation that SpaceX was required to complete to be concluded.
[...]
Launch license VOL 23-129 for Starship authorized SpaceX to conduct one launch. SpaceX is required to apply for a modification to the VOL 23-129 license to allow for subsequent launches. When SpaceX applies for this modification, it will need to demonstrate compliance with 450.173(f) by evidencing the implementation of corrective actions adopted in response to its April 20, 2023 mishap."
As far as I can tell, these journalists looked at the FAA press release, and didn't take the extra 5 minutes to read the linked letter to SpaceX, or the extra hour or so to read the link to how the FAA handles mishap investigations. Add in some pre-existing feelings about Musk or his endeavors and.... BEHOLD! World Class Reporting! And this is the sort of thing that any number of governments are trying to force funding for?
Reading the FAA letter, it looks like nothing more than the routine and procedural review a regulatory agency does when processing paperwork. And everybody probably knew this mishap investigation process would taking place even before the launch just because of the likelihood of the launch actually going to plan.
There's clearly A LOT of money in play with regards to Tesla and SpaceX succeeding, and I think it has become extremely common to bash both companies at every possible opportunity.
The old money absolutely does not want these two companies to succeed.
The old money absolutely does not want these two companies to succeed.
It’s a lot simpler than that. A lot of people dislike Elon Musk and so negative stories and/or misleadingly negative headlines related to him generate engagement.
Which is entirely his fault though. People dislike him for his behavior, not because he's rich or upsets the established companies.
Couldn’t agree more.
Still implies that the journalists involved are deliberately spreading misinformation due to a personal vendetta. The primary victims are the ones who trust them.
Tesla/SpaceX had way just as many negative headlines when Elon himself was pretty popular.
Wildly different cases, though. SpaceX occupies a unique and valuable space as a contractor, tesla is a consumer manufacturer being outcompeted at their own game.
> being outcompeted at their own game.
Tesla is the largest EV manufacturing the world, has the best EV margin in the business and is still growing very fast for such a large company.
If that's what 'outcompeted' means, I wish my company was being 'outcompeted.
Tesla is the largest EV manufacturing the world, has the best EV margin in the business and is still growing very fast for such a large company.
If that's what 'outcompeted' means, I wish my company was being 'outcompeted.
> Tesla is the largest EV manufacturing the world.
It isn't. See BYD Auto.
It isn't. See BYD Auto.
If you count PlugIn Hybrids, not BEV only. I don't, because there is good evidence that many people use them more like normal hybrids then EV. Then you just have a less efficient expensive hybrid.
But that's just pedantic and even if it is true, they are still very large and successful.
But that's just pedantic and even if it is true, they are still very large and successful.
This is BS, NYT spells this out exactly, and if I had to bet, based on tone, CNBC/Bloomberg shared similar info.
There's nothing mean or personal about Musk in the NYT either, I don't know what you possibly could have seen to imply that they're journalists publishing info punishing SpaceX and including info about Musk to denigrate him and that it's all so unfair because anyone would beg for SpaceX.
There's nothing mean or personal about Musk in the NYT either, I don't know what you possibly could have seen to imply that they're journalists publishing info punishing SpaceX and including info about Musk to denigrate him and that it's all so unfair because anyone would beg for SpaceX.
All of the opening statements that I quoted suggest that the FAA performed an investigation and are forcing SpaceX to perform 63 remediations before they can resume their test campaign. To be fair, this is suggested by the FAA press statement as well.
However, digging trivially deeper, you learn this is not what happened. A more honest headline/opening lines would read something like: "FAA Accepts SpaceX Mishap Investigation Report; SpaceX proposes 63 corrective actions; FAA conditions launch license on successful implementation of SpaceX plan."
As far as providing the actual story later in the articles, I find that's still intellectually dishonest after the initial misleading characterization. It's similar to publishing a factually incorrect hit piece on the top of page one, and then later a retraction on page 4 once it's found out.
However, digging trivially deeper, you learn this is not what happened. A more honest headline/opening lines would read something like: "FAA Accepts SpaceX Mishap Investigation Report; SpaceX proposes 63 corrective actions; FAA conditions launch license on successful implementation of SpaceX plan."
As far as providing the actual story later in the articles, I find that's still intellectually dishonest after the initial misleading characterization. It's similar to publishing a factually incorrect hit piece on the top of page one, and then later a retraction on page 4 once it's found out.
That is an _out there_ reading of it. Note I've seen the opposite argument: that the headlines are honest but the body copy is dishonest: i.e. I've seen just as many people make the argument that it's unfair that FAA is forcing this, and turning a checklist into disciplinary action, and the media is helping cover it up by framing it as voluntary.
Huh? Here's the NYT article's title:
"F.A.A. Spells Out Needed Fixes for SpaceX’s Starship Rocket"
Did the FAA spell out needed fixes or agree with SpaceX's assessment? Let's review the letter...
"The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report."
And __I__ have an out there reading?! Plain English: The NYT, in their headline (the first thing people see) says the FAA spells out needed fixes. However the FAA in their letter to SpaceX says that the FAA accepts the corrective actions presented in the mishap report authored by SpaceX. And that was the most objective of the headlines I quoted. And as for Bloomberg?
"SpaceX Ordered by FAA to Make Fixes After Starship Blowup : -- FAA blames ‘multiple root causes’ for flawed Starship launch -- SpaceX must apply for, receive FAA license modification"
I'm sorry, it's simply disingenuous to call that the more representative statement of what actually happened in light of the letter that the FAA authored. The statement, "FAA blames ‘multiple root causes’ for flawed Starship launch" comes close to crossing the line of simply not being truthful.... in terms of implication it's a long way off from the FAA accepting the root causes and corrective actions in SpaceX's report.
As far as the "I've seen just as many people make the argument..." statement. At best its a non-statement which on its face cannot help us understand anything factual here; truth isn't a popularity contest. There are many wrong people in this world and I can say with great confidence that in this discussion there is at least one wrong person. (I will let anyone eavesdropping make that judgment for themselves, as we're clearly not trying to convince each other of the correctness of our respective positions. :-) )
"F.A.A. Spells Out Needed Fixes for SpaceX’s Starship Rocket"
Did the FAA spell out needed fixes or agree with SpaceX's assessment? Let's review the letter...
"The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report."
And __I__ have an out there reading?! Plain English: The NYT, in their headline (the first thing people see) says the FAA spells out needed fixes. However the FAA in their letter to SpaceX says that the FAA accepts the corrective actions presented in the mishap report authored by SpaceX. And that was the most objective of the headlines I quoted. And as for Bloomberg?
"SpaceX Ordered by FAA to Make Fixes After Starship Blowup : -- FAA blames ‘multiple root causes’ for flawed Starship launch -- SpaceX must apply for, receive FAA license modification"
I'm sorry, it's simply disingenuous to call that the more representative statement of what actually happened in light of the letter that the FAA authored. The statement, "FAA blames ‘multiple root causes’ for flawed Starship launch" comes close to crossing the line of simply not being truthful.... in terms of implication it's a long way off from the FAA accepting the root causes and corrective actions in SpaceX's report.
As far as the "I've seen just as many people make the argument..." statement. At best its a non-statement which on its face cannot help us understand anything factual here; truth isn't a popularity contest. There are many wrong people in this world and I can say with great confidence that in this discussion there is at least one wrong person. (I will let anyone eavesdropping make that judgment for themselves, as we're clearly not trying to convince each other of the correctness of our respective positions. :-) )
I don't disagree that fevered sweaty rants about persecution can be justified, I am pointing out to you they can (and are) being justified in either direction, thus showing they are fevered sweaty rants.
So, does this mean the FAA letter is the weakest it could possibly have been? Or was it plausible they could have said "we know you identified 63 corrective actions, but don't worry about that - so long as you do #3, #18, #31 and make a start on #40 you're good to go on the next launch"?
To be fair this is the same as most regulatory bodies. You have specific things you must do for SOC2. There can also be known issues that you must document and, as long as they fall within acceptable risk tolerances and you have a plan to fix them within some defined time period, it can be acceptable (obvs, again, depending on the risks).
It's not perfect, but then again... nothing is. Personally I think that being honest about all risks, documenting them, and having a plan in place to fix things is a good place to be.
Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk, so you'd expect that the portion of these that can be ignored should be very low risk.
It's not perfect, but then again... nothing is. Personally I think that being honest about all risks, documenting them, and having a plan in place to fix things is a good place to be.
Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk, so you'd expect that the portion of these that can be ignored should be very low risk.
> Of course, FAA, aviation, space, healthcare etc. should have much lower tolerance to risk
For space, FAA is primarily concerned with risks to public safety (launch vehicle goes off course and crashes into populated area); and also risk to third party space assets. It also cares about environmental risks, but to a lesser degree (risks of short-term environmental harms can be tolerated, especially if there is a plan being seriously pursued to mitigate them).
