Why Falcon 9 Faced FAA Investigations But Not Starliner | We Asked The FAA

It's a complex yet crucial topic: why hasn’t the FAA grounded Starliner despite its multiple thruster issues? We sit down with the FAA to understand the process behind flight anomalies, spacecraft vs. rocket investigations, and whether Starliner’s issues could trigger a grounding. Plus, we explore how FAA regulations differ for Falcon 9 and Starliner, and what it all means for future space missions.
Commercial Spaceflight Data: www.faa.gov/da...
CFR: www.ecfr.gov/c...
Title 51: uscode.house.g...
Check out T-Minus Space: space.n2k.com/...
🔗 NSF Store: www.nasaspacef...
⚡ 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 "Das" Galloway (@KSpaceAcademy)
🖊️ Written by John "Das" Galloway, Alejandro Alcantarilla Romera and Adrian Beil.
🎥 Video from D. Wise, John Galloway, Jack Beyer, Max Evans, SpaceX, ULA, NASA.
✂️ Edited by Joshua DuPay.
💼 Produced by Kevin Michael Reed. Associate Producer: Alice Carruth, T-Minus Space.
🔍 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...)
#FAA #SpaceX #Starliner #Falcon9 #NASA #RocketSafety #Spacecraft #Starship #RocketAnomalies #SpaceExploration #CrewDragon #SpaceMission #Aerospace #Starbase #SpaceRegulation #SpaceNews #SpaceDebate #LaunchSafety #SpaceMishaps #Falcon9VsStarliner #CommercialSpaceflight #Spaceflight #RocketScience #DragonCapsule #AtlasV #SpaceSafety #StarlinerTroubles #FAARegulations #RocketLaunch #SpaceUpdates #JohnGalloway #FAATalks #RocketLaunch

[@lifeexposurephotographybyt2005]

So, the FAA has no classification for reusable rockets like the Falcon 9, as it. IS a fleet.

[@brianmangan15]

As bad as this sounds, unless there is a change in administration, this FAA will probably permanently prevent human exploration and colonization of other planets.

[@mattfarrar5472]

Excellent breakdown - Makes you question why NASA isn't taking over the licensing for Starship.

[@tyler60904]

Especially when they are helping fund its development for their moon missions. Why is starship immediately under the FAA?

[@ryelor123]

Its the FAA's job to deal with stuff that's in the sky. They know where everything is and they're responsible for keeping account of everything. If there are casualties occur, they're responsible for changing the regulations to make sure that doesn't happen again. They deal with all the small complicated things related to design and operations because that's what that organization is specialized in. NASA's job is to do research and figure out new things. They don't know what designs are safe and what aren't because that's not their specialization. They may be pretty well at figuring out how to make a new camera for a spacecraft but they don't know the best gasket material for rocket engines. In the end, these problems will result in a new organization coming into being that performs the role of the FAA but only for spacecrafts. The FAA is too busy dealing with civilian aviation where R&D isn't as critical since aircrafts are a very matured technology. tl;dr NASA focuses on research instead of safety.

[@takanara7]

Why would they? Space-X already has a license to LAUCH starship, they just don't have a landing license, and landing the booster isn't technically necessary for HLS. Also a 60 day delay isn't exactly a big deal. If the FAA were really holding things up NASA could take over, but keep in mind technically the Vice President is in charge of NASA, and the director of NASA is a political appointment as well (In this case a former democratic senator) so it's not like there would be some huge political incentive for them to help out Elon at this point. The FAA is probably going to be less partisan then NASA, ultimately.

[@michaelcostello906]

​@@takanara7Maybe not technically, but if they're going to be able to launch as many times as needed to orbitally refuel, it needs to be fully reusable. And that requires landing.

[@boatymcboatface666]

And as such an updated license, which SpaceX didnt request.​@michaelcostello906

[@officialwildcardadventures]

If it can't fly....it is by definition grounded.

[@bryanyoung8404]

its not grounded because the organization that grounds it doesnt even have oversight on it. by definition 🤓

[@JorisRobijn]

It might be docked in space but cannot return to Earth.

[@robertanderson5092]

But if it is on the pad it is padded.

[@officialwildcardadventures]

@@robertanderson5092😂

[@officialwildcardadventures]

@@robertanderson5092 this makes me think of someone duct taping pillows everywhere. 😂

[@Ghost_FEU]

I would say, spacex has a significant fleet of falcon nines, and are going to be building a significant fleet of starships

[@pfcrow]

So SpaceX needs to put something for Space Force on a Starship test flight so they don't need an FAA license.

[@ale131296]

Nah it doesn't work that way

[@ryelor123]

I don't think SpaceX wants the DOD involved in Starship until the development process is completed. The last thing they want is for the military to decide that all future improvements are state secrets and Starship launches can only occur for military payloads. SpaceX wants the military to be a customer, not a master.

[@kawkasaurous]

​@ryelor123 well, their rocket tech is exactly that already. And the military has already purchased 30 starships.

[@ale131296]

@@kawkasaurous wut?

[@spacemanmat]

Could easily be NASA.

[@Jay-qs1ef]

So, I'm guessing that Dan Murray didn't want to answer any questions about the FAA forestalling Starship flight 5 over complete nonsense, or of the pointless nit pick fines that the FAA issued SpaceX? Otherwise, why wouldn't those questions be the top priorities for NSF to ask a prominent member of the FAA in this interview? Even if you support the FAA in these delays and fines, those two issues are clearly more important to everyone keeping up with space news than the Falcon 9 being grounded twice for a very brief stint. Who cares about the Falcon 9 groundings at this point? After all, that was one instance where the FAA was actually quick!

