Is the FAA Holding Up SpaceX's Starship?

What's Starship waiting on? Is the FAA holding things up? Who has this list of 63 fixes? (Elon does, apparently...) John Galloway sheds light, with comment from the FAA, on the documents and posts surrounding the status of Starship's second launch.
Abhi Tripathi Thread: / 1700201198941515881
⚡ Become a member of NASASpaceflight's channel for exclusive discord access, fast turnaround clips, and other exclusive benefits. Your support helps us continue our 24/7 coverage. Click JOIN above to get started.⚡
🤵 Hosted by John Galloway
🎥 Video from Michael Baylor, Jack Beyer, Sean Doherty, Starbase Live, SpaceX, NASA, FAA, Artgrid.io
✂️ Edited by Ryan Caton
💼 Written by Alejandro Alcantarilla Romera and John Galloway
💼 Produced by Kevin Michael Reed
🔍 If you are interested in using footage from this video, please review our content use policy: www.nasaspacef...
L2 Boca Chica (more clips and photos) from BC's very early days to today.
🔗 forum.nasaspac...
(Join L2 and support NSF here: www.nasaspacef...)
#spacex #faa #starship

[@RobSmithTech]

The majority of journalists don't do this kind of due diligence when producing stories. Great job NSF!

[@petef.4361]

Yes especially CNN.

[@johnathonme]

Ummm yes they do. Journalists do, its why they are called journalists when they do "due diligence". Don't confuse online commentators, pundits, influencers, "internet experts", tiktok stars or every other voice you listen to with professional qualified journalists. And yes, agreed, NSF are freaking awesome, they have stepped up their game and become incredibly professional the last few years and a reliable source of space news and expertise.

[@mountbattenstgeorge6008]

Well…….. in the UK and from my own very personal world perspective, mainstream British news outlets have a tendency to report on space x from a negative perspective. For example: despite the first stacked prototype test launch being just that, a test and despite the well documented space x testing processes I.e. test until failure. The UK media widely led with negative buzz words suggesting starship development was doomed, not explaining the reality.

[@Alderite]

@@johnathonme They were aware, that it just did not fit with their narrative with their political leaning not coinciding with Elon Musk, so they were trying so hard to disregard it, talking about true journalism, they don't exist anymore.

[@nigelhungerford-symes5059]

Most journalists can't compete with NSF

[@lancehames6228]

Brilliant explanation of the whole process, I, for one was under the impression that the FAA produced the mishap report and that they controlled the whole process of licensing a flight. The explanation given here was excellent and I see the cooperation between SpaceX and the FAA as easily the best way forward to ensure a better outcome in the next flight, bravo NSF.

[@glenndennis6801]

I've understood that they, like most other regulatory bodies, largely just audit the companies findings. Transportation investigations are another thing. They do do investigations.

[@jbkabss]

My first look at the list told me that the FAA could not have come up with those technical items. Makes more sense now with this explanation.

[@owenmonroe4911]

@@glenndennis6801 Yes, partially. "Tell me what you did wrong, and what you are going to do to correct it... hmmm...I see.... I think you should do [x] as well. Twice; and this other thing. What does your DIE look like? Hmmm... maybe address that as well."

[@prestonspinks137]

John Galloway is, hands down, the finest host on NSF. Thank you for letting him host another great event.

[@86FxBdyCpe]

For sure. And he doesn't look like a bum with a ridiculously overgrown beard.

[@PrevailingFreedom]

@@86FxBdyCpeOr sound/look like he’s been living in his mother’s basement for the past 15 years

[@levioliver3794]

Yup, EASILY

[@levioliver3794]

@@86FxBdyCpeAgree, Jack needs to stay behind the camera

[@SetecX]

No doubt. This guy is my favorite host.

[@richarddavis7727]

Thorough and unbiased evaluation. Thanks to John and the NSF team. Great work

[@WWIflyingace62]

Great video, amazing that true journalists still exist that can take a step back from speculation and think through the facts logically.

[@danswan1047]

What a refreshing fact based video. Thank you for the detailed explanation, and the awesome presentation. You guys are amazing!!!