Very different from FAA for commercial aviation where passenger safety is paramount (or at least that’s what it is supposed to be.) From what I understand, FAA considers all human spaceflight to be experimental, and passengers/crew need to sign a waiver acknowledging there is a significant risk of dying-nobody is asked to sign such a waiver before boarding a commercial flight, which is why the FAA’s commercial aviation division has enormously tougher passenger safety standards than their space division.
For space, FAA is primarily concerned with risks to public safety (launch vehicle goes off course and crashes into populated area); and also risk to third party space assets. It also cares about environmental risks, but to a lesser degree (risks of short-term environmental harms can be tolerated, especially if there is a plan being seriously pursued to mitigate them).
Very different from FAA for commercial aviation where passenger safety is paramount (or at least that’s what it is supposed to be.) From what I understand, FAA considers all human spaceflight to be experimental, and passengers/crew need to sign a waiver acknowledging there is a significant risk of dying-nobody is asked to sign such a waiver before boarding a commercial flight, which is why the FAA’s commercial aviation division has enormously tougher passenger safety standards than their space division.
I'm not sure characterizing it as "weak" would be accurate. Well functioning government bureaucracy acts in kind of a mechanical fashion with very strictly used language. It's more accurate to say that it contains neither positive language toward SpaceX nor negative language toward SpaceX. It simply _is_.
Look at the big concerns:
1. Inadequate launch pad let debris fly. - Fixed as proven by SpaceX's static fires.
2. Leaky fuel tank caused all kinds of problems. - Fixed by fixing the launch pad.
3. Faulty FTS - Obviously a huge priority at SpaceX, so probably fixed.
1. Inadequate launch pad let debris fly. - Fixed as proven by SpaceX's static fires.
2. Leaky fuel tank caused all kinds of problems. - Fixed by fixing the launch pad.
3. Faulty FTS - Obviously a huge priority at SpaceX, so probably fixed.
This probably doesn't add anything to the discussion but fun to note a name collision: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [0]
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_...
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_...
The FAA didn’t release the full mishap report, citing “proprietary data and U.S. Export Control information,” but it did specify that the closure of this investigation “does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica.”
https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/08/faa-recommends-63-correcti...
https://www.faa.gov/media/70901
https://www.faa.gov/media/70901
> “does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica.”
The FAA was not moving forward with a launch license until it was closed. So this is a big deal, even if it takes some time to get the license.
The FAA was not moving forward with a launch license until it was closed. So this is a big deal, even if it takes some time to get the license.
FAA Closes SpaceX Starship Mishap Investigation
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closes-spacex-starship-mish...
There doesn’t seem to be any publicly available copy of the report itself, just this summary:
The final mishap investigation report cited a total of sixty-three (63) corrective actions for SpaceX to implement. These included actions to address 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 (AFSS), and the application of additional change control practices.
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closes-spacex-starship-mish...
There doesn’t seem to be any publicly available copy of the report itself, just this summary:
The final mishap investigation report cited a total of sixty-three (63) corrective actions for SpaceX to implement. These included actions to address 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 (AFSS), and the application of additional change control practices.
Is it normal the the report would not be public? I'm not often an FAA report enjoyer, but I would quite like to read this one!
The same technology that lets you put a payload in space can let you put a nuclear (or conventional) warhead over a city. The first space launchers were repurposed ICBMs, and so space tech falls under ITAR and other export controls.
Between that and the fact that the details of the failures and fixes would probably reveal a lot of SpaceX proprietary design info, it's totally unsurprising the full report is not publicly releasable.
Between that and the fact that the details of the failures and fixes would probably reveal a lot of SpaceX proprietary design info, it's totally unsurprising the full report is not publicly releasable.
> SpaceX proprietary design info
I thought SpaceX made their IP freely available.
I thought SpaceX made their IP freely available.
Absolutely not.
You might be confused by the fact that they don't file a lot of parents. That's only because they know countries like China and North Korea will just use the parents like a recipe book.
You might be confused by the fact that they don't file a lot of parents. That's only because they know countries like China and North Korea will just use the parents like a recipe book.
Patents > parents auto corrected
SpaceX gives permission for their publicly-shared media such as pictures and videos to be freely re-shared. But it does not share most of its technology.
Only the part not falling under ITAR restrictions or are otherwise secret.
Are you thinking of Tesla?
Musk has stated in the past that they are explicitly not patenting things or providing IP details freely to prevent other nations from using said IP.
Musk has stated in the past that they are explicitly not patenting things or providing IP details freely to prevent other nations from using said IP.
Musk says a lot that has no basis in fact.
He said he would open-source a "hyperloop patent" but that's dumb, as he didn't come up with it.
He said he would open-source a "hyperloop patent" but that's dumb, as he didn't come up with it.
Yes, but he most definitely has the money to buy the patent and then open source it. Sort of like he did with Tesla.
Tesla isn't open-source in any traditional sense of the word.
They phrase it as having 'an open-source philosophy', but what it really boils down to is that they continue to file patents[0], but choose not to use those patents in an anti-competitive manner, only 'defensively' (on their word).
Now this isn't attempting to conflate patents with 'open-source', but that ship sailed after Elon's memo regarding the concept in 2014.[1]
[0]: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.ht... [1]: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
They phrase it as having 'an open-source philosophy', but what it really boils down to is that they continue to file patents[0], but choose not to use those patents in an anti-competitive manner, only 'defensively' (on their word).
Now this isn't attempting to conflate patents with 'open-source', but that ship sailed after Elon's memo regarding the concept in 2014.[1]
[0]: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.ht... [1]: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
Yes, Tesla isn't 'open source' in any traditional sense of the word - you're absolutely right. All I'm trying to say is that what he's done with Tesla's patents is far more 'open' than choosing to aggressively police those that wish to use those patents. Thus, I think if he wanted to 'open source' (read: open up to a certain degree) hyper loop's patents, it would be entirely feasible for him to do so, since he has a track record of having done so in the past. No point in being pedantic over 'open source' - just see it as 'opening up to a certain degree'.
Probably it was Tesla. My mistake.
No they have never done that. You may be thinking of Tesla.
Of course not. It's extremely valuable.
Some info cannot legally be made public.
The same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public.
I don't think I've ever seen an NTSB report that looked like it would come close to revealing non-public design information or things that would violate ITAR.
> same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public
Trucks aren’t dual use in the same way rockets are.
Trucks aren’t dual use in the same way rockets are.
NTSB investigates/provides advice on civil aviation and commercial space accidents as well—not just land stuff.
Have you never heard of a technical?
Just imagine what would happen if our enemies learned how to strap a gun to a truck!
> in the same way
More people die from Truck Attacks than from rockets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attac...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attac...
Dubious statistic, I assume you're implicitly limiting the time period of consideration and/or you're excluding weaponized rockets aka missiles. Even if you exclude solid fuel missiles as being too far removed from SpaceX's technology, the liquid fueled V2 missiles killed somewhere between 5000 and 9000 people on the receiving end and it is obvious that liquid fueled rockets can and are weaponized by countries like North Korea. North Korean missiles have not [yet] killed more people than terrorist truck attacks, but if you mean this to suggest that ITAR restrictions on rocket technology are superfluous you're being silly.
Sure, but trucks are dual use. This is a basic mistake that people that look at the world in conventional ways make all the time: they think that because a truck is meant to be used in one way they can't be used in another. For people that want to kill other people a truck is a weapon. Just like a SpaceX missile is a cargo to orbit tool on one day and a way to deliver a weapon halfway around the planet the next.
But we have safeguards in place around SpaceX (at least, that's what it looks like). Trucks are readily accessible.
But we have safeguards in place around SpaceX (at least, that's what it looks like). Trucks are readily accessible.
let's keep it that way, we don't need more rocket attacks
[deleted]
On a per-incident basis?
WMD are called WMD because those weapons are capable of mass destruction. At the scale of cities or entire urban regions (tens of millions of individuals) for a single weapon deployment. Possible more for chemical, radiological, or biological weapons.
The most egregious attack you list saw 86 fatalities. A large number, yes, but fewer than might be caused by, say, a train derailment or collision particularly where riderships are high. (The worst rail accident in Indian history killed up to 800 at Bihar in 1981 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_train_derailment>, as many as 1,700 or more in Sri Lanka following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Sri_Lanka_tsunami_train_w...>; and Europe's worst rail incident at Ciurea in 1917 killed 800--1,000 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciurea_rail_disaster>.)
Even allowing that, say, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 had been successful, casualties would likely have been on the order of thousands of deaths, and that's a fairly maximal potential (the original twin-towers WTC saw daily occupancy of about 50k people maximum, though the capacity was as much as six times higher). The 1993 Oklahoma City Bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, a far more typical urban structure, killed 168.
Compare with the loss of life from what are now considered small nuclear weapons, air-dropped rather than missile-delivered, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a combined death toll of from 129 to 226 thousand. Attacks from modern ICBMs could kill many millions.
