Why Can't Falcon 9 Fly? SpaceX Grounded (for now)

NSF's John Galloway is back, asking why the Federal Aviation Administration is able to ground SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket.
An anomaly occurred during the launch of SpaceX's Starlink 9-3 mission, causing the payloads to be lost and the second stage to reenter the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner. Was there actually any danger? What will it take before SpaceX can launch again?
⚡ 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 (‪@KSpaceAcademy‬ )
🎥 Video from D Wise, SpaceX, and NASA
✂️ Edited by Thomas Hayden
💼 Produced by John Galloway
🔍 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...)

[@grumpygreg7505]

I really like it when Das gets - how to say - into the information. The expressions, the animation, the asides goes to make the entire (sometimes rather dry) block of info interesting and engaging. Great job John & the entire crew.

[@NASASpaceflight]

The fact that your username is "grumpygreg" makes this comment even more meaningful. Thank you! 😅 - Das

[@Vernon-Luckerfinn]

😅​@@NASASpaceflight

[@anthonycamilleri7297]

@@grumpygreg7505 my sentiments precisely

[@dr4d1s]

Das, I really miss you being one of the usual presenters/hosts like in the old days. You have an engineering oriented mind, great critical thinking/analytical skills and an eye for the details. I know that you have a more important role in designing and implementing the systems and procedures that NSF uses to do what it does though. Not many on the current presenter team can really dig into something and explain it like you do. So it's always a pleasure when you pop up for a video like this.

[@NASASpaceflight]

I appreciate the kind words, and am very lucky to have so many folks on the NSF team to help carry the load. 💜 - Das

[@dr4d1s]

@@NASASpaceflight You are most welcome Das. I know from experience it can be a thankless job working behind the scenes to keep things running smoothly (I am a Network Engineer myself). Credit where credit is due.

[@rigomrtz]

Totally agree. Miss das

[@Bqd23]

Love the way DAS explains it all. Thanks Das.

[@Sir_Viver]

There's the joke "We're from the government and we're here to help." This is one of the few exceptions where that really is a true statement, and not a joke. Thanks for the explanation!

[@billsimpson604]

Yep, every civilization has a government for a reason. We could not live for very long without a government and some form of banks. Well, you could live, but life would be a lot harder & shorter.

[@mahbriggs]

Good explanation! No hype, no hysteria, just good information.

[@joaohenriqueneuhaus2023]

I literally began following NSF because one of Da's videos. This man is a master

[@joesharp5602]

Glad I found your channel and subscribed. No click bait, great analysis, delivery, and well thought out useful information. Keep the great content coming our way. With great respect... Joe

[@NASASpaceflight]

Appreciate that Joe, welcome aboard! - Das (guy in this video)

[@MrKellymcilrath]

Great DASplaneing John, Let's hope it's not long before we see Falcon 9 bak in service! Thank you John, & Thank you NSF!!!!

[@rays2506]

Excellent summary of that F9 second stage problem.

[@CarlosMDominguez]

I'm so glad to see you on video again. Looking fwd to see you on NSF streams as well. Thank you Das.

[@corrinastanley125]

Thanks NSF team, Das-explanation video's are always interesting and useful.

[@AKTROOPER1]

5:47 I have never seen this video before and I'm happy that I now have

[@LodeRunner-to2pt]

@DAS excellent report and great clarification!

[@drfirechief8958]

This one of the most detailed, interesting and concise explanation I heard of this event. Glad Das is back to make it all clear. When it needs to be explained, Das is the man.

[@NASASpaceflight]

Thanks, always happy when I can find time to knock out a video. 👍 - Das

[@Objectorder]

Das is the GOAT!!! 🗣🗣

[@Rhaegal_Meh]

DasPlainer videos are the best

[@_starfiend]

Brilliant explanation and summary. Thank you.

[@IamJoeTV]

Good ole DAS video!!

[@davidhuber6251]

Excellent explainer! Thank you.

[@minibeefcake]

It's been too long since Das does a long form video. Great information as always.

[@capicolaspicy]

Love the way you break it all down and share the story - thank you!

[@DebraJean196]

Very nice and informative as always Das. Appreciate the insight! Well written Alex!

[@needleonthevinyl]

Really great video guys. Very understandable without being over simplified.