[@RobertoRMOLA]

At a certain point in the video you said about FAA: "...the first text of the message confuses us a little bit..." Well, as a pilot with 45 years of experience, I have read tons of documents issued by various aeronautical regulatory agencies, especially those from the FAA, and I can assure you that it is not _just the first text_ that confuses us with its words, but the entire collection of official documents from that body! Patience is always required...

[@Julius_Hardware]

All good points. I work in the medical manufacturing industry and its the same - the Federal agency (the FDA) expects us to the experts in how our products work. The Agency's job is to make sure we do our jobs properly, which is in our best interest (so we don't get sued).

[@lanemedcalf9506]

One of the best "walk throughs" I have ever heard in explaining a complex issue in a way that makes it much simpler to understand. Great job NSF!!!

[@Big.Ron1]

Excellent video. Having worked in aviation for over 3 decades and having worked with the FAA several times, you nailed the expectations and required procedures. The beast will fly again soon. Thank you and be safe.

[@mikehenry8861]

A good, balanced evaluation. Very informative and well prepared. I have to admit that my perception prior to this was that the FAA is holding up the launch.

[@warrenwhite9085]

The FAA is holding up the launch, that’s Elon’s exact statement. SpaceX diligently did the mishap report & corrective actions, the FAA is still generating red-tape, delaying/obstructing progress. The changes/improvements were made, reported, approved. Bottom Line. Why is another launch license needed? And what is this new ‘environmental license’ FAA threat?

[@bazoo513]

"Balanced" doesn't give these guys enough credit. Good reporting is not about "both sides", but about *facts,* Those are not always "balanced" (they rarely are.)

[@MikkoKalavainen]

Thanks Das! This was a good, information-dense and fun video, once again. You guys rule.

[@GB-zi6qr]

Thanks NSF Team for clearing the air and helping to set the record straight. Excellent reporting!!!

[@michaelscott8226]

Das, do you have a Public Relations degree? That was an awesome description of what's going on, who's responsible for which part, and what needs to come next. Bravo! I have seen so many knee-jerk reactions to the FAA's letter accusing them of trying to tell SpaceX how to build rockets, how they are hamstringing SpaceX's efforts to get back to launching, and the list goes on. I love how you point out that SpaceX is the expert on their rockets, not the FAA. It would always be incumbent on SpaceX to tell the FAA what they've come up with, and how they're going to fix it. The FAA is the agency tasked with making sure that it's as safe as possible, and doesn't put people in unreasonable jeopardy. It has to be a team effort.

[@drnpflamm]

Excellent walkthrough and deescalation of drama over license issuance

[@dust1209]

Somehow I was able to realize this stuff on my own as an armchair observer. I think people who are misunderstanding it are emotionally motivated against SpaceX. NSF is fighting the good fight. Also congrats on securing the official KZbin SpaceX launch coverage position!

[@wesleydeng71]

Against Elon, to be precise.

[@johndaily263]

@@wesleydeng71The sheer amount of goodwill towards SpaceX that Elon has scorched is, well, astronomical.

[@jamskinner]

He hasn’t done anything. A certain segment of society just wants a monopoly on politics in this country. All Elon did was allow all sides to share their views without being banned or censored.

[@tonyowen116]

John.... Have to agree with folks below. Your explanation really helps to clarify what has transpired, especially the point that it was SpaceX who generated the Fix List, not the FAA. (Sort of reminds me of the process for generating an Airworthiness Directive. The "Company" or OEM supplies the - what needs to be fixed, and the procedure(s) to do so.) Really enjoy the manner in which you present information. You hold my attention.

[@NASASpaceflight]

Great to hear, and appreciate the feedback! - Das (John)

[@cyclepath55555]

This update was excellent John. Admittedly, i was (up until this video) upset with the FAA (not knowing the facts), this cleared it up, thank you.