Vehicle attacks can be mitigated by reasonably simple countermeasures including spike strips, webbing, barricades, blast walls, and bollards. Intercontinental-range missiles pose a somewhat greater challenge.
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=yGeOvLgB9U4>
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=N_OhTL8TYpk>
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XOBvB2ZUuP4>
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4JBgnhnMOtY> (Warning: loud soundtrack)
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Zp85-dBwslE>
Soft targets are of course always vulnerable (by definition). But countermeasures, rapid responses, and surveillance against planned attacks can help minimise total risk.
WMD are called WMD because those weapons are capable of mass destruction. At the scale of cities or entire urban regions (tens of millions of individuals) for a single weapon deployment. Possible more for chemical, radiological, or biological weapons.
The most egregious attack you list saw 86 fatalities. A large number, yes, but fewer than might be caused by, say, a train derailment or collision particularly where riderships are high. (The worst rail accident in Indian history killed up to 800 at Bihar in 1981 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_train_derailment>, as many as 1,700 or more in Sri Lanka following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Sri_Lanka_tsunami_train_w...>; and Europe's worst rail incident at Ciurea in 1917 killed 800--1,000 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciurea_rail_disaster>.)
Even allowing that, say, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 had been successful, casualties would likely have been on the order of thousands of deaths, and that's a fairly maximal potential (the original twin-towers WTC saw daily occupancy of about 50k people maximum, though the capacity was as much as six times higher). The 1993 Oklahoma City Bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, a far more typical urban structure, killed 168.
Compare with the loss of life from what are now considered small nuclear weapons, air-dropped rather than missile-delivered, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a combined death toll of from 129 to 226 thousand. Attacks from modern ICBMs could kill many millions.
Vehicle attacks can be mitigated by reasonably simple countermeasures including spike strips, webbing, barricades, blast walls, and bollards. Intercontinental-range missiles pose a somewhat greater challenge.
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=yGeOvLgB9U4>
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=N_OhTL8TYpk>
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XOBvB2ZUuP4>
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4JBgnhnMOtY> (Warning: loud soundtrack)
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Zp85-dBwslE>
Soft targets are of course always vulnerable (by definition). But countermeasures, rapid responses, and surveillance against planned attacks can help minimise total risk.
> Trucks aren’t dual use in the same way rockets are.
Is what I was responding to and I only observed that more people have died from truck attacks than from rocket attacks. You'd have to go back all the way to WWII V-weapons to show alternatives but these weren't dual use at all, the 'V' stands for 'Vergeltungswaffen' which is revenge weapon, I don't think anybody would argue they were 'dual use' until many years later some of the technology that went into them was repurposed by von Braun et al to create the American space program. Though I'm sure that the engineers may have thought at the time that they were busy with space travel.
Besides that only one of those really was a rocket, the others are more like primitively guided flying bombs.
SpaceX makes dual use hardware, and just dropping a SpaceX Falcon 9 on some city without a payload would be illustration of that dual use. Trucks normally carry goods from one place to another. But they can also be repurposed as weapons and a single truck attack roughly matches the number of casualties of the V2 rocket attacks, with one hit on a cinema killing more people than the truck attacks but on average the truck attacks appear to be far more deadly. The V2, from a statistics point of view was a complete failure, on average 2 casualties per rocket built and fired, truck attacks kill far more people on average.
And even if they are 'easy to defend' against in principle they aren't easy to defend against in practice because there will always be times when large crowds are present near a road giving access. There must be millions of such situations every year and the vast bulk of them are not protected at all.
Is what I was responding to and I only observed that more people have died from truck attacks than from rocket attacks. You'd have to go back all the way to WWII V-weapons to show alternatives but these weren't dual use at all, the 'V' stands for 'Vergeltungswaffen' which is revenge weapon, I don't think anybody would argue they were 'dual use' until many years later some of the technology that went into them was repurposed by von Braun et al to create the American space program. Though I'm sure that the engineers may have thought at the time that they were busy with space travel.
Besides that only one of those really was a rocket, the others are more like primitively guided flying bombs.
SpaceX makes dual use hardware, and just dropping a SpaceX Falcon 9 on some city without a payload would be illustration of that dual use. Trucks normally carry goods from one place to another. But they can also be repurposed as weapons and a single truck attack roughly matches the number of casualties of the V2 rocket attacks, with one hit on a cinema killing more people than the truck attacks but on average the truck attacks appear to be far more deadly. The V2, from a statistics point of view was a complete failure, on average 2 casualties per rocket built and fired, truck attacks kill far more people on average.
And even if they are 'easy to defend' against in principle they aren't easy to defend against in practice because there will always be times when large crowds are present near a road giving access. There must be millions of such situations every year and the vast bulk of them are not protected at all.
Addressing the strict interpretation point, JumpCrisscross is incorrect, and you are correct, in that trucks are in fact dual use.
The more salient problem is that that really isn't the relevant consideration. In a risks-based assessment, military and security planners in general put far more weight on adversaries who have access to missiles (particularly those with both range and effective targeting and/or navigational capabilities) than they do those who can make, buy, beg, borrow, or steal trucks. And that has implications for incident investigation reports.
It's not about dual purpose. It's about overall strategic threat.
A truck (absent explosives) might kill a few tens of people in direct vicinity if applied against a crowd. It's not going to strike tens, hundreds, or thousands of kilometers away, without warning. Trucks cannot be unleashed against an adversary half a world away within 45 minutes, as a ballistic missile can. Few trucks have been observed travelling faster than the speed of sound, let alone at the hypersonic velocities of an ICBM.
Again: it's not about dual purpose. It's about the overall threat.
And the far more reasonable response to JumpCrisscross would have been to point out the weakness of their argument, replacing it with the far more relevant argument (as I've laid out here), and assessing the initial concern, which psunavy03 expressed clearly:
The same technology that lets you put a payload in space can let you put a nuclear (or conventional) warhead over a city. The first space launchers were repurposed ICBMs, and so space tech falls under ITAR and other export controls.
Which is a plausible and sufficient explanation of why NTSB investigations of rocket incidents are not made public in the same exhaustive detail as one of a truck-based highway accident.
Sometimes it's useful to pull back and look at the overall picture and see if your argument makes sense.
The more salient problem is that that really isn't the relevant consideration. In a risks-based assessment, military and security planners in general put far more weight on adversaries who have access to missiles (particularly those with both range and effective targeting and/or navigational capabilities) than they do those who can make, buy, beg, borrow, or steal trucks. And that has implications for incident investigation reports.
It's not about dual purpose. It's about overall strategic threat.
A truck (absent explosives) might kill a few tens of people in direct vicinity if applied against a crowd. It's not going to strike tens, hundreds, or thousands of kilometers away, without warning. Trucks cannot be unleashed against an adversary half a world away within 45 minutes, as a ballistic missile can. Few trucks have been observed travelling faster than the speed of sound, let alone at the hypersonic velocities of an ICBM.
Again: it's not about dual purpose. It's about the overall threat.
And the far more reasonable response to JumpCrisscross would have been to point out the weakness of their argument, replacing it with the far more relevant argument (as I've laid out here), and assessing the initial concern, which psunavy03 expressed clearly:
The same technology that lets you put a payload in space can let you put a nuclear (or conventional) warhead over a city. The first space launchers were repurposed ICBMs, and so space tech falls under ITAR and other export controls.
Which is a plausible and sufficient explanation of why NTSB investigations of rocket incidents are not made public in the same exhaustive detail as one of a truck-based highway accident.
Sometimes it's useful to pull back and look at the overall picture and see if your argument makes sense.
Fair enough. I just got triggered by the fact that trucks have in fact been used to commit very effective attacks and that we likely haven't seen the last of them, and I think that the next attack will use a truck rather than an ICBM. In fact, right up to the point where ICBMs are used for attacks trucks will have the advantage in terms of actual use. But once ICBMs are used you'd expect that to change rapidly.
Far fewer entities have access to ICBMs though than to trucks so let's hope that those with that level of access will remain composed enough not to use them. The chances of that are not all that good at the moment, too many idiots with access to them.
Far fewer entities have access to ICBMs though than to trucks so let's hope that those with that level of access will remain composed enough not to use them. The chances of that are not all that good at the moment, too many idiots with access to them.
Acknowledging agreement and understanding.
I'd focused on ICBMs as those are the most likely application of SpaceX-scale technology --- certainly Starship, but also Falcon.
That said, far smaller rockets from tactical (< 300 km) to theatre (< 3,500 km) can be and have been devastating. Some are used for precision strikes, and designs such as the US "flying ginsu" are tasked with killing a single individual or small group, others are intended for specific and limited targets --- command-and-control sites, individual ships, bunkers, or installations. Interestingly, it's the less sophisticated weapons which tend to be used as if not weapons of mass destruction, then weapons of mass terror. Russian dumb bombs have relatively low individual kill efficacy, but at scale threaten and intimidate entire cities and populations. Their inaccuracy and randomness are part of their terror effect.
