The FAA Will Not Be Investigating Vulcan’s Anomaly

[@nickg9876]

Makes total sense a rocket launching on its second launch and has a problem and doesn’t get grounded meanwhile a rocket that’s launched nearly 400 times gets grounded after a minor anomaly

[@cornerpage6634]

I think the key part was the minor anomaly put the debris outside designated hazard area.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

@@cornerpage6634 That is absolutely the reason. Virgin Galactic also was investigated for going outside of their designated operations area.

[@chrisolix3441]

​@cornerpage6634 outside of us territory and landed in uninhabited pacific ocean. This is a nothing burger.

[@CensoredUsername_]

Again: The FAA gets involved when things involve the public and public space. That's their task. They don't care if you launch a bad rocket that blows itself apart, as long as the risk of failure was anticipated, and the failure was contained within the planned risk areas. If you don't want the FAA to ground you, you only drop stuff where it's meant to drop, you land where you indicated you would land, and you crash where you said you would possibly crash. Stick to that and you can retry a mission as many times as you want. Vulcan explicitly spent extra fuel to make sure the SRBs still dropped down in the designated splash zone after the SRB anomaly. They don't get grounded. The Falcon 9 upper stage fell outside of the intended splash-down zone. Luckily there wasn't anything there, but that was not something that was actually checked in advance. They do get grounded. That's how simple it is.

[@mathewferstl7042]

Another ill informed spacex fanboy

[@bat2293]

ULA got lucky. That kind of SRB failure is extemely dangerous and could have resulted in the loss of the entire booster stack. However, the Vulcan core booster, by hitting its orbital window, looks like it is just barely "certifiable". The FAA initial statement was so ludicrous as to be amusing. Or put another way _laughable_ .

[@javierderivero9299]

Lucky?? yes some luck...... but the ingeniers were able to compensate for the problem...that's why it was successful......otherwise the rocket would have exploded ...and the problem was the NG booster

[@Anubisuicideify]

ULA did get lucky in that none of the nozzle debris struck Centaur/Vulcan. The SRB that failed was NOT being tested on this launch. The test articles passed with flying colors even considering HAVING to compensate for the wacky thrust.

[@Hungary_0987]

​@@javierderivero9299thats not What he meant. He meant lucky in terms of the srb not ripping itself apart and causing a full rocket failure.

[@geesehoward700]

You could be right. I'm surprised the FAA didn't do anything which could mean ULA have something in place for the next launch. However I'd have thought they would at least need another flight to certify.

[@TiberiusMaximus]

@@javierderivero9299 ingeniers? the onboard computer compensated for the problem not the ingeniers, whoever or whatever that is

[@trentwalker989]

Well if this tells you the FAA isn't biased I don't know what will

[@sarkaranish]

The problem you're forgetting is that Falcon 9 didn't deorbit correctly and there was debris outside the debris field. This is a safety hazard and could kill people. ULA had no such issue. Starship was not investigated for raptors blowing up midflight. In fact, they can launch the Flight 4 launch profile if they want to.

[@NorthernChev]

ULA posted a NOTAM for their launch and all pieces fell WITHIN that NOTAM. SpaceX posted a NOTAM for their launch and their parts DID NOT fall within that NOTAM. --> HENSE THE INVESTIGATION. But I don't doubt for even a second that you still think you're correct. 🤡

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

What a fool you just proved you are. You don't think at all do you? Not even a little. Good grief you ignorant stains are the biggest threat to humanity that exists.

[@TomDrez]

Vulcan Centaur isn't an NSSL orbital vehicle, Falcon 9 is

[@trucksanddirt1506]

another Musk's Brainless buttlicker speaking of things he doesn't understand. There are plenty of SpaceX fora. Go worship Musk there and let intelligent people discuss here.

[@dionysus2006]

I don't see what the problem is. A 15 ft chunk of the rocket fell off and fell into the Atlantic where it wasn't supposed to. No risk to the public. It is a well known fact there are no boats off the coast of Florida.