[@thirteenthandy]

We don't have fleets of rockets? What year is the FAA in?

[@mattkingston6157]

When have two rockets of the same model flown at the same time? We don’t have fleets of rockets each one launches one at a time

[@snakevenom4954]

​@@mattkingston6157 SpaceX has dozens of rockets that are being used to launch over and over again. That's a fleet. Simple as that

[@medivalone]

I think "fleet" in this context refers to a model of vehicle flown by different operators that aren't the manufacturer. Example: United, Delta, American, and Southwest all operate 737s (and also resell their aircraft to other operators) and Boeing does not. The FAA can't just call up Boeing and say "you're not allowed to fly 737s anymore", they need to put out a notice to all operators. Whereas with Falcon 9, the FAA just tells SpaceX they cannot fly their rocket until the investigation is complete.

[@lmcclymont]

@@mattkingston6157 um planes launch one at a time too. Just last week Space X had 3 dragons on orbit.

[@snakevenom4954]

@@medivalone Boeing does not fly their planes and SpaceX was not banned from making Falcon 9's. They were not allowed to continue flying Falcon 9's. They grounded it. Tie a hitch to it and anchor it to the floor and nothing changes

[@seekerstan]

SpaceX has a fleet of Falcon 9s and there is a growing fleet of Starships sitting in Boca Chika waiting for launch licenses.

[@paradoxicalcat7173]

FAA: "We need to ground your rockets pending an investigation" SpaceX: "Sure" FAA: looks blankly at SpaceX SpaceX: stares back at FAA FAA: "Tell us what you find so we can write a report"

[@GauntletKI]

Grounded makes perfect sense. It's told to stay on the ground.

[@JorisRobijn]

Except when it's docked in space

[@brianmangan15]

Only thing keeping her down rn is bureaucrats

[@OraC6666]

I hate bullsh*t semantics wordplay.

[@94nolo]

it's bs corpo speak.

[@0x5DA]

ong

[@superdave19855]

That's why Mr. Murray is a government employee. He's good at it.

[@gwenever7286]

As Das points out in the comments this video release was delayed a couple of weeks before release, so the questions people are getting shirty about him not asking the FAA guy about hadnt even arisen when the interview was recorded. This video is specifically answering one major question and does that clearly.

[@NASASpaceflight]

It's important to focus the video so it can answer a question and not end up 2 hours long. 😅 - Das

[@lowstrife]

This is actually really great to see - the FAA engaging in active outreach from senior members of the relevant organizations. This is way better than no statements, no public messages, no nothing. Thanks for taking the time to do this Mr. Murray. I think it's unfortunate that things have escalated to be where we've come to this, regardless who is ultimately at fault here. Nobody wins.

[@ryelor123]

Seems like the issue here is that Starship is still in the testing phase but its licensing is coming from an organization that specializes in dealing with routine launches of finished products. So why isn't NASA certifying Starliner?

[@goldgamercommenting2990]

@@ryelor123 For starliner which I have been yelling at people for being stupid about it, the problem is it’s service module. It’s prone to malfunctions. And yet people blame the capsule which is fine. THE ARE ONLY BLAMING THE HATCHES AND NOT THE SERVICE MODULES!!! This is disappointing…. You humans need to learn not to jump to conclusions

[@professorg8383]

@@ryelor123 To say "Finished products" is reading in a statement tha isn't true. Starship s a commercial project and not a NASA project NASA has contracts for the HLS, but not for the development of Starship. And there is another issue which is coming into play rather recently. Because a certain someone tends to ignore another federal agency, the EPA, it was noted that that the EPA really has very limited authority to assure compliance, A rule change recently took place. The EPA can issue fines, but they can't approve or deny a launch. And a certain someone was mostly ignoring the EPA. They would pay fines but ignored correcting the issues. EPA had no authority to to even issue orders. The prior administrations did everything possible to eliminate the EPA and they pretty much succeeded. A launch license required the applicant to comply with all agencies but there as no real verification process. But now the FAA must verify that the applicants are in compliance with the EPA, (and other agencies, state and federal) or they can not issue a launch license. The FAA doesn't get in the weeds on EPA issues but the applicant has to prove he's in compliance. This change came about mainly because a certain player doesn't like rules and will ignore them if he can get away with it. They closed that loophole that was big enough that you could launch a rocket through it! (It should be noted that other players were not using this loophole, they just followed the rules) This is similar to what is done in some states where a vehicle must be compliant with certain EPA rules. They need to prove compliance before the DMV licenses for that vehicle. The FAA still has the safety responsibility, but they can't issue a license if the applicant isn't in EPA compliance. The FAA has enforcement authority where as the EPA does not. In the case of Starship, it's a bit more complicated. Only the Artemis HLS lander is a NASA contract and SpaceX is a long way from testing that rocket. NASA is not looking at Starship in general as a NASA contract. There is no NASA contract to build the Starship system. Developing the Starship system is a SpaceX commercial initiative, not a NASA project. True that the NASA HLS system is a NASA initiative, but not the potential development of options, SpaceX made their bid based on using a rocket that was only vaguely on the drawing board. To take that concept to a level of the actual SpaceX HLS system is not a NASA project. It is a SpaceX commercial project. So at this stage, it falls to the FAA. But to make things a bit confusing, the SLS is a NASA project. And it has designed roles beyond Artemis. A better way to look at it, is that Starship is a SpaceX initiative but not a NASA one. SLS is a NASA initiative, but SpaceX could care less about it. Starship is Musk's dream, not NASA's Only one small use of a Starship variant fits into a NASA contract. NASA will "own" SLS but not Starship! View Starship as a NASA project is lightyears off base! Arguably, not a dime of NASA;s contract money should be being spent on Starship. But in fact it has all been issued and spent by SpaceX, many times over! The NASA administrator who signed off on that, retired from NASA and now runs Starbase for SpaceX!! That issue is its own major debate!