I'm reminded that Adam Smith commented on this effect in Wealth of Nations, in one of only two passages which contain the word "invisible", this being the one in which it appears twice:
Regularity, order, and prompt obedience to command are qualities which, in modern armies, are of more importance towards determining the fate of battles than the dexterity and skill of the soldiers in the use of their arms. But the noise of firearms, the smoke, and the invisible death to which every man feels himself every moment exposed as soon as he comes within cannon-shot, and frequently a long time before the battle can be well said to be engaged, must render it very difficult to maintain any considerable degree of this regularity, order, and prompt obedience, even in the beginning of a modern battle. Regularity, order, and prompt obedience to command are qualities which, in modern armies, are of more importance towards determining the fate of battles than the dexterity and skill of the soldiers in the use of their arms. But the noise of firearms, the smoke, and the invisible death to which every man feels himself every moment exposed as soon as he comes within cannon-shot, and frequently a long time before the battle can be well said to be engaged, must render it very difficult to maintain any considerable degree of this regularity, order, and prompt obedience, even in the beginning of a modern battle.
<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_V/...>
And those short- and intermediate-range missiles do seem to be gaining in spread and use, along with aerial and sea-based drones. The idiots are gaining access.
I'd focused on ICBMs as those are the most likely application of SpaceX-scale technology --- certainly Starship, but also Falcon.
That said, far smaller rockets from tactical (< 300 km) to theatre (< 3,500 km) can be and have been devastating. Some are used for precision strikes, and designs such as the US "flying ginsu" are tasked with killing a single individual or small group, others are intended for specific and limited targets --- command-and-control sites, individual ships, bunkers, or installations. Interestingly, it's the less sophisticated weapons which tend to be used as if not weapons of mass destruction, then weapons of mass terror. Russian dumb bombs have relatively low individual kill efficacy, but at scale threaten and intimidate entire cities and populations. Their inaccuracy and randomness are part of their terror effect.
I'm reminded that Adam Smith commented on this effect in Wealth of Nations, in one of only two passages which contain the word "invisible", this being the one in which it appears twice:
Regularity, order, and prompt obedience to command are qualities which, in modern armies, are of more importance towards determining the fate of battles than the dexterity and skill of the soldiers in the use of their arms. But the noise of firearms, the smoke, and the invisible death to which every man feels himself every moment exposed as soon as he comes within cannon-shot, and frequently a long time before the battle can be well said to be engaged, must render it very difficult to maintain any considerable degree of this regularity, order, and prompt obedience, even in the beginning of a modern battle. Regularity, order, and prompt obedience to command are qualities which, in modern armies, are of more importance towards determining the fate of battles than the dexterity and skill of the soldiers in the use of their arms. But the noise of firearms, the smoke, and the invisible death to which every man feels himself every moment exposed as soon as he comes within cannon-shot, and frequently a long time before the battle can be well said to be engaged, must render it very difficult to maintain any considerable degree of this regularity, order, and prompt obedience, even in the beginning of a modern battle.
<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_V/...>
And those short- and intermediate-range missiles do seem to be gaining in spread and use, along with aerial and sea-based drones. The idiots are gaining access.
I think the bigger danger there will be terrorist groups with access to drone technology. For a few K you could re-enact 9/11 on a slightly smaller scale. That's got to be tempting.
I don't know if there were NTSB reports for e.g. the crashed B-2, but I'm sure they would not include information that could compromise either B-2 or air force operations, or assist an adversary to develop such a craft.
The NTSB does not investigate DOD mishaps; the DOD does. Every unit has a standing Aircraft Mishap Board nominated by the unit commander which includes the Safety Officer and other senior aviators. There are formal Aviation Safety Schools which you have to graduate from in order to hold the position of Safety Officer which train you on how to conduct an aircraft mishap investigation.
Every time there is a mishap, two investigations run concurrently. The Aircraft Mishap Board conducts a safety investigation, and another officer conducts a legal investigation to ascertain criminal culpability. The safety investigation takes priority for resources, access to evidence, etc. The legal investigation is FOIA-able. The safety investigation is privileged and confidential under Federal law, cannot be released to the public, and individuals who testify for it are granted immunity. The goal is to ensure that everyone's cards are on the table and to have complete transparency in private, so that the proper corrective actions can occur.
The investigation reports go up the chop chain to a general officer or flag officer who is authorized to approve them, and each commander along the way can offer their comments or propose alternative interpretations of the evidence. The approving commander then orders the proper changes in procedures or rules to be applied, or orders discipline or administrative sanctions if warranted.
And yes, if classified information was deemed germane to an investigation because it related to one of the assessed causal factors, the investigation would be classified appropriately. Or perhaps there might be a classified annex attached to an otherwise unclassified report to simplify handling, with notes saying "see reference (a)." when appropriate. Or if Controlled Unclassified Information was involved, that information would be blocked from release if there was ever a FOIA.
Every time there is a mishap, two investigations run concurrently. The Aircraft Mishap Board conducts a safety investigation, and another officer conducts a legal investigation to ascertain criminal culpability. The safety investigation takes priority for resources, access to evidence, etc. The legal investigation is FOIA-able. The safety investigation is privileged and confidential under Federal law, cannot be released to the public, and individuals who testify for it are granted immunity. The goal is to ensure that everyone's cards are on the table and to have complete transparency in private, so that the proper corrective actions can occur.
The investigation reports go up the chop chain to a general officer or flag officer who is authorized to approve them, and each commander along the way can offer their comments or propose alternative interpretations of the evidence. The approving commander then orders the proper changes in procedures or rules to be applied, or orders discipline or administrative sanctions if warranted.
And yes, if classified information was deemed germane to an investigation because it related to one of the assessed causal factors, the investigation would be classified appropriately. Or perhaps there might be a classified annex attached to an otherwise unclassified report to simplify handling, with notes saying "see reference (a)." when appropriate. Or if Controlled Unclassified Information was involved, that information would be blocked from release if there was ever a FOIA.
Thank you.
NTSB reports do not reveal detailed investigation info, only a mishap summary and assessed proximate causes.
This isn't exactly accurate in my experience...
I'm an aviation guy, so I've only ever looked at aviation related NTSB reports, but whenever a final report is issued, the full investigation docket is also released which includes a ton of raw evidence and investigatory information.
I'm an aviation guy, so I've only ever looked at aviation related NTSB reports, but whenever a final report is issued, the full investigation docket is also released which includes a ton of raw evidence and investigatory information.
If you file the FOIA request, I'll cover the Muckrock request fee ($5). Muckrock is useful because it creates a public trail of the request as well as government responses and responsive docs (if any), and the request link can be posted online for public consumption.
https://www.muckrock.com/
https://www.muckrock.com/
There's no report better the FAA did not do the investigation. They asked SpaceX to self investigate and report what they found.
The investigation was led by SpaceX with the FAA acting as oversight.
That seems reasonable since obviously it isn't the FAA's job to dictate how specific fixes should be done, their role is just to ensure that the safety issues from last time have been addressed satisfactorily.
That seems reasonable since obviously it isn't the FAA's job to dictate how specific fixes should be done, their role is just to ensure that the safety issues from last time have been addressed satisfactorily.
i haven't heard FAA asked them to self investigate. I hope that's true because that would mean the 63 corrective actions found are likely already applied. Maybe we'll get a launch by Halloween.
SpaceX's response: https://www.spacex.com/updates/index.html
Sounds like they've already implemented most of the fixes.
Sounds like they've already implemented most of the fixes.
The latest update there is from May 10th, or has something been pulled?
I see:
September 8, 2023
UPGRADES AHEAD OF STARSHIP’S SECOND FLIGHT TEST
The first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy was a critical step in advancing the capabilities of the most powerful launch system ever developed. Starship’s first flight test provided numerous lessons learned that are directly contributing to several upgrades being made to both the vehicle and ground infrastructure to improve the probability of success on future Starship flights. This rapid iterative development approach has been the basis for all of SpaceX’s major innovative advancements, including Falcon, Dragon, and Starlink. SpaceX has led the investigation efforts following the flight with oversight from the FAA and participation from NASA and the National Transportation and Safety Board.
Starship and Super Heavy successfully lifted off for the first time on April 20, 2023 at 8:33 a.m. CT (13:33:09 UTC) from the orbital launch pad at Starbase in Texas. Starship climbed to a maximum altitude of ~39 km (24 mi) over the Gulf of Mexico. 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 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 Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) automatically issued a destruct command, which fired all detonators as expected, after the vehicle deviated from the expected trajectory, lost altitude and began to tumble. After an unexpected delay following AFSS activation, Starship ultimately broke up 237.474 seconds after engine ignition. SpaceX has enhanced and requalified the AFSS to improve system 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. 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.
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.