[@SteveInPalmSprings]

Hello John, As a former amateur journalist I appreciate the difficulty of conveying technical information to a not so technical audience. You, sir, have absolutely nailed it in this video. What appears to most of us as an obscure government procedure is now crystal clear. I follow space exploration pretty thoroughly on channels such as NASA Spaceflight. Frankly, I thought the FAA was dragging their feet a bit on Starship II. It turns out, as your excellent report shows, that they are on their toes and NOT dragging at all. Thanks for all you folks do. Kudos on this video. Steve

[@ImmortalThor13]

Thank you Das for the play-by-play and going through the facts on hand. imagine that. actual journalism in 2023.

[@locomanjim1554]

I love DAS reports. So much info in a great format and with his love of rockets and rocket info just makes a great video!

[@Lost-In-Blank]

It should be mentioned that FAA and NTSB investigations into aircraft and railroad mishaps also closely involve manufacturers of the vehicle and relevant important parts of the vehicle. That SpaceX got this treatment is not unusual. The key thing is that the FAA has final authority in what goes into an FAA report, and in its rule making. The NTSB only has final authority on what goes into its reports and its recommendations. (NTSB is sadly recommendations only, which is why railways are the way they are.)

[@saminhouston5414]

The FAA is a superb organization. USA has the safest and most reliable air space on the planet and always has. Flight is risky so they must be strict but they also understand operational commitments and do their best to assist and work things out. We’re blessed to have them. Folks should thank them each time they fly and each time they look up in the sky and know the odds of anything crashing or falling out of the sky are a million to one. God speed FAA

[@jaapkuipers5001]

Thanks DAS, maybe the best and most important video you ever made. It explained the proces very well

[@TimMcGrawonGoogle]

Really top notch reporting here, even for you guys, and that's saying something. Thanks for all you do. What a moment for the human race!

[@mr-huggy]

Who are we waiting on..... SpaceX. Nicely done Das.

[@iamaduckquack]

It's always been that way but the conspiracy nuts froth at the mouth at the thought of spready more BS theories.

[@oljobo]

Intelligence, clarity and hard work combined. Communicated beautifully (as always) Wonderful! Das - Thank You ❤

[@bluelightningdt607]

Das, excellent breakdown of all the facts and all the parties involved. Your explanation videos are the best I’ve ever seen on SpaceX starship thank you very much!

[@gamemeh]

So.. am I the only one who thought the FAA actions have been.. totally normal and expected prior to the next Starship launch...? I've zero time for drama and conjecture. Just thankful NSF does what it does to allow us to see what's happening at Starbase & more!

[@lyleblack194]

Very well done! Your video is the only commentary I have heard provided to the space loving community that outlines how professionals/adults in this industry conduct business.

[@kylewood2715]

This was an excellent video!

[@themini_b]

I guess I must be out of touch regarding all this, I didn't even know that there was any drama regarding this. I just brushed it off as "It will launch when it launches."

[@Capfka]

That was a bloody good explanation of the process, NSF. Thanks - and keep 'em coming!

[@jimbeardsley222]

@Steve-Richter .. how is the FAA expressing any threat? The SpaceX Starship programs and FAA's auditing / oversight programs are all mind-bogglingly complex, for obvious &or sensible reasons, and anyone who works within large programs knows how hard it can be to keep all the critical moving parts and decision-makers on the same pages. The knee-jerk Us-vs-Them mentality is more of a threat than the typical neglect in due process or breakdown in communications. It's the due process which helps all parties calibrate their internal bearings as needed. Granted, the FAA seemed slow to start adapting to the growing pace and demand for commercial spaceflight oversight, but even SpaceX knows the industry would be a sh1tsh0w without something very comparable to the FAA.

[@jimbeardsley222]

@Steve-Richter .. sure, for the 1st OTL. the early delays in the program were definitely frustrating and detrimental, exposing huge deficiencies in commercial, experimental launch oversight, and SpaceX excels at producing perfect storms of such demands. But as Das suggests might be the case, the only remaining mandate simply may be SpaceX's request for modification of the existing license to allow for OTL 2, which could be routine at this point. The most burdensome assessments seem behind them. If any more are looming, especially for future OTL's, then let's just hope they're all anticipating and working ahead on cutting out the time wasters.

[@royh6526]

According to Elon Musk, 57 of the 63 corrective actions have been completed, and the remaining 6 do not have to be completed for the up coming flight, but some time in the future.