[@heyaisdabomb]

A space X rocket tipped over on a drone ship in the middle of ocean after anj almost perfect landing, got grounded. Space X landed outside of their landing zone still in the middle of the ocean, got grounded. Space x has a minor issue on the second stage of the booster that was easily corrected, just like this flight, got grounded. It's the double standard that's a problem.

[@NorthernChev]

ULA posted a NOTAM for their launch and all pieces fell WITHIN that NOTAM. SpaceX posted a NOTAM for their launch and their parts DID NOT fall within that NOTAM. --> HENSE THE INVESTIGATION. But I don't doubt for even a second that you still think you're correct. /facepalm.

[@TiberiusMaximus]

@@NorthernChev WOW, people are actually defending the govt. /facepalm

[@NorthernChev]

@@TiberiusMaximus Wow, people are actually ignoring the fact that there's absolutely no correlation between the two... Well done.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

Wow, you clearly know FAR less than you pretend you do. You fools are prone to that.

[@kuckoo9036]

Seems as though Boeing employees still work in the FAA.

[@Anubisuicideify]

womp womp

[@sarkaranish]

It was BECAUSE boeing employees worked for the FAA that we had the boeing 737 max kill people. The FAA is going slow and safely because they don't want people to die.

[@heyaisdabomb]

They do... This has been a documented problem, and is why Boeing got away with so much for so long. The revolving door between Boeing and the FAA creates a clear conflict of interest.

[@NorthernChev]

That makes absolutely no sense. But I don't doubt you thought it did. They are opposing forces in unrelated positions. The joke didn't work.

[@TiberiusMaximus]

@@NorthernChev you could be a new super hero..GOVT MAN! Protecting the innocent men and women of the industrial military complex

[@torben777]

In case you missed it, the difference is that the Falcon 9 landed outside the safety area. Falcon 9 has had two other accidents recently. In both of these the FAA decided not to investigate further. First time it launched again in 15 days. Second time in 3 days.

[@AmbientMorality]

SpaceX still completes the investigation for the other two, they just got approval to continue launching before the investigation is finished. Worth noting the FAA always delegates investigation to the company

[@geesehoward700]

FAA didnt investigate when the raptors explode on take off so why should they investigate the SRB?

[@callumcurtis15]

Fair point I've never even considered that. The only difference for me would be the fact that if a full vehicle breakup had occurred a SRB could have remained intact and continued firing to an uncontrolled course .

[@LizardGuy50]

@@callumcurtis15 also it should be pointed out that the raptors on starship shut themselves down instead of actually exploding

[@callumcurtis15]

@@LizardGuy50 If you ignore flight one then yes 😂

[@geesehoward700]

@@LizardGuy50 We've seen more than enough raptors exploding but sure, they definitely shut down after that.

[@arangelrb]

because Musketers are mad

[@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958]

Whether or not they investigate depends on which company is involved. SpaceX would be grounded for this (60 days, then another agency can trigger another 60 day delay on day 59 of the first delay)

[@sarkaranish]

The problem you're forgetting is that Falcon 9 didn't deorbit correctly and there was debris outside the debris field. This is a safety hazard and could kill people. ULA had no such issue. Starship was not investigated for raptors blowing up midflight. In fact, they can launch the Flight 4 launch profile if they want to. Stop being a SpaceX fanboy.

[@tomnguyen9931]

ODOR's BOT? even his own BOT acted STUPID!!!

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

Nonsense. If you don't understand what's going on just stay quiet. Making things up only proves you're a fool.

[@wyattnoise]

Would be hilarious to see Bruno and Musk sit down and discuss rocket from an engineering standpoint. Musk would be so flustered.