Testing development flight hardware in a flight environment is what enables our teams to quickly learn and execute design changes and hardware upgrades to improve the probability of success in the future. We learned a tremendous amount about the vehicle and ground systems during Starship’s first flight test. Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable launch system capable of carrying satellites, payloads, crew, and cargo to a variety of orbits and Earth, lunar, or Martian landing sites.
September 8, 2023
UPGRADES AHEAD OF STARSHIP’S SECOND FLIGHT TEST
The first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy was a critical step in advancing the capabilities of the most powerful launch system ever developed. Starship’s first flight test provided numerous lessons learned that are directly contributing to several upgrades being made to both the vehicle and ground infrastructure to improve the probability of success on future Starship flights. This rapid iterative development approach has been the basis for all of SpaceX’s major innovative advancements, including Falcon, Dragon, and Starlink. SpaceX has led the investigation efforts following the flight with oversight from the FAA and participation from NASA and the National Transportation and Safety Board.
Starship and Super Heavy successfully lifted off for the first time on April 20, 2023 at 8:33 a.m. CT (13:33:09 UTC) from the orbital launch pad at Starbase in Texas. Starship climbed to a maximum altitude of ~39 km (24 mi) over the Gulf of Mexico. 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 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 Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) automatically issued a destruct command, which fired all detonators as expected, after the vehicle deviated from the expected trajectory, lost altitude and began to tumble. After an unexpected delay following AFSS activation, Starship ultimately broke up 237.474 seconds after engine ignition. SpaceX has enhanced and requalified the AFSS to improve system 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. 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.
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.
Testing development flight hardware in a flight environment is what enables our teams to quickly learn and execute design changes and hardware upgrades to improve the probability of success in the future. We learned a tremendous amount about the vehicle and ground systems during Starship’s first flight test. Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable launch system capable of carrying satellites, payloads, crew, and cargo to a variety of orbits and Earth, lunar, or Martian landing sites.
> Additionally, SpaceX has engineered a new electronic Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system for Super Heavy Raptor engines.
This is a pretty big deal. Musk has mentioned this a long time ago as being something that will happen.
SpaceX is moving to direct electric motors rather then having a pressure base system in between.
This improves the T/W ratio of the engine and should be both more reactive and less error prone.
Not sure if any large rocket engine has ever done this, I imagine not.
This is a pretty big deal. Musk has mentioned this a long time ago as being something that will happen.
SpaceX is moving to direct electric motors rather then having a pressure base system in between.
This improves the T/W ratio of the engine and should be both more reactive and less error prone.
Not sure if any large rocket engine has ever done this, I imagine not.
Thanks all. When I reload the page that new entry is showing up for me now too.
Guessing they're using a CDN or something and I just got an old version of the site first time around. :smile:
Guessing they're using a CDN or something and I just got an old version of the site first time around. :smile:
Cutting and pasting in case you're right:
September 8, 2023
UPGRADES AHEAD OF STARSHIP’S SECOND FLIGHT TEST
The first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy was a critical step in advancing the capabilities of the most powerful launch system ever developed. Starship’s first flight test provided numerous lessons learned that are directly contributing to several upgrades being made to both the vehicle and ground infrastructure to improve the probability of success on future Starship flights. This rapid iterative development approach has been the basis for all of SpaceX’s major innovative advancements, including Falcon, Dragon, and Starlink. SpaceX has led the investigation efforts following the flight with oversight from the FAA and participation from NASA and the National Transportation and Safety Board.
Starship and Super Heavy successfully lifted off for the first time on April 20, 2023 at 8:33 a.m. CT (13:33:09 UTC) from the orbital launch pad at Starbase in Texas. Starship climbed to a maximum altitude of ~39 km (24 mi) over the Gulf of Mexico. 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 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 Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) automatically issued a destruct command, which fired all detonators as expected, after the vehicle deviated from the expected trajectory, lost altitude and began to tumble. After an unexpected delay following AFSS activation, Starship ultimately broke up 237.474 seconds after engine ignition. SpaceX has enhanced and requalified the AFSS to improve system 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. 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.
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.
Testing development flight hardware in a flight environment is what enables our teams to quickly learn and execute design changes and hardware upgrades to improve the probability of success in the future. We learned a tremendous amount about the vehicle and ground systems during Starship’s first flight test. Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable launch system capable of carrying satellites, payloads, crew, and cargo to a variety of orbits and Earth, lunar, or Martian landing sites.
September 8, 2023
UPGRADES AHEAD OF STARSHIP’S SECOND FLIGHT TEST
The first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy was a critical step in advancing the capabilities of the most powerful launch system ever developed. Starship’s first flight test provided numerous lessons learned that are directly contributing to several upgrades being made to both the vehicle and ground infrastructure to improve the probability of success on future Starship flights. This rapid iterative development approach has been the basis for all of SpaceX’s major innovative advancements, including Falcon, Dragon, and Starlink. SpaceX has led the investigation efforts following the flight with oversight from the FAA and participation from NASA and the National Transportation and Safety Board.
Starship and Super Heavy successfully lifted off for the first time on April 20, 2023 at 8:33 a.m. CT (13:33:09 UTC) from the orbital launch pad at Starbase in Texas. Starship climbed to a maximum altitude of ~39 km (24 mi) over the Gulf of Mexico. 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 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 Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) automatically issued a destruct command, which fired all detonators as expected, after the vehicle deviated from the expected trajectory, lost altitude and began to tumble. After an unexpected delay following AFSS activation, Starship ultimately broke up 237.474 seconds after engine ignition. SpaceX has enhanced and requalified the AFSS to improve system 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. 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.
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.
Testing development flight hardware in a flight environment is what enables our teams to quickly learn and execute design changes and hardware upgrades to improve the probability of success in the future. We learned a tremendous amount about the vehicle and ground systems during Starship’s first flight test. Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable launch system capable of carrying satellites, payloads, crew, and cargo to a variety of orbits and Earth, lunar, or Martian landing sites.
I've been trying to figure out if launching from boca chica is going to be a continuing thing for years, or will they transition to Florida when it stops blowing up so much and transitions into regular launches? I haven't found any details about the long term vision of the boca chica site. My speculation is they will need 3-5+ years of test launches from there as they test out their extensive technology road map before they reach some near operational level (landing starships, turning it around, being a fuel carrier, refueling, then the landing tests for the moon, and much longer term mars development). But when that happens, will they make commercial launches from there? There aren't that many places to do that in the US, Florida of course, what about the New Mexico space port, or Vandenburg? Hawaii, some southern US ocean site?
I've thought about buying (or maybe renting) one of the huge number of cheapo condos there so I could watch some of these launches. I could even imagine working from there remotely instead of sitting at home watching on the net
I've thought about buying (or maybe renting) one of the huge number of cheapo condos there so I could watch some of these launches. I could even imagine working from there remotely instead of sitting at home watching on the net
Unless some plans have drastically changed, the idea with Starship is to launch a lot from many locations on Earth.
Recent reports mention Gwynne Shotwell describing the factory being built at Starbase as capable of producing around 3 Starships per week. If such a factory works for a year (which doesn't look like a long time for a factory) that's ~150 Starships. 150 Starships each have a chance to launch about twice a year if the launches are daily.
Surely numbers should be modified, some of them don't look right. First, we are probably going to have (way) more than 150 Starships. Second, a Starship is likely going to fly (way) more than twice a year. It's not a Space Shuttle after all. Next, what about those plans - Moon flights, which need refueling on low Earth orbit; Mars flights which need the same; all other flights - like orbital stations, sending probes to planets, space telescopes; finally, business class-like suborbital hops for passengers on Earth?
All of that requires a lot of places to launch Starships. Unless some plans drastically scaled down, it seems like we'll have to see an industry for launchpads growing and prospering in the near future.
Recent reports mention Gwynne Shotwell describing the factory being built at Starbase as capable of producing around 3 Starships per week. If such a factory works for a year (which doesn't look like a long time for a factory) that's ~150 Starships. 150 Starships each have a chance to launch about twice a year if the launches are daily.
Surely numbers should be modified, some of them don't look right. First, we are probably going to have (way) more than 150 Starships. Second, a Starship is likely going to fly (way) more than twice a year. It's not a Space Shuttle after all. Next, what about those plans - Moon flights, which need refueling on low Earth orbit; Mars flights which need the same; all other flights - like orbital stations, sending probes to planets, space telescopes; finally, business class-like suborbital hops for passengers on Earth?
All of that requires a lot of places to launch Starships. Unless some plans drastically scaled down, it seems like we'll have to see an industry for launchpads growing and prospering in the near future.
And how would that work exactly? they had to redesign the entire launchpad just to hopefully be able to sustain starship.
Let's say you go down in london (originally they thought basically a generic spacesport would let you, which is no longer the case).
You'd need their entire boca chica infrastructure to fly that again...
Let's say you go down in london (originally they thought basically a generic spacesport would let you, which is no longer the case).
You'd need their entire boca chica infrastructure to fly that again...