[@robertmorrison107]

@@ryelor123 With SpaceX throwing enough of a fit and taking them to court, I'm sure they'll be answering those uncomfortable questions under deposition shortly. This was meant to be a cordial interview so....softball questions.

[@94nolo]

this corpo speak means NOTHING. actions speak louder than words.

[@Merigold83]

What I find very interesting: The Dragon capsule had to demonstrate the in flight abort capability, whereas the Starliner was not forced to do a demonstration.

[@crazytechguy5735]

And more budget was allocated to Starliner, and yet faces one issue after another.

[@corrinastanley125]

People dont seem to realise this interview was filmed when the Starliner was a issue and Falcon had some problems. So Das was asking questions about those issues.

[@Veptis]

We done have a fleet of Falcon 9 tho... So grounded seems accurate

[@AmbientMorality]

I think the general distinction is that airplanes are manufactured by one company and operated by many others. Rockets are always a single operator who is fully responsible for the safety of the rocket.

[@Yaivenov]

​@@AmbientMoralityno they aren't. Who built the Saturn V and who operated it?

[@AmbientMorality]

@@Yaivenov NASA for both cases. NASA always uses external contractors, but they lead the development of Saturn V, Shuttle, SLS, etc. This is very different from something like Commercial Crew where the commercial company leads development (with NASA oversight).

[@carlossantiago7852]

Here is the issue with FAA and it double standards. When the first Boeing 737 max crashed in 2018, killing hundreds of people, they didn't grounded the entire Boeing fleet because they managed as an isolated case, which doesn't mean the entrie fleet have same issue. Similarly, SpaceX had a fleet of Falcon 9, so why were they so quick on grounding their entire fleet and didn't managed it as an isolated issue and let them continue launching, more over when there was no impact any human life? The FAA is an extension of the big companies with deep tights on the government.

[@takanara7]

Planes crash all the time and they didn't realize it was a systemic issue until the second plane went down. If you ground an airliner every time there was a crash it would cripple the global economy, while grounding a rocket for literally two weeks or two days is not that big of a deal.

[@ryelor123]

I think its also fear by the FAA that grounding entire fleets of airliners can result in a major lawsuit if it turns out the problem was unique to one aircraft. With rockets, its more likely that a problem could be a design flaw.

[@carlossantiago7852]

@takanara7 Really! So, based on your view, it is ok to ground an entire fleet of space rockets because one failed with no impact to any human being just because it was not a big deal. 🤦🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️ Do you work for the FAA? 😀

[@AmbientMorality]

@@carlossantiago7852 If a rocket fails it is almost guaranteed to be a rocket problem. If a plane crashes it is more likely to be primarily either pilot error or improper maintenance by the operator.

[@brianw612]

Because airline aircraft are type certified while rockets fall under entirely different FAA regulations. Rockets are not commercial in the same sense as airliners, they don't carry paying passengers thousands of times a day from point to point. It's not so much a double standard as it is and entirely different regulatory realm. As to weather the FAA should be regulating the space launch industry at all is an entirely different matter. The FAA has a federal mandate to promote aerospace while protecting the safety of the American public. While far from perfect, they are not some personless boogy man out to get Space X. SX requires and obtains an FAA license for all space launch and reentries. Those come with conditions that SX agrees to. Any deviation from those conditions comes with consequences.

[@spaulagain]

Everything in this video smellls like... BUREAUCRACY

[@joelpierce9926]

Thank you @nsf good to see you all still taking time to read and respond to comments considering your growth and size now, thanks. Seeing you all from my viewership as early tank watcher to now is humbling

[@NASASpaceflight]

Good deal, and thank you! The comment can help address things not specifically covered in the video and are a great place to find more topics to help clarify in the next video. - Das

[@Koolteer]

It's not grounded, but it isn't allowed to launch. FAA is scared shitless by the word 'grounded'. Why?

[@disorganizedorg]

[FAA is scared shitless by the word 'grounded'. Why?] Too synonymous with Boeing?

[@user-fr3hy9uh6y]

One possibility is that the FAA must approve a license for reentry. Last year, Varda launched their in-space manufacturing satellite but failed to apply for a reentry license. So it is not only grounded you could also be spaced. FYi, it took a few months, but Varda applied for and was granted a license to return. Varda is actually doing material processing in space, very innovative!

[@bowtoy]

IS allowed to launch just like flight 4 was. Change the conditions, change the license. Are you being intentionally dumb or is it natural?

[@redyau_]

Not scared, but wanting to be precise. For aviation, grounding has a precise definition whereas for space it doesn't. They could define it for space too, but that would be a different definition. They can't use a word, that is not defined for space, officially. You are however allowed to say whatever you want.

[@disorganizedorg]

@@redyau_ Sounds like they have a lot of lawyers who take common English words with established, well-understood meanings and create a new definition in hopes that they make themselves somehow relevant. This is rampant in legislation written by people with no understanding of the field n question, which is why amphetamines (stimulants) are were legally defined as "narcotics" (literally, sleep-inducing).