[@davidstevenson9517]

You're not talking white noise, Wyatt; but, like his good friend Donald Trump and his MAGA Supporters, Musks SpaceX Fanboys would cheer him on and still claim victory anyway! Hello from New Zealand. 📺🤠✔🚀🛠👦⁉️🌏🇳🇿🦎☀️🌊

[@TiberiusMaximus]

@@davidstevenson9517 so right, its Trumps fault. Looks like TDS has spread its ugly tentacles all the way down to NZ. Relax

[@TiberiusMaximus]

@@davidstevenson9517 who can argue w all those emoji's, I wonder what your pronoun is

[@i-love-space390]

I do not like Musk's politics, but his interview with The Everyday Astronaut, who asked many highly technical questions, showed that Elon Musk may be "self-taught", but he does know what engineering decisions have been made and the rationale for them, and he was the decider on all of them for his company. He is well aware of engineering trade offs. I think his stubborn insistence on affordable, efficient reusability in the face of naysaying blowback from his engineers is the single most important reason we HAVE a reusable 1st stage on Falcon 9, and so many other companies are pursuing the same. (People learned the WRONG lessons from Shuttle. Economical reusability is not impossible if you make the correct engineering decisions to make it possible.) That being said, "hubris, thy name is Elon". He is also pigheaded and risk taking. (See Rain, Concrete in the spacefight dictionary).

[@blairseaman461]

That's IT! I'll never fly on a ULA rocket. I mean it.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Me too! In future, my Space Cruises will only be on those SpaceX Starships, with my children; SpaceX Starships are perfectly safe! Elon said so. Elon has explained that all his Starships are performing just the way he wants. All A-OK! MARS is my holiday destination 5 years from now; thanks to ELON MUSK! (I'll make sure to bring sunscreen along; I hear the Sun on Mars is a bit strong)

[@davidwebb4904]

@@davidstevenson9517If you want to vacation on Mars, before going all that way to then be disappointed, try Lanzarote, Spain. Its basically Mars without the Spacesuits.

[@TomDrez]

You'll never have a ride in space on any rockets

[@themartianway]

Iol

[@nickg9876]

Is the FAA picking favorites

[@Anubisuicideify]

Nope. Just holding companies responsible for dropping stages where they shouldn't be.

[@glytchd]

Yes. Sane with FEMA. Do ppl not realize this has been planned for 15yrs? Is a total attack on all of our infrastructure. Both capital and energy, transport food etc. Started with cash for klunkrrs and ethanol. Look how mammy farms have been replaced by Chinese warehouses the past 5 years. We lost what like 12% of farmable land?? Also look up what hairbrush to Amish farms the past year

[@glytchd]

​@@Anubisuicideify are you being paid or do u have tehDumbz?

[@salty_berserker_channel]

What's also fascinating is the speed at which the FAA made the decision to not pursue an investigation. 24 hours later. And yet it takes them extended periods of time to respond to SpaceX

[@Anubisuicideify]

@@glytchd Oh, child. Poor child.

[@Mentaculus42]

🤔 Whatever is wrong is no small thing. Seems like an interesting decision. ULA has a nontrivial problem. Personally I would be concerned. This could have gone badly. BUT it was a great test of ULA’s flight control systems!

[@_starfiend]

The SRB's were not built by ULA. The Vulcan rocket passed with flying colours. The boosters however ...

[@Mentaculus42]

@@_starfiend True, but still kinda a mixed bag. This has to be fixed as why will the military risk a very expensive satellite on a launch system that has this type of failure (considering that it might have gone very badly). This was not the type of problem that should have surfaced at this point in time. I find it rather perplexing. I really expected the launch to go flawlessly, but better to have it happen now and be fixed. It is just that the SRBs are a very mature technology. If I were ULA, I would be rather concerned. And what is different with these SRBs than what they have been using. I hope that ULA will be reasonably open about this issue.

[@The5hadow712]

The geniuses at FAA grounded the falcon 9, but let’s ULA Continue for same reason. 🤬🤬🤬🤬😤🤬🤬😤🤬😤

[@sarkaranish]

The problem you're forgetting is that Falcon 9 didn't deorbit correctly and there was debris outside the debris field. This is a safety hazard and could kill people. ULA had no such issue. Starship was not investigated for raptors blowing up midflight. In fact, they can launch the Flight 4 launch profile if they want to.