Yes, suborbital passenger transportation looks least clear now :) .
Maybe the Boca Chica launchpad will get modified/improved to be more compact. It's still at early stages of design/use, so maybe significant improvements could be added. Particularly given that the last redesign took less than half a year.
E.g., a wall around the pad, say, with diameter of ~100 meters and a significant height, would likely protect environment from steam, gas, particles and noise to some degree.
So the question with the word "exactly" doesn't have answer right now.
Maybe the Boca Chica launchpad will get modified/improved to be more compact. It's still at early stages of design/use, so maybe significant improvements could be added. Particularly given that the last redesign took less than half a year.
E.g., a wall around the pad, say, with diameter of ~100 meters and a significant height, would likely protect environment from steam, gas, particles and noise to some degree.
So the question with the word "exactly" doesn't have answer right now.
Yeah but what do you do about the 33 engines that literally blasted the floor off lol
> what do you do about the 33 engines that literally blasted the floor off
Worry about it when that’s the priority problem. Tackling that now is like designing blast pads before you have commercial jet liners.
Worry about it when that’s the priority problem. Tackling that now is like designing blast pads before you have commercial jet liners.
I expect once they finish iterating on the boca launch site and infrastructure and it works perfectly, they will then have their template they can duplicate anywhere in the world. Like starship itself, it will be complex, but easy to mass produce
I assume a Starship could be shipped on a ship if need be?
Or the assembly line could be in a ship itself
what is more likely to happen is that they have 15x Launches for one mission, due to all the refueling needs. all these launches happen in rapid iteration from one to 3 pads over 1, 2 or 3 days. the. everything sits silent for a few weeks to a month. repeat 10 to 20 times a year.
As a satellite launcher, Starship would be incredibly cheap on shared payloads, and refueling would not be necessary there.
The Florida Starship factories and launch sites are in progress but watchers (NasaSpaceFlight channel) have reported things going on hold recently as Boca Chica makes changes.
My presumption is BC will be R&D-ish and FL PRD-ish with Vandenburg coming online after FL. If I had to bet, I'd bet on FL being where the first crewed Starship launches but BC where that vehicle class is launched first.
As a result I think the tempo in BC will be more irregular than FL where two Falcon launches in a week aren't rare.
My presumption is BC will be R&D-ish and FL PRD-ish with Vandenburg coming online after FL. If I had to bet, I'd bet on FL being where the first crewed Starship launches but BC where that vehicle class is launched first.
As a result I think the tempo in BC will be more irregular than FL where two Falcon launches in a week aren't rare.
Initially they seemed to aim to make Starbase a primary launch site on par with KSC. However, since the bureaucracy has been proving to be ridiculous (as is the case with most American megaprojects these days), they appear to have shifted towards treating it as the R&D location with KSC being the primary site for operational launches.
Some say "bureaucracy" some say "balance of priorities between the environment, local residents, and private enterprise". Elon's envisioned a dozen+ starship launches per day -- there are tens of thousands of people (and a wildlife refuge) near the Boca Chica site that rightly have a say in whether that's a good idea.
One of the bigger problems that environmental organizations have no sense of proportion. They flip out over some chunks of concrete from the launchpad, while four-wheekers are running all over the same mudflats. Seriously, they need to put a sock in it.
Also current generation rockets burn up in the atmosphere. Starship will be fully reusable! Surely they want that!?
I'd say it's pretty obvious what the activist's motivations are when they're citing risk to endangered species which haven't been seen in the area for 40 years in their lawsuits on why they're opposed to the launch site.
Boca Chica is just for testing, afaik.
My favourite fact about super heavy is that it generates about 100-130GW of power at launch, which is roughly twice the peak demand of the United Kingdom’s electricity grid.
The UK grid is generating 26 gigawatts as I type this: https://grid.iamkate.com/
Corrected my mistake. Thanks !
Dollars to donuts developing the fixes was an ongoing process parallel to the mishap investigation, and most of the recommendations are already done.
We've already seen that the pad has been rebuilt with a water deluge.
We've already seen that the pad has been rebuilt with a water deluge.
maybe but the water deluge system seems to drain directly into protected US waters
https://blog.esghound.com/i/135551935/spacexs-permitting-woe...
https://blog.esghound.com/i/135551935/spacexs-permitting-woe...
This is this guy's opinion, it may or may not be a valid interpretation. SpaceX is by far the world's largest operator of space launch deluge systems and other than south texas operates 3 coastal pads, with dozens of launches per year...each.
In this case, a retention pond and collection system does exist. However, when the system is starting and stopping there is overspray outside of the launch area that doesn't get collected. This water is potable and ambient temperature though.
In this case, a retention pond and collection system does exist. However, when the system is starting and stopping there is overspray outside of the launch area that doesn't get collected. This water is potable and ambient temperature though.
those other three sites were built by the US government though, SpaceX operates them.
SpaceX had to rework the business end of the deluge systems at LC39A and likely also at the other pads when they were rebuilt to launch the Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy.
If it weren't for the salt, I'd expect them be using locally sourced water. They are not deliberately adding any contaminants to the water, just heating it with flames from burning methane. It should be relatively harmless, but we'll see if there's a show stopper soon.
At a minimum there’s probably also going to be soot, particles of burned engine metals, and trace impurities from the fuel. Protected land isn’t the place you normally go dumping _anything_.
ATV's also leave those things, and they're allowed in the area.
I can’t comment on the comparability of air emissions to water emissions for this environment. Just pointing out that it’s more than pure methane combustion byproducts.
Hot water is a huge environmental hazard.
So is water with unknown contamination.
So is water with unknown contamination.
Hot water is a huge environmental hazard? Riiiight. Maybe from a nuclear power station. Not from this.
Get an aquarium, and pour in some boiling hot water into it. Let me know how many creatures survive.
Also USA news from literally just few weeks ago - https://apnews.com/article/florida-ocean-heat-climate-coral-...
Environments are much more fragile than you think.
Also USA news from literally just few weeks ago - https://apnews.com/article/florida-ocean-heat-climate-coral-...
Environments are much more fragile than you think.
SpaceX isn't pouring boiling water into an aquarium.
Get a lake. Pour some lukewarm water into it. Let me know how many creatures survive.
> Also USA news from literally just few weeks ago
That is the entire ocean heating up. I think you're getting a bit confused about the thermodynamics.
Get a lake. Pour some lukewarm water into it. Let me know how many creatures survive.
> Also USA news from literally just few weeks ago
That is the entire ocean heating up. I think you're getting a bit confused about the thermodynamics.
Even few degrees can mess with the environment. So yes, lukewarm water can totally mess with a lake ecosystem, if you happen to pour it in the right place. Will it kill the whole lake? No. But life that happens to be at the spot where you poured the water? Dumping chemicals is also fine, as long as they aren’t strong enough to kill everything in the lake?
And spacex launch site is literally surrounded by protected lands, that were there long before their site. Will spacex kill some protected life nearby? We don’t know. But let’s not pretend that dumping hot water is safe.
And that news is about parts near Florida reaching reef threatening levels. Based on your reasoning it’s fine, as only reefs near Florida were impacted, ocean is fine, so what’s the big deal, right?
It’s really stunning to me, that spacex fans, whose mission is to basically “safe humanity” care so little about the environment, that you know, humanity needs to live.
And spacex launch site is literally surrounded by protected lands, that were there long before their site. Will spacex kill some protected life nearby? We don’t know. But let’s not pretend that dumping hot water is safe.
And that news is about parts near Florida reaching reef threatening levels. Based on your reasoning it’s fine, as only reefs near Florida were impacted, ocean is fine, so what’s the big deal, right?
It’s really stunning to me, that spacex fans, whose mission is to basically “safe humanity” care so little about the environment, that you know, humanity needs to live.
> Will it kill the whole lake? No. But life that happens to be at the spot where you poured the water?
Unless it's very hot (like over 50C) I doubt that would be affected much, and even if it is, so what? I don't think the goal is zero deaths. A few insects and some algae dying does not matter.
The main thing to prevent would be toxic chemicals getting into the environment because unlike hot water they can have long term effects.
> care so little about the environment
I care about things that actually affect the environment. If you cared so much about it you'd spend more time worrying about actual issues.
> Based on your reasoning it’s fine, as only reefs near Florida were impacted, ocean is fine, so what’s the big deal, right?
Ok you really don't understand the scales involved here. Go and look up how much energy is involved in heating the Florida ocean by one degree, and compare that to the energy heating all the water from the deluge system by 100C. It's 1.3 million litres apparently.
Unless it's very hot (like over 50C) I doubt that would be affected much, and even if it is, so what? I don't think the goal is zero deaths. A few insects and some algae dying does not matter.
The main thing to prevent would be toxic chemicals getting into the environment because unlike hot water they can have long term effects.
> care so little about the environment
I care about things that actually affect the environment. If you cared so much about it you'd spend more time worrying about actual issues.