[@jordanhenshaw]

Completely skipped over the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. How come FAA gets to throw a turd sandwich on Starship when Starship is still experimental, but Starliner gets a free pass because it's experimental?

[@ale131296]

It's in the video... different licensing... different agencies handling it. Simple as that.

[@danharold3087]

@@ale131296 But why are there different agencies handling it. Starship is being developed at least in part for NASA. It is an experimental, problems are expected.

[@NelsonsWings]

LOL look at the comment I just posted, and I posted it before I read yours! Same metaphor, elephant in the room!

[@NelsonsWings]

​@@ale131296No it was not addressed. The FAA is holding up Starship. He interviewed the executive director of the FAA office in charge of those things. But he didn't ask any questions about Starship!

[@ale131296]

@@danharold3087 Well for starters Starship did not begin its development having a NASA contract. Apart from that, the contracting structure for the Human Landing System only considers the actual HLS missions as NASA-related while the others are just building up development data at SpaceX's own dime. Given that, it is the FAA the one that licenses Starship flights. That being said, trust me when I say you really don't want NASA to regulate Starship flights, they'd be a lot deeper into its development than the FAA. Like a whole lot more.

[@JoshSmith-pb8rw]

A lot of words with zero explanation

[@S1nwar]

man what a good start, using several minutes trying to understand reasons for bureaucratic language

[@someweirdo9700]

Excellent video! THIS is why I'm a member. Thank you for all that you do, NSF team.

[@lesgamester7356]

Thanks for this. Boeing Starliner risks lives, SpaceX Starship no crew, tests to destruction.

[@MarkStD]

The biggest question you never answered is why did it take the FAA a year to fine SpaceX? The FAA had to know long before this that they had violated there launch license.

[@ghost307]

They had enough money left in their pockets for 2023, so they decided to wait.

[@apache937]

this was filmed 2+ weeks ago

[@b.b.stanfield9829]

Two points: First, love the commentary by Das on these shorter videos. The hour plus round tables are fine, but tend to get slow and boring. Packed with information thankfully, but I simply don’t have the time nor attention span. Das’ comments are In addition to the textual comments on the video screen. Together they help direct the eye to specific things with more accuracy and a tad faster. His humor is great as well. It tends to follow the thinking of the viewer, (or at least me). Second, Das has a way of explaining things without all the verbal hiccups most people bring to a conversation. Not as much duh and ahh sounds. He’s relatively fast in speech pattern and pronounces words clearly. Even his grammar, (given the education system today), is excellent. As long as he keeps his pants up, avoids too much slang and doing what he’s doing such excellence will only help the NSF world keep everyone up to date and educated on these programs. Little in this world that’s exciting (and good), on this scale exists today. Wars and politics have no place here. Science and technology is what excites and interests me and likely most others.

[@NASASpaceflight]

Appreciate the kind words. Thank the education system of ~35-40 years ago, and my mom. 😅 - Das

[@b.b.stanfield9829]

@@NASASpaceflight Das, my folks for a few generations were educators as well. Your mom must be an exceptional person. My folks have all passed and I try to be a good example. Not sure if it is working, but I try. Your commentary is on point and worth listening to as it’s full of clearly presented information. I note the subtleties. I blasted you a while back about the click bait titling of a couple of videos. You have come back stronger than ever. Always, always, do your best and don’t succumb to following the crowd off the cliff. If you’re ever up in the Bandera/Kerrville/San Antonio area look me up and we can visit, chat, fly, etc. Love to put person to video personality.

[@503sld]

You really need to make more video, they are the one I enjoy the most from NASASpaceflight!

[@mikegardner107]

I worked in Aircraft repair for 10+ years. An aircraft sitting waiting on a critical part to be repaired or replaced is known as AOG - Aircraft On Ground. It doesn’t have to be the whole class / model of that aircraft.

[@kenmactiernan4290]

Very good explanation on the licensing process. Always enjoy watch NSF!

[@lamontterry2590]

ok.......... am I the only one that sees a problem between Space X and the FAA, the FAA doesn't seem to be hard on ULA or Blue Origin Why is that 😅

[@mikelee-i3b]

lol,,,,,,,,,because both ULA and Blue Origin move way slower than the FAA...........you have laugh.. but it is true...

[@bowtoy]

Name one similarity besides the word rocket? MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@philb5593]

ULA and Blue Origin spend years working on their applications and licensing before their vehicles even make it to test flights. They do tons of work upfront on every possible different mission profile so they get a license that covers everything. SpaceX is doing things much differently. They don’t have any concrete plans for the future of Starship, so they are working on a flight by flight basis. They are only applying for licenses for a specific mission profile. It’s less work upfront, but has to be redone for each mission.

[@NelsonsWings]

This was an informative video BUT why didn't you address the elephant in the room? The FAA "grounding" of Starship Flight 5? I'm sure you've read the SpaceX pressers on that cluster foxtrot! The FAA needs to explain what's going on! A lot of those fines and decisions don't make sense.

[@SayWhut276]

It has been explained, SpaceX has a licence to fly right now under the plan it flew flight four under. SpaceX changed the plan to include a catch attempt and that has caused the delays.

[@takanara7]

The FAA hasn't "grounded" Starship, they still have a license to launch, they just are taking their time with licensing the LANDING of the booster back on the pad. If the booster's flight path deviated by a few miles it could kill thousands of people. The idea that there shouldn't be any government oversight into something that is totally delusional.