[@TiberiusMaximus]

@@sarkaranish yea pal relax

[@icylime3607]

@@sarkaranishA solid rocket booster exploding is a serious safety hazard. The only reason the Vulcan survived was dumb luck. If things had gone differently, we could have seen a complete loss of the stack with those same solid rocket boosters detaching and uncontrollably flying anywhere. This has nothing to do with Starship. Starship is a prototype vehicle under a test flight license. Vulcan is supposed to be an operational rocket whose whole mission was to demonstrate their ability to safely and reliably deliver military payloads. A booster nozzle exploding does in no way shape or form demonstrate that the vehicle is safe and or reliable.

[@cardboard9124]

@@icylime3607 it wasn't because vulcan is unproven, so the FAA knew it was more of a safety risk, since this was made clear before the launch, its okay for the vulcan to blow up

[@sarkaranish]

@@icylime3607 Vulcan is NOT an operational vehicle, it is still in certification. But the thing that Vulcan did correctly is not spread debris outside the debris field which is what matters most.

[@bigianh]

Vulcan had an anomaly but kept to their agreed mission profile SpaceX's recent anomaly caused them to drop their 2nd stage outside of the agreed area for which safety warnings for shipping had been issued of course the FAA is asking for an investigation. Basically Elon is arguing with a traffic cop because his spongey breaks caused him to run a red light whereas ULA had engine problems but managed not to commit any traffic violations hence no ticket

[@TiberiusMaximus]

I see, so it all comes down to Trump. You saw Elon with the evil orange menace and now everything he does is wrong

[@reardenbentley9622]

@@TiberiusMaximuseither you’re a bot, or you’re incredibly stupid. where the fuck did the commenter mention trump?

[@ScienceCavas]

@@TiberiusMaximus His arguments were reasonable, though? Logically, an investigation should be conducted. Theoretically, nothing in the FAA's jurisdiction went wrong. Realistically, the investigation ULA will conduct will be throughout enough.

[@bigianh]

​@@TiberiusMaximuspfft I'm in the UK so won't be voting for either of the Muppet options you have in November. All I said was that ULA didn't run a stop sign but spacex did so guess who gets the citation

[@dionysus2006]

"This is fine"

[@chko8888]

Screw FAA. Period.

[@devindykstra]

Wh!? Seriously what's going on!? The FAA needs to give a better explanation on what's going on here. Either they need to investigate every failure or not! What criteria did ULA meet that SpaceX didn't?

[@plainText384]

My guess would be that the Vulcan Centaur still managed to complete it's missions within the margins set out in the flight plans/ the launch liscence that was agreed apon before the launch. When Falcon 9 was grounded, the vehicle was supposed to do something and a failure prevented it from doing so. That wasn't the case here. Vulcan Centaur did everything it was meant to inspite of the SRB issue.

[@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958]

@@plainText384 Falcon 9 was grounded after failing a droneship landing after completing its mission perfectly except the landing

[@plainText384]

@@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958 So? The plan for the mission was to land the booster and an anomally prevented them from doing so.

[@geesehoward700]

You know you can read their regulations right. They have a website and everything....

[@sarkaranish]

The problem you're forgetting is that Falcon 9 didn't deorbit correctly and there was debris outside the debris field. This is a safety hazard and could kill people. ULA had no such issue. Starship was not investigated for raptors blowing up midflight. In fact, they can launch the Flight 4 launch profile if they want to.

[@wkjeeping9053]

FAA is trying to save the other commercial space companies from humiliation. Spacex catches the booster on the first try, it will leap spacex so far ahead of the other companies there will struggle on catching up. Spacex would start putting full interiors in starship and cargo launching starlink at 1k units at a time. The FAA is holding our future back!!