> Based on your reasoning it’s fine, as only reefs near Florida were impacted, ocean is fine, so what’s the big deal, right?
Ok you really don't understand the scales involved here. Go and look up how much energy is involved in heating the Florida ocean by one degree, and compare that to the energy heating all the water from the deluge system by 100C. It's 1.3 million litres apparently.
> I doubt that would be affected much, and even if it is, so what? I don't think the goal is zero deaths
So thank you for finally agreeing. Hot water is dangerous.
No one says goal is zero deaths. But brushing over it, "oh, just some things will die" especially if you're talking about wildlife preserve is oil baron type of argument.
> I care about things that actually affect the environment. If you cared so much about it you'd spend more time worrying about actual issues.
You care about things that affect part of the environment you care about, right? Other environments - that's their problem? You know that EPA considers heated water a hazard, right?
> Ok you really don't understand the scales involved here. Go and look up how much energy is involved in heating the Florida ocean by one degree, and compare that to the energy heating all the water from the deluge system by 100C. It's 1.3 million litres apparently.
I don't believe you argue in good faith, if you don't understand why I brought this example, and try to make it sounds, that unless spacex heats the water to 100C, then it's ok. Bye, it's not worth my time.
So thank you for finally agreeing. Hot water is dangerous.
No one says goal is zero deaths. But brushing over it, "oh, just some things will die" especially if you're talking about wildlife preserve is oil baron type of argument.
> I care about things that actually affect the environment. If you cared so much about it you'd spend more time worrying about actual issues.
You care about things that affect part of the environment you care about, right? Other environments - that's their problem? You know that EPA considers heated water a hazard, right?
> Ok you really don't understand the scales involved here. Go and look up how much energy is involved in heating the Florida ocean by one degree, and compare that to the energy heating all the water from the deluge system by 100C. It's 1.3 million litres apparently.
I don't believe you argue in good faith, if you don't understand why I brought this example, and try to make it sounds, that unless spacex heats the water to 100C, then it's ok. Bye, it's not worth my time.
Is that a problem? It's a kerosene engine, there's nothing harmful in the exhaust.
And if there was something in the exhaust (there isn't) it goes in the air and lands on that area anyway.
And if there was something in the exhaust (there isn't) it goes in the air and lands on that area anyway.
Starship runs on methane and oxygen, but same deal.
They use different engines because there are no petrochemicals on Mars, but there is CO2 and H2O, so you can produce CH4 and O2 locally if you have a power source (presumably solar or RTG).
They use different engines because there are no petrochemicals on Mars, but there is CO2 and H2O, so you can produce CH4 and O2 locally if you have a power source (presumably solar or RTG).
Won't they have the same launch problem on Mars with their engines blasting debris everywhere? I guess a smaller gravity well means less thrust, but it still is a lot of thrust.
Yes. This is an active area of research. In general they want to have a ship that is pretty resilient. On Mars your T/W ratio is gone be really good and with no atmosphere the ship will take of quickly.
However this is a problem that needs more study, the are various projects on how to quickly make a functional launch pad.
However this is a problem that needs more study, the are various projects on how to quickly make a functional launch pad.
They only plan to send the second stage to Mars [1]
[1] To Mars and back diagram: https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/
[1] To Mars and back diagram: https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/
Same problem on the moon.
So far, there has not been public information about what they're going to do about it.
A render of the moon landing Starship showed engines higher up that have been speculated to be used for landing and lunch to reduce the problem.
So far, there has not been public information about what they're going to do about it.
A render of the moon landing Starship showed engines higher up that have been speculated to be used for landing and lunch to reduce the problem.
> Same problem on the moon
You need a lot less thrust to get off the Moon’s surface. That probably puts the problem back into a familiar envelope.
You need a lot less thrust to get off the Moon’s surface. That probably puts the problem back into a familiar envelope.
Releasing heated water over a certain temp can be considered a pollutant.
It's not likely to burn perfectly, and the law treats air pollution and water pollution differently.
I would concur that corrective action has already taken place. Won't the most significant thing in this release be the requirement that SpaceX:
> apply for a modified FAA license before launching again
... as SpaceX will now need to go through the wait period of a modified FAA license application?
> apply for a modified FAA license before launching again
... as SpaceX will now need to go through the wait period of a modified FAA license application?
"FAA says it may grant a launch license for SpaceX’s Starship by the end of October"
- https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/world/spacex-starship-faa-lic...
The other large visible change is a purge system for the engine bays to prevent future ongoing fires.
I mean. We will see.
Many of the issues should never have happened. On launch day I remember people commenting within seconds of ignition that there was obvious large debris flying everywhere.
The investigation would never have had to happen with better controls and not outright lying on their reports.
Many of the issues should never have happened. On launch day I remember people commenting within seconds of ignition that there was obvious large debris flying everywhere.
The investigation would never have had to happen with better controls and not outright lying on their reports.
Elon has a tweet in which he specifically says "Not building a deluge system on the pad might be a mistake, and time will tell".
They're learning, they're taking risks and they're doing new things.
Obviously they're not going to get everything flawless the first time around, and they're going to iterate and improve.
They're learning, they're taking risks and they're doing new things.
Obviously they're not going to get everything flawless the first time around, and they're going to iterate and improve.
they’re THE launch provider. have been for a while. most successful and proven rockets. they dont need to go fast and break things; it’s not a startup.
innovation can happen while also considering ideas such as “let’s not put a deluge system and just blow up the pad” — tho i suspect elon has something to do with that
innovation can happen while also considering ideas such as “let’s not put a deluge system and just blow up the pad” — tho i suspect elon has something to do with that
Falcon 9 is not a startup, but Starship certain my.
You’re right though, they could run it like traditional space… and it would be just like SLS, New Glenn Ariene 6, etc
They’re doing what they’re doing for a reason
You’re right though, they could run it like traditional space… and it would be just like SLS, New Glenn Ariene 6, etc
They’re doing what they’re doing for a reason
So your opinion is that any large company must move slowly. That is literally 100% against Musk whole philosophy of innovation. The speed of innovation should be increasing, not decreasing. SpaceX can now invest more, and thus push innovation faster. Just using that new money to do the same thing slower would be stupid.
This issue is exactly why so many large companies become un-innovative despite having huge R&D budgets.
This issue is exactly why so many large companies become un-innovative despite having huge R&D budgets.
which lie are you referring to specifically?
The one where he said he'd be Reddit's Iron Man hero forever and now that he's betrayed that promise, everything he says or does gets the least charitable interpretation possible. Except he never actually said he'd be their hero, they just anointed him as one and likewise have since declared him to be their locus of anger and hate.
> not outright lying on their reports
Above you said he lied on a report, now you're saying he said something on Reddit.
Show us the report he lied on.
Above you said he lied on a report, now you're saying he said something on Reddit.
Show us the report he lied on.
The person you replied to isn't the one who made the claim about lying on reports.
He's agreeing with you by saying that because Musk betrayed the "real life Iron Man" image imposed upon him, everything that goes wrong in anything related to him gets the most intentionally negative interpretation possible regardless of evidence, such as this claim about lying on reports.
He's agreeing with you by saying that because Musk betrayed the "real life Iron Man" image imposed upon him, everything that goes wrong in anything related to him gets the most intentionally negative interpretation possible regardless of evidence, such as this claim about lying on reports.
Eh, maybe the obvious issues but why would you spend money "fixing" guesses?
The problem with the FAA is only 10% the content of the reports, and 90% waiting interminably months upon months for the reports. So if SpaceX has a list of concrete items to address, it's good news for SpaceX basically regardless of the contents of the report.
In this case SpaceX is not the only client the FAA is dealing with. Both the US military and NASA have a lot riding on the timely progress of Starship's shaking out the weak areas so Starship can become viable and reliable.
The FAA doesn't answer to either of those agencies.
They have no motivation to factor NASA timelines into their prioritization unless the executive branch lights a fire under them, and the executive branch is deeply unfocused on technical details like this right now.
They have no motivation to factor NASA timelines into their prioritization unless the executive branch lights a fire under them, and the executive branch is deeply unfocused on technical details like this right now.
How do you actually know they don't have military or NASA people breathing down their necks to make it work? And/or someone from the executive branch backing that?
My understanding is that SpaceX is critical for NASA ISS and lunar missions and provides currently irreplaceable capabilities to the US military. These rockets can be used to deliver enormous kinetic and nuclear warheads or move huge military assets or personnel with unprecedented speed. SpaceX also has the largest satellite constellation which in my mind is a primary asset for space defense.
There aren't any other providers that are very close to the level of these capabilities for NASA and the US military.
Whatever the law is about whether they "answer" or not, strategically, the US needs to try everything possible to continue these programs with SpaceX.