[@qwerty112311]

@@SayWhut276lmao no. The actual delay is because they want to jettison the hot stage ring at a different time, which obviously could be devastating to the marine environment because… ELON BAD MAN REEEEEEEE

[@Barthhhelona]

​@@qwerty112311that's a childish take.

[@ryelor123]

FAA shouldn't be dealing with a rocket that's in its testing phase. That's NASA's job. Seems like NASA dropped the ball on this one and the FAA is in crisis mode right now since they're having to deal with issues they're not supposed to deal with. No matter how bad it is for the FAA, I feel sorry for the people at NASA who are going to chewed out by FAA people for dumping testing flights on them instead of approving them themselves.

[@AlexSchendel]

This was certainly a well-researched video and it's nice to see that you were able to talk with the FAA, but for a video titled "We Asked the FAA", over 90% of it did not include the FAA which was a bit strange.

[@steveaustin2686]

🙄 You left out ~70% of the title, which was "Why Falcon 9 Faced FAA Investigations But Not Starliner | We Asked The FAA". They did in fact talk to the FAA about the Starliner issues. Das laid the ground work for those already not familiar with the subject. Based on the comment section, the 'rah, rah, rah SpaceX rulz' fanbois are not familiar with the subject and apparently did not pay attention to the video.

[@fabianmckenna8197]

​@@steveaustin2686 Not a "fanboy" but watching China coming up fast on the rails with no apparent regard for disintegration of rockets in orbit, it would seem that SpaceX are our best hope in going forward and should be encouraged, not hindered. Yes we have several companies all in the race and safety is paramount so no suggestion that SpaceX run roughshod over the rules but they do appear to be set up for the 1960's rather than the 2020's.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@fabianmckenna8197 🙄 Guess you haven't been paying attention, as NASA and the other space agencies have blasted China for unsafe practices with their rockets. Sorry, SpaceX still has to comply with regulations just like anyone else. China doesn't comply with any regulations and they drop boosters onto towns. The FAA changed their procedures in 2021 to more accommodate SpaceX's faster launch cadence. That doesn't mean that they should just rubber stamp SpaceX's plans either. Neither should the FAA go with 'just trust us' from SpaceX either. The vertical LCH4 tanks at Boca Chica show that. Since SpaceX didn't make them conform to Texas regulations, an astounding oversight, and they had to be replaced with the horizontal tanks that did conform to Texas regulations.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@fabianmckenna8197 🙄 That was weird. I'll try again. NASA and other space agencies have blasted China for how they dispose of their rockets. They occasionally drop them on towns. We should not be like that. SpaceX has to comply with regulations like everyone else. The FAA should not be a rubber stamp for SpaceX. The vertical LCH4 tanks at Boca Chica shows why 'trust us' is not enough from SpaceX. In an astoundingly crazy move, SpaceX built the vertical LCH4 tanks without making sure that they conformed to Texas regulations. So SpaceX ended up having to replace them with the horizontal tanks that did comply with Texas regulations. The FAA changed their procedures in 2021 to speed up the process in response to SpaceX's faster cadence. Again, the FAA should not be a rubber stamp for anyone.

[@andreaszickner6377]

Great summary ❤ looking forward for the second part that explains the starship/nasa/artemis/faa relationship. Thanks NSF!

[@magnatom]

Excellent video with a very clear explanation. Appreciated. What's interesting is how the FAA system will evolve from here.

[@MrKellymcilrath]

Thanks John (DAS) great explanation of whats happening!!!!! Thank you & NSF!!!

[@StarshipToMars]

I haven't been wondering why Starliner hasn't been "grounded" (for want of a better word) by the FAA, but I am now wondering how your explanations to those who were apply to Starship, which is still under development not only for commercial operations, but also for NASA for the HLS as part of the Artemis program. Why is the FAA even responsible for Starship launches at this time, given that it is as yet uncertified for commercial operations?

[@takanara7]

The FAA regulates all flight in the US, and that includes rocket launches, while they're in the atmosphere. Star LINER is just a payload when it's on a rocket, it's not on it's own until it's in space, which the FAA isn't involved with. So the FAA only regulates the rocket, not the capsule.

[@Barthhhelona]

​@@takanara7they do regulate the capsule actually...if NASA chooses not to. All Dragon missions and capsule reentry are regulated by FAA.

[@NASASpaceflight]

We are wondering as well, and are trying to get this answer from NASA. No luck so far. - Das

[@kylereese4822]

@@takanara7 The FAA are in way over there heads, so at what point will there poor understanding of new technology get people injured - killed ????

[@philiphoman8902]

Great investigation and explanation. Thank you for clearly explaining a topic that is sure to come up as commercial space continues to grow.

[@TheTennesseeTornado]

First off (and not sarcasm), this was a great explainer video, despite a government agency talking head pretending to play it down the middle. What I've gathered after watching is that if it's licensed by NASA, it's considered an "experimental" vehicle (i.e. Dragon's crew test missions), so it's allowed to be unnecessarily dangerous, and because it's the federal government, there's no real oversight. This would explain why shuttles were allowed to launch, even when they had so many safety issues - it was always considered an experimental vehicle. It's also a way to protect commercial donors to political causes (i.e. Boeing). But the second it's released from experimental and becomes commercial, you don't have the luxury of hiding under the skirt of a federal agency, and so they can do whatever they want to you, and they can word it however they want to make it more difficult for you if you don't play ball with a certain administration or agency. You can tell that's the case when they play semantics with the word "grounded", or when Dan Murray says there is no such thing as a fleet of launch vehicles, because they (the agencies) are not serious people. What's interesting here is that while NASA is the licensing agency for their own missions, they will absolutely throw under the bus whoever the launch provider is, but they won't do that if the spacecraft itself is made by a company with whom they are friends. So, really, all of this is irrelevant because it's still the federal government not taking responsibilities for their own failures or the ones they sponsor.