[@javierderivero9299]

First try???....you must be joking???...SpaceX has blown so many rockets before it got it right...even starship is failing not yet a fully usable rocket....not even for 2026 date of Artemis III landing on the moon....

[@catbertz]

@@javierderivero9299 His second sentence is missing the crucial word "If" at the beginning.

[@Anubisuicideify]

Oh please. We are not casting for a drama so please contain yourself.

[@archdornan3694]

@@catbertzidk if it’s the channel or just this video in particular but the comments are filled with people who blindly worship elon musk

[@sarkaranish]

The problem you're forgetting is that Falcon 9 didn't deorbit correctly and there was debris outside the debris field. This is a safety hazard and could kill people. ULA had no such issue. Starship was not investigated for raptors blowing up midflight. In fact, they can launch the Flight 4 launch profile if they want to.

[@aowi7280]

Government money. Can't appear to be wasteful.

[@eddjordan2399]

soooooooo why have they grounded starship? the Faa is in the pockets of the old aerospace company's.

[@TheMoneypresident]

Because they sent the papers in very late. Then demanded special treatment.

[@Anubisuicideify]

Starship in the IFT4 configuration COULD fly right now. Elmo chose to change the configuration which requires new approvals. How do you guys not understand this?

[@CensoredUsername_]

Starship isn't grounded. The FAA considers starship flight 4 to have been a success, even with the flap burn through anomaly, and they are free to reuse the mission license for that. I repeat, Starship is NOT grounded. SpaceX however wants to perform a different mission for flight 5, which means a new license application. Those take time. SpaceX was late with paperwork to the point of changing things in August.

[@greghight954]

I think it has more to do with Elons political standings.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

Boy you didn't even try and see if any of that nonsense you were spoon fed and repeating was true did you? Another mindless done. The next generation of brown shirts.

[@TechDude452]

Good 😊

[@PCMcGee1]

Certainly doesn't feel like Spacex is being treated fairly. I think this is a critical time to avoid getting political about space exploration.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

I think it's past time for you to actually learn what the FAA does and why so you can FINALLY for the first time perhaps EVER have an informed opinion.

[@pilotdawn1661]

New Launch date for flight 5 - Wed. Nov 6

[@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958]

Won't be allowed until after New Glenn flies.

[@EarlDorman-w7d]

@@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958 this is probably a guarantee, just like the hold ups for the first F9 launch to the ISS trying to get Boeing there first.

[@NorthernChev]

@@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958 ZERO correlation between New Glenn and Starship. And Starship has already flown FOUR TIMES. /facepalm logic

[@TheGalacticIndian]

Of course, why would they do that? After all, it's not SpaceX. Election time!

[@sarkaranish]

The problem you're forgetting is that Falcon 9 didn't deorbit correctly and there was debris outside the debris field. This is a safety hazard and could kill people. ULA had no such issue. Starship was not investigated for raptors blowing up midflight. In fact, they can launch the Flight 4 launch profile if they want to.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

There are real reasons for why. What are the chances you'd eve think of informing yourself first vs just blindly repeating what others are saying? Exactly zero. You're going to be told what you think ever step of the way. A perfect mindless obedient drone.

[@KamalaChameleon]

ULA: chunks of rocket fall off FAA: Good job! SpaceX: 400 safe flights FAA: you're grounded you POS!!

[@cardboard9124]

because spacex doesn't say "hey this rocket isn't proven yet so it may blow up" when ula tested the vulcan they said "hey this rocket might blow up"

[@KamalaChameleon]

​@@cardboard9124 🤡 they didn't get a FAA investigation. ULA or Northrup who builds the solid boosters should of gotten an investigation

[@The5hadow712]

The geniuses at FAA grounded the Falcon 9, but let’s ULA Continue for same reason. The FAA is not only two-faced, but has a fork tongue !!!!🤬🤬🤬🤬😤🤬🤬😤🤬😤

[@NorthernChev]

ULA posted a NOTAM for their launch and all pieces fell WITHIN that NOTAM. SpaceX posted a NOTAM for their launch and their parts DID NOT fall within that NOTAM. --> HENSE THE INVESTIGATION. You just made an ID10T error in your logic, but I don't doubt for even a second that you still think it's correct. /facepalm.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

No, you just don't really understand what's going on like every other fool desperately trying to pretend. You will always be led by the nose.

