FAA Wants 63 Corrections Before SpaceX Starship Can Launch

by

The FAA has closed the investigation into the problems with the last SpaceX Super Heavy Starship orbital test launch attempt on April 20, 2023. the FAA cites multiple root causes of the April 20, 2023, mishap and 63 corrective actions SpaceX must take to prevent mishap reoccurrence.

The corrective actions include:
* redesigns of vehicle hardware to prevent leaks and fires [SpaceX has made hardware corrections, unknown if FAA will sign off]
* redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness [SpaceX has completed this, unknown if FAA will sign off]
* incorporation of additional reviews in the design process [unknown if SpaceX process reviews are updated to FAA satisfaction]
* additional analysis and testing of safety critical systems and components including the Autonomous Flight Safety System, and the application of additional change control practices. [unknown if SpaceX changes are updated to FAA satisfaction]

UPDATE: Starship is ready to go. SpaceX has completed the FAA items.

24 thoughts on “FAA Wants 63 Corrections Before SpaceX Starship Can Launch”

  2. Everyone is so vitriolic. Either the government is bad, or space x is bad. It’s a zero sum game with you people. The FAA is doing its job, it assessed problems with the first flight, and it wants space X to correct those problems to protect life, property, and the environment. That’s their job. They’ve done fine. SpaceX on the other hand, has also assessed problems with the first launch. That’s their job. They have already begun implementing changes where they feel necessary. Both organizations are okay, they will probably reach very similar conclusions, space x has already started on most of what the faa is going to ask for . Everyone is just doing their jobs. Lighten up.

  4. FAA engineers evaluated the systems/facilities and required corrective actions.

    That’s frightening. Anyone familiar with FAA (policies/hiring practices/history)requirements for their employees job titles.

  5. Looks like a bunch of government bureaucrats, with zero technical prowess, are trying to dictate designs details. The bureaucrats should stick to the larger picture and leave the engineering to people who know what they are doing.

    • 1. The FAA used engineers to assess this failed launch
      2. The SpaceX engineers with technical prowess made the series of errors in design details of the previous launch
      3. The corrective actions I’ve seen so far are written very generically, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a bureaucrat within the FAA is allowing SpaceX team to dictate what constitutes proper corrective actions on almost every item.

      • Government’s primary role is to inhibit progress. Want an example? Compare SpaceX’s progress with NASA’s in the development of boosters and crewed vehicles.

        • Of course. For that reason the FAA authorized the first (disastrous) flight of SpX… Because it doesn’t want them to move forward. And that is why it “finances” private companies for the return to the Moon. Let’s not mix the SLS with the rest of space policy.

    • It appears that SpaceX doesn’t have a robust design process where changes can be tracked and reviewed at each stage. This leads to problems seen at the original launch.

      This may be difficult to implement as Elon does not seem to take much advice, can’t seem to take no for an answer, and can make changes on a whim.

  6. What if Elon gives up on th US and takes his tech to a country that will support him?
    Right now he has put the US back in the lead in space communications and electric transportation
    He is a national treasure
    The country needs to recognize that
    He does not have to to all this here

    • I believe you need to look up ITAR and also how many of those US citizens are going to follow him to another country?

  7. I think, for my part, that this is a healthy process… A little like answering to Reviewers’ comments when you submit an article.

  8. FAA and many of you still don’t get what is an Agile Rapid development procesa. FAA is an institute for perfection, Elons organization is for speed of improvement.
    I am.sure none of the 63 things are things that would not have come up for fixing in the process.
    They just did not take priority.
    If you need to decide between liftoff or a few $ worth of concrete which would you prioritize.

  9. Furry Ant Ashats what a bunch of Bezos boys any trick they can conjure up to try and hold Spacex back . Bidenistas sack them all let Elon run them .

  10. Other corrective actions the FAA kept secret…
    1. Elon must now address all FAA employee’s by pronoun of their choice followed by bowing at the waist.
    2. Free Starlink for all FAA employee’s and illegal invaders and job offers at Starbase to all non English illegal aliens at top of pay scale.
    3. No MAGA or Trump banners planted on the moon.
    4. Elon must name his next child…..F.A.A…..
    5. 10% for the Big Guy.
    6, ????

  11. Delightfully surprising they at least said they are closing the investigation process.

    But it’s still pending to do the remediation process, and fill the proper forms to respond to all the 63 corrections, and the time required for them to read those, do the replies and corrections on the paperwork sent, to finally give their seal of approval.

    Seems like it will be several months at least.

    Still, it gives hope there isn’t an institutional animosity against SpaceX at play.

    • Hardly surprising. While the FAA may be a regulator, they are still open to corruption, the government along with NASA will be pushing on them for leniency. After all Elon and SpaceX are keeping the USA at the tip of the spearhead for spaceflight. Are they really going to let some technical drawbacks and the odd slap on the wrist hold SpaceX back? Not a chance.

  12. It’s fair enough to say that SpaceX cut corners on the launch pad, and that’s genuinely on them. At the very least they should have laid a sheet of welded steel over the concrete. That wouldn’t have stopped it from cracking given the inadequate foundation for the slabs, but the exhaust couldn’t have burrowed under the broken slabs and thrown anything.

    But I think the FAA will never be genuinely happy with SpaceX until they’re as stodgy as ULA.

    • Two things:

      First, Elon is the consummate minmaxer. Knowing him, he probably allowed the pad to be destroyed because he knew they were going to dig it all up anyway and he wanted to skip some of the demolition process.

      Second, the game here for SpaceX is to do as much as they can get away with, including intentionally doing “bad” things to give themselves leeway to avoid being overregulated out of existence. Consider the case of the pad because it’s a good example of this. No way would the FAA sign off on the water-cooled steel plate idea. If they had their way, SpaceX would be building a replica of the flame diverters at the Cape. But now SpaceX can present the water-cooled plate as a remediation in the direction that the FAA wants, which makes it more likely to get the go ahead. It’s the psychological technique called “anchoring”. Give someone a worse option so they’ll accept the other option.

      • Great point and I agree that’s what happened, but I don’t think it was planned that way just to play into the psychology of the FAA. More like the agile move fast and break things interactive process lead to this result. Less mind games and more engineering.

      • Exactly. Another thing is when you have an overzealous inspector that finds little to put in his report he/she will tend to dig deeper and look for more obscure things in order to still appear to do a rigorous job. These obscure things might add very little in security but can be very expensive (time or money) to implement. Because of this psychological effect it’s generally wise to leave some things on the table you know you can easily fix rather then to strive towards perfectionism. And then lastly inspections have generally an allotted amount of time, the inspectors might have so much work filling in paperwork that they get into the tunnel vision of a checklist and even blow past things they otherwise would have noted.

Comments are closed.