[@superdave19855]

Bingo.

[@RobertPruitt-y7m]

We don't know that it could have brought them back safely. The extra weight, and the unevenness of the weight distribution, would have meant the thrusters would have not only had to have fired longer overall, but the firing patterns would have also been different. Starliner was completely unsafe for humans.

[@ghost307]

And yet Bill Nelson at NASA is still pushing to get it certified even though not a single flight has been 100% successful.

[@wintermute_309]

"We don't have fleets of rockets" last time i checked spacex has fleets of falcon 9s and dragons.

[@WIBRTyranT]

just a clarification. grounded isn't a term used solely for fleets of airplanes. it is also a term for singular airplanes that have mechanical failures and a variety of other issues and cannot be allowed to fly until repaired/addressed.

[@steveanderson5226]

Thank you for the clarity! Well Done!

[@Spacewatcher1]

Why is Starship not under NASA since its first customer is NASA? Isn’t that similar to Dragon?

[@carbonstar9091]

Yeah that wasn't really explained clearly. Is Starship a program under NASA like Starliner/Dragon? Why is it regulated by the FAA instead of NASA/DoD if it's not licensed yet?

[@Barthhhelona]

So they did explain that NASA can choose to accept oversight. My guess is that eventually when the Starship launch system is operational NASA will accept oversight responsibility for the launch of the HLS vehicles. But they probably didn't want to babysit the Starship system before it's even developed.

[@disorganizedorg]

@@Barthhhelona Sadly you might be right; NASA is a timid shadow of its former self.

[@Spherical_Cow]

Starship's first customer is actually SpaceX, not NASA: the initial variant of Starship being developed is for Starlink v3 deployments, and it started development years before NASA gave SpaceX the Artemis 3 contract.

[@NASASpaceflight]

We delayed the video a couple of weeks trying to get that answer from NASA. Seems they could have opted to run it that way. Not sure SpaceX even asked...? - Das

[@angelarch5352]

Why does the FAA not investigate Boeing Starliner?... A. Bribes.

[@ghost307]

B. Powerful politicians who control the FAA budget.

[@tomsheridan989]

Last week's Flame Trench didn't hold back on placing the blame for the delays on SpaceX. In light of the information that SpaceX put out today I wonder if the opinions will change?

[@Thermalions]

I don't see why. SpaceX is complaining that the FAA takes too long, and reading into the details of their letter doesn't seem to be disputing that they operated without the approvals. They seem to almost be arguing they don't need the approvals, or they were approved post launch so it's all good. If SpaceX really thought at the time they didn't need said approvals then why had they submitted paperwork to receive the approvals? Maybe the FAA do take too long - but that doesn't mean launch providers can just do what they want.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@Thermalions Yeah, SpaceX tried to do what they wanted with the vertical LCH4 tanks, but they didn't make them conform to Texas regulations, so SpaceX had to install the proper ones. That was a huge faux pa, so I won't trust just SpaceX's word on something about regulations, without outside corroboration. SpaceX is suing over the fines and if they did break regulations to get the fines, then they will likely lose that lawsuit.

[@fabianmckenna8197]

​@@Thermalions Your last thought is of course the sticking point for SpaceX......... Two months may be fine for an old style company like Boeing but with SpaceX working on another level and looking to run multiple test launches, it's a very long time if they end up with that sort of delay each time to check things out,

[@Thermalions]

@@fabianmckenna8197 Then they should be obeying the rules and lobby to garner political support to have the FAA resourced to provide that level of turnaround. They could always propose increased processing charges to allow increased staffing and receive the turnaround they need - pollies love making voters or their corporate mates happy without having to spend any money.

[@DanTheisen]

This would have been a great video to release two weeks ago…before the tensions erupted into fines on F9, delays on Starship, and eviscerating letters of rebuttal from SpX on the former. Now, all anyone can think about is why NSF is releasing what sounds (again) like a pro-FAA video in a dispute they’re not weighing in on. We want our NSF team to help fight for spaceflight, but they’re here to report, not retort.

[@bowtoy]

Yeah NSF we want you to fight for our stupid moronic arguments, based on a very limited but still excruciatingly poor understanding of what a rocket is vs a space capsule. Be Stupid For All Of Us. Please for the love of all that is ignorant.

[@scottie_karklin]

Excellent topic and I learned....very cool! Thanks Das!

[@scourge3162]

waitaminute. you interviewed the FAA and this is what you asked???

[@ExtremeSquared]

NSF really can't be too hard on federal officials and expect further cooperation. They'll just go to friendlier interviewers. We're in an era where the separation between agency mission and politics has been mostly crushed.

[@iamaduckquack]

​​It's all about protecting fragile egos. They should be expected to answer hard questions. How else can these political agencies be held accountable if we have to protect their feelings? @@ExtremeSquared

[@robnobert]

@@ExtremeSquared yup -- and it's mostly because of people like you with that attitude that are willing to excuse themselves for being poor journalists "because nobody would talk to me" -- eventually that's what everyone is doing because nobody will stand up, when the small man becomes as corrupt as the big man just to make buck -- it's everyone's fault. Not just the politicians.