[@lyricbread]

To all you FAA haters and SpaceX fanboys: This anomaly was not dissimilar to one of the Raptor engines failing during the last Starship test flight, which didn’t trigger an investigation. Familiarize yourself with the FAA’s documentation regarding what classifies a mishap before reaching for the pitchforks.

[@archdornan3694]

but…but….guberment evil! massive corporation good! -spacex sheep

[@tomnguyen9931]

They are way too stupid to know the different!

[@archdornan3694]

@@lyricbread lmao given that every single comment has been deleted i can only assume the channel is biased towards spacex breeding the fanboys

[@davidstevenson9517]

You TELL 'EM, Lyricbread! Make those brainless SpaceX Fanboy Cheerleaders squirm! Familiarity? With what? SpaceX Cultists live in an Escapist World of "wishful thinking"; not "Rules" or "Economics" or "Feasibilty". Spoils the Fantasy. Hello from New Zealand.

[@fernandaolivera5595]

You are right BUT you can't blame SpaceX fans for assuming FAA is at fault, this video is intentionally provoking with the title and FAA has been biased lately.

[@patrickjudd4575]

Hmmmm... Nothing to see here... A major anomaly on a new rocket's 2nd flight... Whatever...

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

How major was it again?

[@patrickjudd4575]

@@TheEvilmooseofdoom The srb nozzel exploded and or disintegrated... It was edging on a RUD...

[@AmbientMorality]

⁠@@patrickjudd4575 The nozzle failing isn't going to cause a motor failure; it's supersonic flow so it can't even affect upstream conditions. Also, "close to a failure" is not a criterion for a mishap because that could not be easily or objectively determined at all.

[@patrickjudd4575]

@@AmbientMorality So nothing abnormal happened?????? That rocket is fully operational and not a test flight???????? They are lucky the srb didn't just explode, and take the whole rocket out... Nah, let's just let the legacy rocket company keep flying rockets that lose nozzles... Nothing to see here...

[@AmbientMorality]

@@patrickjudd4575 at no point did i say any of that. did you read my comment?

[@RichardShelton]

We all know what's going on, don't we? Didn't Musk attend the Trump rally today? Hmmm.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Birds of a feather, will all flock together. All Flocking as One! 🚀🐀👦🏟👴🐘🏛🎪🇺🇸

[@davidstevenson9517]

I LOVE FAA.

[@scottwendt9575]

😶

[@marks7502]

faa

[@ltdees2362]

No political bias here...we just don't like SpaceX's success rate 😎

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

No, you're just demonstrably ignorant.

[@chrisp7652]

They play for the current administration.

[@NorthernChev]

That was such a bot thing to say I had to look you up. You got luck on this one... As it turns out, you're just an American repeating foreign dis-information talking points rather than actually knowing what's going on. ...which is actually WORSE than being a bot.

[@_starfiend]

Requiring an investigation is not the same as grounding.

[@alexreiz6128]

Of course they won't. Cause it's kinda different type of problem on second, still successful launch. And basically solid booster problem is question to Northrop, not ULA themselves. Idk why people so cultish to make everything about SpaceX, when they couldn't even build launchpad right and by bribing their way into funding(one temporary in position person choice instead of committee by lady whom magically after get into SpaceX after securing bag) screwed up Artemis timeline. And refueling isn't even on horizon, let alone landing. Failure after failure. While ULA keep delivering solid performance after solid performance for years, without "at least we got bunch of telemetry".