[@chrisjohnson2065]

This video is yet another example of why NSF will be my first place for thorough space news. (CSI starbase usually takes a few days 🤣) Thanks so much for such excellent reporting.

[@sixstringsimpleton]

Great job Das! (And Alex, and everyone at NSF) Lots of info and legwork on this!

[@Spectator1959]

I doubt SpaceX could have applied for the modification to their license until the mishap report was officially closed and the required corrective actions officially defined and agreed to by SpaceX and FAA. So even if the stack was ready to go on 5 Sep, it was two more days before the license application could be submitted.

[@NASASpaceflight]

That's the exact followup question I have out to the FAA. 👍 Das

[@ShepperdOneill]

Now, that was some very impressive reporting!

[@HomesteadDNA]

I can see how someone could say that the "FAA Investigation" that the FAA is doing, and took time to do, is something more than the list of things that SpaceX told them they were already doing.

[@jackalcrackle]

I think it's less of the FAA just being handed a report of corrective measures made up by space X , and more of the fact that all of the measures were collaboratively produced by both parties, space X led the investigation, but the FAA oversaw it at every stage giving their input and feedback every step along the way, meaning that these corrective measures were a result of consultation between the FAA and space X from the beginning

[@bksnider157]

Most excellent Das! Hope everyone in the watching community see this.

[@brianwatkins2974]

Excellent video and analysis! Mainstream-Media writers and editors need to watch this, but who am I kidding.

[@ivanpavlenko5892]

Good job Spaceflight! Good job John!

[@gordonp6469]

Thanks for clearing up a lot of questions.

[@ToddKortte]

Das thank you for making this video! So many of us have wondered how the FAA works with all these Starship tests out at Boca Chica. I'm a long time tank watcher, thank you for everything NSF covers!

[@AMeierhoefer]

That could have easily been a 60 sec video.

[@jimbeardsley222]

​.. Everyone at NSF knows how thorough they need to be to satisfy their target audiences. Just bcuz you, and ppl you know, only need a 60sec soundbite, doesn't mean that would achieve their self-determined, professional reporting standard. Besides, they already released the Short version of this on their channels.. but I suppose that wasn't good enough either?

[@ToddKortte]

@@AMeierhoefer Its DAS! LOL Das loves to go into a lot of details.

[@AMeierhoefer]

@@ToddKortte Yes, true. Two sentences could have explained the whole thing

[@MichaelRobinson-wu9ob]

Two sentences eh? I’ll wait…

[@davidangelo8902]

A good, balanced evaluation. Very informative and well prepared. Thank You I'm looking forward to the next launch!

[@ale131296]

@@Steve-Richter That's what the 63 items are for. They were made by SpaceX to improve the reliability of the rocket for the second flight.

[@ale131296]

@@Steve-Richter Not doing damage doesn't mean it was safe. It spent several seconds in the air deviating from its trajectory without the flight termination system having properly terminated the flight as it was intended to. That's one of many upgrades that SpaceX - not the FAA - identified had to be improved for the next launch. The FAA is not dragging anything, they're just doing their work and they've already reviewed the mishap report. It's now SpaceX the one that needs to make sure of applying to modify their launch license and go launch as soon as they get the modification through

[@connecticutaggie]

Great description of how the process works. I am an Engineer in a similarly regulated industry. Just like most Engineers, I am not a big fan of creating documentation but if you want to work in a regulated industry then you have to get used to it - because that is how the process works. Even though I understand that, I still groan and complain when I have already "finished the work" but then I have to spend days or weeks creating Verification and Validation reports and Failure Analysis reports to document it. And guess what, sometimes that extremely formal process uncovers things you thought you had done but didn't have the information to demonstrate that completion. Also, even though reviewing reports is what Regulators do, I am sure reading all those reports and certifying that they are complete is a painful process too. SpaceX's stacking of the Starship and saying "we're ready to launch and just waiting on the FAA" might have been a bit of posturing to make sure SpaceX stayed high on the FAA's list of things to get done - I am sure this is not the only thing the FAA is working on.

[@brads2041]

Amazing work by all. This is old school level reporting

[@brycecohoon]

This report puts all other reports about this to shame... Really opened my eyes to some other channels and how they report.