[@Julius_Hardware]

Yikes! Concur! We do need another of these. Oh dear...

[@patgalloway2228]

Yea!! Das is back like in the old days!!! Gotta love das 😊

[@NASASpaceflight]

Thanks for your completely objective and unbiased praise, Mom! - Das

[@jeffpalser4928]

Great discussion and presentation

[@David-ii3lt]

Great explanation, John. Right to the heart of this without any wording delay. You're better than most TV news talking heads, LOL Like the ones on NBC 😂

[@Gambler93]

Das, thanks for breaking this down & making the facts clear for everyone

[@mcgyvr4765]

MORE DAS MORE BETTER......... Its nice to have a thorough explanation in situations like these. #DasFan

[@MarcelHuguenin]

Awesome explanation Dash!

[@SebastianWellsTL]

Das you do a great job at presentations and explaining things!

[@NASASpaceflight]

Thank you! I do enjoy it 👍 - Das

[@ulrichmietz8232]

Excellent one, Das!

[@AstroMaggus]

Thanks very much. Very cool and clean explanation on the how and why FAA works 👍

[@thespectator2976]

Stuff like this happens. Learn from it and do better :) Nice video

[@zapfanzapfan]

Ok, now I want an ice sculpture in orbit, that would be an interesting experiment/art project to watch.

[@darkace5959]

I love DAS explainer videos!

[@NASASpaceflight]

Me too! wait... - Das

[@konkam744]

@@NASASpaceflight hol' up.....

[@JenniferA886]

Great report 👍👍👍

[@CatsInTheHouse48]

Great update and explanation! Thank you!

[@IsabellaIsabella-mc1tx]

Great explanaitions. Thanks ❤

[@randyblake2006]

Technically, any such anomaly would "ground the fleet", however, before Spacex, "the fleet" usually consisted of only one rocket, and the grounding would have had no visible impact on "the fleet". A major consideration with F9 is that it is a human-rated vehicle, subject to far greater scrutiny than mere space junk launchers.

[@dredlock3000]

Awesome explanation Das 👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾

[@AlineSantos-hy1hq]

Das, my dream is to be able to communicate like you do, great job!!

[@horman1973]

Something spacey needs to be explained... it's DAS-time! Thx John for this explaination!

[@13Jared]

All interesting stuff NSF. I'd love nothing more than for launch providers keeping their cadence but also the US isn't China. I do think there is value in not dropping stages on peoples homes. I appreciate that there is a system in place to help make sure that we are as safe as we can be. IMO this should extend to US airspace, global airspace, LEO, MEO, HEO, our moon, Mars and it's moons and beyond. I hope that in 200 years the US is still taking steps to not drop rocket stages on someone's home on the moon. Or maybe moon gravity would make that a moot point idk. Thanks NSF.

[@ThexBorg]

Thanks John

[@davidlabedz2046]

Good report!

[@williegillie5712]

Probably just a line that wasn’t tightened properly or possibly a bad seal. They should have sensors that showed where the pressure leak was coming from.

[@sdebeaubien]

Yeah, thanks Das. I believe SpaceX will return to flight this week, with Option 2 checked off, no danger to public and didn't involve safety critical systems. Was simply a glitch, a valve failure, LOX line or something that developed a significant leak for whatever reason and led to the demise of the rocket/stage/engine. The RUD on the engine likely caused by too much fuel, not enough O2.

[@tomsheridan989]

I love almost all of NSF, but Das delivers with passion and a refreshing lack of shtick.

[@Pintuuuxo]

Very nice video! Finished watching at 3am. 😮

[@Papershields001]

You want to know why the FAA needs to be complied with and Spacex shouldn’t have cart-blanche to do whatever they want? The 737 MAX. Regulation is a good thing.

[@admarsandbeyond]

Which FAA refused to ground at the beginning despite the hundreds of deaths, and was only forced to do so after everyone else grounded them and the public outrage. But that's Boeing not SpaceX

[@elkjagger]

great video!