My understanding is that SpaceX is critical for NASA ISS and lunar missions and provides currently irreplaceable capabilities to the US military. These rockets can be used to deliver enormous kinetic and nuclear warheads or move huge military assets or personnel with unprecedented speed. SpaceX also has the largest satellite constellation which in my mind is a primary asset for space defense.
There aren't any other providers that are very close to the level of these capabilities for NASA and the US military.
Whatever the law is about whether they "answer" or not, strategically, the US needs to try everything possible to continue these programs with SpaceX.
Hopefully the turnaround is quick.
Starship is literally sitting on the pad waiting for the bureaucrats to give the okay to launch.
Presumably they have already addressed all the concerns in the doc that the article is talking about.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1699233677979390280?s=46
Starship is literally sitting on the pad waiting for the bureaucrats to give the okay to launch.
Presumably they have already addressed all the concerns in the doc that the article is talking about.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1699233677979390280?s=46
This article was at least partly written by AI. The give away is that after every use of an imperial unit of distance a metric conversion comes right after in parens. This happens even after unspecific uses like:
“… for miles (kilometers) around…”
The list of fixes: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700789411279966339
A friend in grad. school would put obvious glaring errors in his preliminary drafts of write-ups so the prof's would then be happy to correct these, feel they'd done their work, and move on, avoiding any actual substantive criticisms requiring actual work on his part to fix.
"just remove the duck"
https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2013/06/05/duck/
https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2013/06/05/duck/
I learned this lesson dealing with auditors many times. These people whose job really should be collaborative in nature (internally) still feel the need to find something, because if they don't, then their bosses say "did you look hard enough?"
So yeah, sometimes as we presented our security policies or documentation, we would highlight an existing problem for which we had a solution or proper executive backing to justify, so that when it was called out, we would haggle and then say "okay, let's fix that". Everyone had done their job.
Off-topic: I was blocked from reading that site using Proton's TX datacenters, but it worked as soon as I switched to Sweden.
Stop blocking VPNs, Rachel.
So yeah, sometimes as we presented our security policies or documentation, we would highlight an existing problem for which we had a solution or proper executive backing to justify, so that when it was called out, we would haggle and then say "okay, let's fix that". Everyone had done their job.
Off-topic: I was blocked from reading that site using Proton's TX datacenters, but it worked as soon as I switched to Sweden.
Stop blocking VPNs, Rachel.
Same with mortgage applications and other gatekeepers. No matter how much you have your ducks in a row they will always ask for something to show they did their due diligence. It's helpful to leave out something obvious and easy to produce.
I don’t think that’s what gatekeeper means
That's exactly what gatekeeper means: entities that control access to something (in this case financial capital on terms suitable to buy property, but equally it can be social capital to access in-group acceptance, etc).
This control of access to resources is where the name comes from, and its broader use (rather than the highly specific social use we see online) is recently exemplified in the EUs Digital Markets Bill describing large search providers (like google) and social media (facebook) as gatekeepers.
This control of access to resources is where the name comes from, and its broader use (rather than the highly specific social use we see online) is recently exemplified in the EUs Digital Markets Bill describing large search providers (like google) and social media (facebook) as gatekeepers.
Makes sense to me. Is a mortgage officer not a gatekeeper of the bank's capital?
Is a police officer not a gatekeeper to doing whatever one pleases?
It’s known as Atwood’s Duck.
https://blog.codinghorror.com/new-programming-jargon/
"When preparing a defense, the good Samurai doesn't leave any weakness. The great Samurai leaves one weakness, so he knows from which direction the enemy will attack."
I was given that advice when preparing for my Ph.D. defense. :)
I was given that advice when preparing for my Ph.D. defense. :)
Hairy arms:
https://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364760847/whats-with-all-of-t...
Though I believe the technique has been given many other names as well.
Though I believe the technique has been given many other names as well.
>A friend in grad. school would put obvious glaring errors in his preliminary drafts of write-ups so the prof's would then be happy to correct these, feel they'd done their work, and move on, avoiding any actual substantive criticisms requiring actual work on his part to fix.
There are people that believe Elon can do no wrong and is always playing 8d chess.
There are people that believe Elon can do no wrong and is always playing 8d chess.
The worst is when they can't find anything and make shit up.
Had this happen during an audit very early in my working life - "where did this excess income come from?" The books I gave them were clean. Fortunately the accountant made an obvious math error that was easy for me to spot, and the next round went smoothly.
Or was it an error? Hmmm ...
Had this happen during an audit very early in my working life - "where did this excess income come from?" The books I gave them were clean. Fortunately the accountant made an obvious math error that was easy for me to spot, and the next round went smoothly.
Or was it an error? Hmmm ...
That's pretty much a designer/web dev trope, turning in mistakes to the boss that are easy to fix so he can put his stamp on it.
it works the same way in construction as well. Before inspection of something like electrical, you go introduce an obvious error that is easy to observe, doesn't take long to fix, and doesn't require additional materials. The inspector can write a report indicating the work is substandard and later gets to write another report indicating the work is corrected and the sign off is complete. Everyone gets to go home happy at that point.
Inspectors aren't wise to this? They see everything done right except for this one obvious flaw? Or they see the glaring flaw immediately and they stop looking at the rest of the work? Imagining myself as an inspector, if I see something simple that is clearly done wrong, I am now going to go over the whole job with a fine-tooth comb.
So this sounds like "urban legend" to me, but maybe there is a grain of truth in it?
So this sounds like "urban legend" to me, but maybe there is a grain of truth in it?
If you get the book thrown at you, you will lose without exception.
It's real, and inspectors are wise to it, but I guess the subtle acknowledgement that perfection is impossible goes a long way. A lot of "lower risk" inspections are very old-timey/human. You won't get away with it in an aerospace inspection, but somebody looking over the job site or kitchen is playing by different rules.
It's real, and inspectors are wise to it, but I guess the subtle acknowledgement that perfection is impossible goes a long way. A lot of "lower risk" inspections are very old-timey/human. You won't get away with it in an aerospace inspection, but somebody looking over the job site or kitchen is playing by different rules.
My health inspector (restaurant) says she can't really turn in perfect reports. Her boss says "nobody is perfect"
So she tries to find something very minor, like an unlabeled item, to put on our report, if things are otherwise good.
Same with the fire department. They ignore obvious violations and nitpick small ones, and then never follow up to make sure a change was made.
So she tries to find something very minor, like an unlabeled item, to put on our report, if things are otherwise good.
Same with the fire department. They ignore obvious violations and nitpick small ones, and then never follow up to make sure a change was made.
> if I see something simple that is clearly done wrong, I am now going to go over the whole job with a fine-tooth comb.
not if you have a mountain of work to do and hate your low paid thankless job.
not if you have a mountain of work to do and hate your low paid thankless job.
I'm thinking of rock stars and candy; stuff like this, even when deliberate, is proof that some attention was given:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-out/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-out/
I do not think you would make it very long as a government employee with that kind of attitude
Is this a US specific thing? Or specific to certain types of society?
I saw an interview with a movie producer from the code era of movies. He said they dealt with the Hays Commission and the Catholic Legion of Decency by including a risque scene in the preliminary cuts they submitted. They censors would reject them, and they'd resubmit with the scenes cut.
[deleted]
Are you implying that SpaceX purposefully failed in order to give the FCC something to critique?
[dupe]
Some earlier posts and discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37434066
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435158
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37434066
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37435158
>The FAA said Friday, Sept. 8, that multiple problems led to the launch explosion on April 20 over the Gulf of Mexico, off the South Texas coast.
What are the odds Elon pushed them to make an unsafe launch to hit his stupid little 4/20 fixation? I'm guessing somewhere around 100%.
What are the odds Elon pushed them to make an unsafe launch to hit his stupid little 4/20 fixation? I'm guessing somewhere around 100%.
The initial launch attempt was 4/17.
This has been repeatedly peddled by ignorant folk who don't care about spaceflight beyond adding in unnecessary snark but it should be obvious to anyone who paid attention that it was sheer coincidence.
The launch was scheduled for 4/17, 4/20 was a backup window. If anything they delayed the launch to hit 4/20, not rushed it.
what was unsafe about it? I think the biggest health hazard was the dust on South Padre which turned out to be just beach sand.
There was a little more than "dust". There are plenty of videos of concrete chunks of 5-20 lb in weight being thrown over a mile and raining down on the beach.
Raining down with no risk of injuring anyone though. What about the flight was unsafe?
wredue(2)
1. SpaceX is the one who wrote the mishap report. The FAA approved it, meaning they accepted that it conformed to regulations. In particular, it's SpaceX who came up with the list of 63 corrective actions--not the FAA.
2. That means that SpaceX has had a chance to implement those corrective actions, so I expect many of them (like the Automated Flight Termination System) are already done.
3. The FAA letter says that SpaceX must implement all "corrective actions directly tied to public safety". That implies that any corrective actions /not/ tied to public safety can be implemented later.
All in all, I see this is good news for SpaceX and IFT-2.
https://www.faa.gov/media/70901