[@johnnynielsen3006]

Investigative reporter of the Year. John Galloway. Impressive.

[@allenlane3345]

I love these walkthroughs. Great explanation. Awesome detail. Perfect presentation. More of these, porfavor

[@stevelevine1868]

Thorough and well balanced explanation of the processes involved and who is responsible for each step!

[@blakevonhaden]

So the summary is that at this moment, we are waiting on SpaceX to satisfy the FAA that the remediation from the mishap report is correct and complete as part of submission for the modification of the Starship launch license necessary for IFT2. Great job Das and the NSF team for this fantastic update.

[@phillipstivi3947]

Thanks, Das, for brilliant explanation! Very informative.

[@Hawkido]

"Sanitized" is the word he was looking for. When you "clean up" a document for disclosure because it has confidential information, without substantively changing the nature of the document, it is called "Sanitizing" it, thus making it safe for public disclosure.

[@iamaduckquack]

Dont want to spread germs!

[@gravelydon7072]

Another way of putting it is " redacted ". A lot of things dealing with the government ( be it Local, State, or Federal ) have to have things redacted before they can be seen by the general public. You have a hint at what is there but you can't actually see it. I deal with it currently with the local court system. While I am privy to what is going on with the case and get to see unredacted versions, those versions are not made public. Same thing happens with proprietary information. In government, another term is " scrubbed ". As in what you do to a hard drive so that information is not released.

[@Hawkido]

@@gravelydon7072 "Redacted" Implies information is removed and the context of the removed information leaves noticeable voids in the information. Such voids can reveal the nature of the information via negative space, and these voids can substantively change the nature of the document. Example of Redaction: Blank, Blank, and Blank removed Blank from the Blank. Example of Sanitized: Three unnanmed agents removed the suspicious Item from an unspecified Vehicle. Original Document example: SA Bob Bobson, SA Joe Joeson, and SA Barbra Barbson removed the X-49 electronic signal scrambler for the white cargo van with the New York license plate 123XYZ.

[@cipedead0777]

Thank you. This is why I go to NSF for all my space information. Just the facts, clean & no fake news or click bate. Thank you

[@MultiVfc]

Good job! Pretty informative

[@rissj]

Great description Das! This was so well done and some clear. Thank you!

[@lildrumchum]

Wow...what a well thought out executed video....hats off to you and your immense work it must have taken to complete this educational and informative video....congratulations. I applaud your efforts. Thank you.

[@sboutlaw2007]

Thanks NSF for your hard work. GREAT VIDEO!!!

[@rafaeltorovip]

My admiration and respect for the entire team at NSF for bringing us so interesting information. Keep doing your excellent job. 👍

[@markhuebner7580]

Great details, John! Thanks!

[@VentoRacing1]

Thank you for clarifying this! You did a great job.

[@rickbolin]

Brilliant, as always! Thank you for the deep dive!!!

[@quinlanwall240]

very well done!

[@87vwscir]

Great in-depth work. Thanks for clarifying.

[@MrKumquat101]

This is the most information dense, well presented, clearly researched piece of reporting I have seen in several years of following Starship nightly. Excellently done to presenter and team!

[@westphaliaphilosopher1900]

Whoa! Much appreciate this outstanding, professional and thorough report! Most impressive! Thank you!

[@corrinastanley125]

Great explanation thanks Das and NSF team.

[@lorentzinvariant7348]

Outstanding video. You really cleared that up nicely.

[@paultrueman3982]

Awesome reporting - thanks for the detailed and informative update. Excellent reporting

[@bazoo513]

This video just bumped you to the top of my SpaceX-related journalist list. You know your stuff, collect _actual_ information before presenting it, and lack both cheerleader and "skeptic" mentality. Well done, sir!

[@mikebridges20]

Outstanding deep dive into the mishap investigation and licensing processes that the FAA goes through. I just wish this would be picked up by the space news sites that are more interested in political click-baitey titles. Thanks for the great explanation!