[@ronwatkins5775]

I don't think item #4 applies, as it says "High Risk". I would think the risk was low. Also, the FAA doesn't ground all of an airlines flights or all of a specific model of aircraft because of a crash (aka RUD). Aircraft mishaps happen all the time, granted at a very low percentage, but a single event doesn't automatically ground all aircraft of that model or airline. Generally it takes investigation before they decide if an "Air Worthiness Directive" will be issued. While such groundings have happened in the past, it's not normally the default action in the case of a crash. Also, when it comes to spaceflight a 1/334 risk is not that bad at all. That is like 0.3%.

[@mtem2253]

Exellent and informative, we even got DAS! Only thing missing Das art 😂

[@muleskinnerfilms6719]

Well done!

[@pyrofan80]

Thanks Das!

[@2atalkandpolitics422]

they’ve had over 300 successful launches one major capsule loss and they’re grounded. Starliner has had multiple issues and is now stuck in space and they’re not grounded…

[@ale131296]

Starliner is a human spacecraft, Falcon 9 is a launch vehicle. They're both different and, as such, follow different regulations.

[@2atalkandpolitics422]

@@ale131296 I know that but the principal stands. They both ferry people to the iss.

[@ale131296]

@@2atalkandpolitics422 Dragon is the one ferrying the people, Falcon 9 is the launch vehicle.

[@2atalkandpolitics422]

@@ale131296 omg i’m aware of that I’m not stupid but the principal stand as I wrote one company makes a mistake and it gets grounded. Boeing doesn’t even get a slap on a wrist when it had issues with uncrewed version it was not officially grounded. They grounded themselves because of all the flaws they have not even grounded the atlas five with all its problems. But Boeing gets away with I don’t want to jinx it but murder and not necessarily do they follow different regulations because they’re all commercial space vehicles, including the launch vehicles. hell the Orion SLS should be grounded also because of all its flaws, but Boeing and other commercial entities for the space program don’t do relentless testing like SpaceX

[@ale131296]

@@2atalkandpolitics422 All I was telling you is that Boeing is not grounded because the FAA doesn't have any say on that whereas they do on launch vehicles. We're already working on a video to clear this out because a lot of people are as confused as you.

[@DJ-bh1ju]

#4 could be triggered because it's the same engine used on crew Dragon flights. A similar failure there would be really bad. #3 is a definite trigger. There was an obvious failure in design, parts quality or assembly, and it was not caught by engineering or quality control inspections.

[@buttonsjr]

I always say Das is the best presenter with NSF. He made the boring raptor 1 testing and initial raptor 2 testing not boring.

[@anthonycamilleri7297]

thank you das great info

[@thehoff4581]

Love these Das videos!

[@rogerlevasseur397]

I would say that since the upper stage is also used for manned launches, that item #4 would apply to not allow future manned launches to use the stage till the investigation is finished and things are resolved.

[@witchdoctor6502]

This was very nice and comprehensive explanation. As long as we are armchair engineering, my 2c to the 9 points - number 4 I would say should be green, it says high risk and although there is a risk I doubt it is high. Number 8 might be red as the 2nd stage will deorbit and pretty much miss its designated reentry area.

[@NASASpaceflight]

That's a fair assessment, I agree. While there was risk, the trajectory likely kept it low. - Das

[@plainswell]

Well explained - good job!

[@tristalia3113]

My guess would be an error at the manufacturing of the 2nd stage, human or whatever cause. Not a design-flaw. For every launch they have to build a brand new one unlike a booster. On that note, Id even consider flying a "flight-proven"-booster much more saver than a new one but we dont have that for 2nd stages yet

[@batchint]

thanks john…. 🎉

[@Hans-qi3wq]

Great blog - my first watch. I'm be back for sure.

[@NASASpaceflight]

Awesome! Thank you! - Das

[@kspencerian]

Item 4 is especially key; if there are (unlikely) inherent faults in the MVac, Crew Dragon safety is in jeopardy, although the engine is not restarted while mated to Dragon. An MVac failure on ascent is potential for LOM or worse. Best not to get Go Fever and return to flight before exhausting the precise cause.

[@m_chupon5131]

Hi Das! Thanks for the info

[@NASASpaceflight]

Oldschool from Twitch? - Das

[@m_chupon5131]

@@NASASpaceflight Ya, this makes me wanna go see if EJ was live for that launch

[@alanblyde8502]

Well said

[@johndoepker7126]

Alway love a Das Breakdown video.