[@ExtremeSquared]

@@iamaduckquack By all means, shout it from your soapbox. I just don't think NSF is really obligated to be part of the fight against voter apathy that has caused a decades-long downwards trend in government accountability.

[@ryelor123]

@@iamaduckquack Its also that people working in those jobs run the risk of being fired if they say the wrong thing. In this case, what's really going on is the FAA doesn't want to deal with an experimental project that's in its testing phase. They're trying to shoe SpaceX away under the hopes that SpaceX will go to NASA.

[@JeffWusch]

Hmm, might then also recognize why Boeing get special treatment for the 737 Max issues.

[@senecan100]

They really should make two separate license companies FAA is for federal aviation administration, they should make one specifically for space launchs FSA

[@Fenn3k]

thank you john for this informative video that I could watch and learn from during my morning coffee

[@paulbugnacki7107]

Thanks for the informative breakdown. I have a way better understanding of the different agency roles.

[@aramtadevosyan]

NSF, you are great as always!!!

[@illwind56]

Thanks you for a very informative check of the facts regarding this. I doubt it will quiet the people that want to try and make an issue of it, but the rest of us are grateful.

[@NASASpaceflight]

Theres a ton of passion and emotion about these topics, which makes it even more important to get some facts out there . - Das

[@kylereese4822]

@@NASASpaceflight Does not realize Star Ship engines do not release Mercury but NASA`s SRB`s do.... Lora Kolodny's Post ... The violations were mostly related to SpaceX use of an unauthorized water deluge and flame deflector system that dumps wastewater with pollutants in it into the area 13 Aug 2024 Monday afternoon CNBC's Lora Kolodny released a report detailing SpaceX's violation of the Clean Water Act by releasing industrial waste water through its launch pad deluge system at Starbase, Texas.

[@somethinggeeky]

Play that whole interview you had with the FAA guy. I want to see it

[@redyau_]

+1! Members only maybe? ;)

[@gregcollins7042]

Thanks for the explanation. I had been wondering exactly that.

[@jimgold6004]

OK if what your saying is that in development for a NASA mission.... NASA is responsible. If that is the case then why isn,t Star Ship covered ?????

[@Barthhhelona]

Firstly, NASA has right of first refusal, so your question should be directed at NASA. Secondly, you seem to be assuming NASA would give Starship a free pass and move quicker than the FAA. You have no idea.. Maybe NASA oversight would slow things down more.

[@mikelee-i3b]

@@Barthhhelona ...perhaps but at least NASA would be the ones responsible for delays to the Artimus program......I suspect NASA would have a better understanding of what spacex is actually doing and why and be ok with a lot more than the FAA is.......At least NASA is more on par with spacex in rocket science...and rocket safety...

[@crazyalien42]

Great job guys! Thank you so much for the breakdown and details. Everything about space flight is so complicated and while we only want to see progress, the scale of these rockets, someone has to ensure we are all safe and there has never been progress on the pace SpaceX is at. Yes, things have to change to keep up with them, but it is such a complicated issue with so many moving parts around it, lets just hope for all of the Starship launches as quick as possible!

[@mieczyslawherba2723]

Thank you for the explanation, much knowledge to think over.

[@Eggasaurus_Rex]

Great vid - I didn't know much about this before so really enlightening!

[@NASASpaceflight]

Glad it brought some new insights! Was a good deal of research to put together properly. - Das

[@Eggasaurus_Rex]

@NASASpaceflight Well, thanks a lot Das. It was really valuable info!

[@interferon4800]

There's the post-hoc rationalization. Then there's the real reason that everyone knows by now.

[@JorisRobijn]

Grounded isn't a good term when the spacecraft in question is docked in space but prohibited from making further flights.

[@sandeepkapare]

Nice video. Highlighted some interesting facts those were not known and didn't occur.

[@dan72534]

Why can't NASA act as the operational oversight for Starship? This would cut out the FAA and maybe shorten the downtime between test flights. After all, future NASA Artimes missions will be supported by Starship.

[@takanara7]

If you had watched the video, you would know the answer to that - they can. The FAA only oversees a launch if NASA or the DOD doesn't want to do it. So basically it's NASA's choice.

[@steveaustin2686]

Because SpaceX started Starship development and flights BEFORE they got the HLS Option A contract? NASA noted in the Apr 2021 HLS Option A Source Selection Statement that HLS Starship and commercial uses of Starship could not be separated, as they both share soo much of the Starship technology.

[@Barthhhelona]

Based on the video and interview NASA has rights of first refusal. They probably didn't want to be responsible for public safety oversight on Starship developmental flights.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@takanara7 SpaceX also started started Starship flights, BEFORE they got the NASA HLS Option A contract. NASA noted in the Apr 2021 HLS Option A Source Selection Statement that HLS Starship and commercial uses of Starship could not be separated, as they both share soo much of the Starship technology.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@Barthhhelona SpaceX also started started Starship flights, BEFORE they got the NASA HLS Option A contract. NASA noted in the Apr 2021 HLS Option A Source Selection Statement that HLS Starship and commercial uses of Starship could not be separated, as they both share soo much of the Starship technology. The FAA vs SpaceX BS was started by some KZbin channels for clicks. Now the 'rah, rah, rah SpaceX rulz' fanbois take it as gospel. The fanbois are as bad as the SpaceX haters.

[@Trifler500]

Sounds like the difference with "grounded" would be, for example, that no Atlas V rockets could launch, whereas "may not return to flight means only one particular Atlas V is prohibited from launching.

[@DarylBCarr]

Great overview of the processes.