[@user-johnvajcner]

As a retired quality engineer I worked in large corporations and small and I was waiting for an explanation kinda like this! I understand that business is business and working together even with government agencies can make it work. Thanks again for the excellent reporting NSF!

[@CCampana64]

One of your better productions, thank you for the decisive information.

[@banditdaggz]

Thanks for making this video. It is extremely helpful is dispelling misconceptions and clarifying what's actually going on.

[@supernova4760]

Das is a true professional at this stuff. Possibly the greatest asset NSF has.

[@NomadUniverse]

I've been in and around engineering for 20 years myself, this is exactly the type of list that goes in a report where specifics dont need to be disclosed. It just needs to show an action was completed. It also ties in with protecting the propitiatory information. Specific information will be on file and not taking up pages and pages unnecessarily in reports.

[@davidmaiden18183]

Excellent explanation….and a free laugh at “Flimary Flight Computer” at 18:47 in😊

[@carlalbury5785]

A very good report and I think, very accurate of the process, and the FAA is doing its job well.

[@SteveRowe]

Fantastic coverage, John. Thank you!

[@wizardofhoz7216]

Thanks Das, you have a great way of making everything space related so understandable for all of us Nerds. God bless you, from me and mine to you and yours!!! NSF ARE THE GREATEST!!!

[@arnoldsmith5754]

very informative and fun video great job John Galloway and his NSF helpers

[@fepatton]

Excellent overview. I’ve been using the events around this report as a filter for determining which KZbinrs, etc., to block for being blithering, uninformed idiots. 😂

[@EdToml]

Thank you. This was both interesting and informative.

[@krillix544]

Great recap. Thanks Das & NSF!

[@kkorff]

Don't understand the mystery about who at StarBase is in charge of all this.Musk put Gwynne Shotwell in charge of day to day operations there. Musk loves engineering, hence he's the lead engineer. Shotwell, while being an incredible engineer, is even better at running the organization of things, taking that burden off of Musk. Gwynne almost sturdily delegates a majority of the necessary tasks to underlings, and they to other underlings, etc. I imagine that Shotwell is probably right on top of everything to do with this to make sure everything is proceeding in the best way possible.

[@andrewjones3968]

First video I’ve seen addressing what I wanted to know

[@WooMe_app]

To be fair about the confusion, a ton of "accredited" media outlet headlines are stoking that confusion and frustration for clicks. Headlines like "FAA orders 63 fixes and grounds Starship launch" are examples of what's out there. Even the articles don't explain the details you gave here so thank you

[@kenrsullivan]

Great explanation on how Elon Time is really the main factor here, and great detail on how the FAA is not the bottleneck with this process. Keep up the great videos!

[@kenrsullivan]

SpaceX got lucky in April. With the FTS not working correcly a lot of people could have been killed. However, the FAA is not the slowdown here. SpaceX is not ready. Close, but the FAA can't approve something for flight if SpaceX has not submitted a request to fly!

[@503sld]

Awesome video! Thanks John.

[@BaluSrinivasan]

I normally don't give credits unless they are exceptional, but John Galloway who presented this report as well as Alejandro Alcantarilla Romera who wrote this, deserve kudos. Fantastic, Guys!

[@NASASpaceflight]

Thank you for the kind words... They're greatly appreciated. - John

[@tomv5782]

THIS is actual journalism, and a classic example for how to handle a hodgepodge of incomplete information. Well done Das and NSF!

[@mustang607]

Maybe Elon only knew about 57 items and that more items need be done before the third launch.

[@NASASpaceflight]

I feel like he would have said "63? I thought it was 57?" If that was the case. Not "What are the 63?... I don't know what they are". He's a busy guy and it's a complicated program. - Das

[@charleslord2433]

Great job Alejandro and John! Clear explanation of the complete process!

[@chuckshaw1593]

The Martian habitat module as your background is pretty awesome.

[@scottcollins4849]

Thank you, for the great update!

[@johnpluskota8016]

This definitely helps. Thanks and keep up the awesome work.

[@Rorschach.]

Sherlock Das with a fantastic explanation of where we are, why we are here and where to look for the next steps.

[@favesongslist]

Loved the way you presented the information, The people at the FAA often do not get their proper respect.