[@joellewis6086]

There is no world where the Story of SpaceX, and the story of Starship up to this point, is accurately described as 'failure after failure'. I don't even need to argue any of facts( vs. your subjective take on them) that you state. To say that SpaceX and Starship represent failures - with the same set of facts you state - is not rational. You are literally saying that ULA's history represents a greater record record of accomplishment than SpaceX. And you are doing so based on the fact that test launches that SpaceX *explicitly predict* will suffer some kind of anomaly do just that, while accomplishing more than Musk says is likely before the launch, as well as one launch history involving one explosive failure due to poor quality control on the part of a supplier of one of the few parts of the launcher that SpaceX did not manufacture in house at that time; one explosion during pressurization testing due to an issue with one of the pad supply tanks; and one partial failure as a result of the only - and explosive - mission failure of a Merlin engine that the rocket shrugged off to *still* reach a lower orbit; as well as the recent 1) failure to safely land and recover the most used first stage in SpaceX's fleet on it's now final launch, 2) loss of SpaceX's own Starlink payload due to an upper stage leak, purportedly down to a sensor malfunction, and 3) off nominal but safe deorbiting of a second stage landed that reentered and burned up outside of it's intended area, likely due to second stage under burn leading to a higher perigee and a reentry and 'disposal' downrange from the intended landing zone. One customer payload lost on the pad during fuel testing, one lost in flight due to a supplier part defect making the part break off, leading to a giant *kaboom*, one lost due to the rocket shrugging off a single engine explosion leading to a final orbit too low for the payload to do it's job. And from the debut of block 5 in late 2015 to today, almost nine years and several hundred launches later, has seen the recent loss of *one* payload, the company's own, due to a non explosive leak in the second stage that may well have arisen from a faulty sensor. Weighed against the cost, recovery, and market dominance that SpaceX now holds, versus ULA and every other major launch provider, *that* record is one that you would say demonstrates less reliability, and a company with less substance than ULA's brand launcher with two successful launches under it's belt? Sorry - I don't buy that; the conclusion does *not* follow from the facts brought up to defend it.

[@jxpat]

Yeah the launch license estimate after Trump wins the election 🤔🤣👍

[@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958]

I was going to vote for Harris, but if Trump plans to make Elon the FAA chair, he's got my vote. Its so clear the FAA is deliberately harming SpaceX while letting ULA and Boeing off the hook every time they screw up. I thought the purpose of the FAA was to prevent doors and tires from falling off Boeing planes onto people on the ground.

[@_starfiend]

F'ing hope not. That really would kill everything. The Rump for jail!

[@varietyegg]

​@@_starfiendmore like the Harris campaign is going too kill spaceX and let other companies continue 😞

[@bagofholding]

@@_starfiend Exactly. I don't care if the FAA under Trump might like SpaceX better. It's not worth the rest of the anti-science Christian Nationalism that Project 2025 brings to the table.

[@glytchd]

​​@@_starfiend uhm. You DO realize the Democrat party has been a front for the NWO Communists since the CLINTON administration.. right?? Like Clinton litterally caused the 2008 housing crisis with his community assistance act alone.. Then cash for Clunkers destroyed all or cheap fuel whoever Efficient cars from the 90s. And ethanol caused them all the good ones to burn up. Now wee know ethanol is actually really bad for the ENVIROMENT and bad for fuel efficiency. But it takes up about 1/5th of our corn production. So blame Obama and school leaders food programs for food prices being high. In 2009 cars Went from 1200$ for a runner to 6000+ in 4years.. and our private debt doubled. now you can't even fix your own car. And they cost 50k.. Yet evs catch fire all the time and leave behind permanent cancer causing crap.. 1 due destroys an entire parking complex. Do you but know who has been responsible for preventing us from having nuclear power. Instead forcing us to b use coal and now being natural gas which is absolutely essential to folks outside cities Wake up child- idiocracy and 1984 tried to warn you

[@trucksanddirt1506]

Nothingburger