[@witchdoctor6502]

love these explanations videos, thank you Das & team

[@JustAThought01]

Thanks for making the effort to analyze and publish this complex material for the general public. One more time: knowledge trumps unsubstantiated opinion.

[@joecameron6373]

There is a fleet of Falcon 9s lol

[@MrDrBatmanlive]

Either that was a heavily redacted/ censured interview, or that was a wasted opportunity. Great break down and great info but I wanted more.

[@frankfrancies5711]

Great video. Thankyou Das

[@FlyingJim123]

Great information. Thanks for sharing!

[@madmmxx]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding after having listened to Das, regarding Starship and FAA, is that the Super Heavy is the launch system, devloped for commercial flights. The Starship in this case more like the dragon or starliner. Nasa is not involved in the starship development as is, whereas its all up to FAA to oversee the development and safety in this phase. Nasa is only involved in the development of the HLS and thats more of a parallel development of the Starship, not including its launch vehicle (super heavy) as such. But Nasa (not FAA) will most certainly oversee the development and the safety of the HLS moon landing when that time comes. Thats at least my interpretation of what Das have said.

[@bowtoy]

NO NO NO> The Faa is to make sure the Launches are safe, all around, PERIOD. There was a separate environmental review for Starbase itself, which has nothing to do with the FAA. This is about environmental damage due to Launches only!

[@joshuadupay1285]

You are pretty much right on the money, well said!

[@johit103067]

Awesome Vid! Great info! Thanks Das & NSF!

[@user-re6uu7wy8h]

That was great information to get cleared up. Thanks for all yall do!

[@thomasyoung1811]

Wait a minute, since starship is still in development and a part of NASA's mission (partially developed for NASA), why starship IFTs aren't licensed by NASA?

[@bowtoy]

SO Boeing built a Starliner Rocket, really? GO home before you hurt yourself. you're comparing rockets to orbiters.

[@philb5593]

You’d have to ask NASA and SpaceX that question. If NASA wanted to step in and handle all the licensing they could. No guarantee it would be faster. Maybe SpaceX prefers licensing under the FAA. Maybe they asked NASA to license Starship but were told no.

[@shuriken4852]

Small correction, the launch cadence... of SpaceX... went into the stratosphere. 😉

[@HeliosWorksAV]

Clear, thorough explanation, learned a lot. Thank you for the effort.

[@petergregorypottery5476]

Brilliant, thanks for investigating this and explaining it. Much appreciated :-)

[@DALKINION]

FAA...., hey we haven't licensed your starliner.. Boeing.....,So we're good to go into space??... FAA..., Yeah, why the hell not!,........... Godspeed ,!! Boeing,....WERE GOING TO NEED it !!!

[@wesley00042]

You should consider watching the video.

[@Barthhhelona]

Please watch the video and listen.

[@jrdaparker]

Great video DAS and the NSF team. I learned quite a bit about licensing that I didn’t know before

[@dgthall]

Super helpful and super interesting, thank you!

[@vicentedias3492]

Great video! I got my self a question: if NASA take responsability for launch of test vehicles, why tey don't do the same for Starship, especially with the great interest that they have in the HLS?

[@NASASpaceflight]

Might have something to do with testing from a NASA facility like KSC vs a private facility like Starbase. We've been trying to get NASA on so they can answer this. - Das

[@locomanjim1554]

Great Job DAS Thanks!

[@andersgustafsson6599]

I would appreciate to watch more of the interview with FAA guy. Out of respect to him I also hope you will publish it at some point.

[@jeffkrupke3810]

Thanks for the great video. I understand now.

[@david1514]

Will Starship HLS be licensed under NASA or the FAA?

[@Barthhhelona]

My guess is NASA as is a NASA commissioned vehicle.

[@JeffWusch]

So Boeing getting a free pass, how much does a launch license cost?

[@bowtoy]

yeah it's included in the price Boeing pays ULA to put Starliner on a ROCKET and launch it to space. I'll bet ULA needed a launch license from the FAA though huh? morons

[@ghost307]

Usually 3 senators is enough. Based on when Illinois tried to sell off Barack Hussein Obama's vacated senate seat, senators run around $100,000 apiece (plus an appropriate inflation adjustment).

[@robinleicester]

Thanks Das and the writers. Obvious now youv'e explained it, but that is because you explained it!

[@DoctorAndy46]

TLDF; starliner hasn't graduated yet, whereas falcon 9 is a productive member of the workforce and was/is having its performance reviewed.

[@hazcat640]

Very informative! Thanks

[@burninghey]

Makes me wonder why Starship - as in early development - is NOT under the Nasa protection. Afterall, Nasa wants to use Starliner as a crew vehicle too.

[@ricinro]

Space launches tend to shut down activity near launch site and thousands of miles downrange for sea and air traffic. Seems like there are also international warnings. A few launches here and there but now the volume of launches is starting to go exponential to where the world may need to consolidate these areas into near permanent keep out areas including down range and landing sites.

[@peterwilson7532]

Amazing what happens when you actually understand how the system works. Fantastic video, sick of these, quick to express an ignorant, emotional point of view types, that fill many comment sections.

[@johnlynch5007]

Thanks Das. Always learn a lot form your videos.

[@rodmills4071]

He stuck his head above the parapart and didn't back the current administration....blind Freddy can see this.

[@Tahanus7]

But space x has fleets of rockets

[@arthur1670]

Why did they not just keep it inside the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Why double up with FAA

[@1966jcar]

starliner looks like 40 year old junk