[@johnlynch5007]

Thanks Das

[@lukeskywalkeriii2921]

Thanks 😊

[@martinkeatings7126]

The FAA are very much like the BAA in the UK so they tend to answer those 9 questions in "IF" form, because its about future prevention. So it is like 2 and 3 would apply because it would be an "if astronauts were onboard"

[@pepper7144]

they really did a fine job with Starliner

[@twelvewingproductions7508]

I think what makes this potentially more complex is the rapid pace of Space X's development schedule. I also have to use the term "schedule" here in its loosest possible sense since they have nothing even remotely resembling an engineering hold where blocks of improvements are actually put on a development plan for release. In the case of Space X... "Block" numbers are assigned only after the fact. Basically... they have this great idea... they figure out when that great idea is ready... they insert it with all the other great ideas that happen to be ready. Now what they DO do... that no one else seems capable of doing, is to heavily monitor these improvements in a way that allows them to make rapid (with a capital "R") improvements in a controlled manner through the brute force of hardware rich testing. That last bit is really important. They test a LOT of components to the point of failure. Why? Well because they have them... that's why. These guys are making something like 40 engines a MONTH. So what does all this mean as far as the FAA tangle? Well the problem here may very well be that Space X is capable of telling the FAA IMMEDIATELY what happened. The FAA doesn't believe that this is even possible. No one else is able to do this. Who else has half a dozen upper stage engines from 2 or 3 revisions prior that are just sitting there ready to go? So I think that all we are seeing at this point in time is the FAA slowing things down a little until they can actually verify that Space X has an action plan. Long term? It might be the result of this kind of failure that the FAA actually force Space X to do engineering holds and more flight testing of development. How that back and forth will turn out is difficult to say. Perhaps engineering holds on human rated craft until they have a certain number of ground tests followed by flight tests with cargo under their belt for each block revision. Hard to say. Best wishes to Space X to get them flying as quickly as possible. Starliner may need you. :)

[@m1shuC]

6:40 People that aren't on X/Twitter and aren't that informed about spaceflight/rockets news will assume that's also an American/SpaceX rocket after naming all the ones prior to that. Just a mild critique of a really informative (as always) video.

[@brentfortune]

Great explanation thank you.

[@CaptainQ2607]

I was surprised when it wasn't a first stage. SpaceX have been pushing them pretty hard.

[@BenD3D]

nice!

[@cyteen02]

Yikes I didn't realise Disneyland was in so much peril!

[@maxb6833]

I was here before it hit a million views!

[@gordonwelcher9598]

Environists are ignoring the major concern about the Falcon 9: Insufficient Pointyness. This is causing a multitude of problems with the launches and must be corrected ASAP. Without a nice pointy tip rockets have a tendency to just fall over and cause a tragic disaster in the launch area. An expanded version of the common pencil sharpener could be developed. Like the standard version used in all schools it should have a disc on the side to adapt the cutting blades to various diameters of rocket. The rocket shavings produced coul easily be recycled. This Rocket Sharpener will prevent many, many saddening accidents.

[@kargaroc386]

I wonder what the most intricate non-water ice sculptures are

[@NASASpaceflight]

BRB going to start a company making oxygen sculptures for fancy parties... - Das

[@philipcorner574]

A big issue not mentioned: Falcon 9 is a human rated vehicle: Any explosive failure of that rocket is gonna jeapordise that rating, so grounding was completely warranted

[@stevenr8606]

🤔 Im still stuck on #2. The jury may be out or deadlocked. But if I have to vote, it would most definitely have a ✅️ in the box❗️And, nothing, NOTHING could or would change my mind.

[@58FX]

The FAA is going to do its job and be as cautious as necessary. A partial RUD in space can also cause a debris cloud, which could damage other spacecraft, which is also considered” property”. Starship test flight exceptions were partially based on the fact they were put on a trajectory design to re-enter specifically in an uninhabited ocean area, without the need for a deorbit burn. We also can’t assume SpaceX can easily and quickly figure out exactly which of 100s of parts specifically failed causing the leak, and how or why it failed. Hopefully they’ll be back up in 30 or 60 more days, but be prepared for it to possibly take longer.

[@admarsandbeyond]

Drone ship just departed from port so they're about to launch again

[@direbearcoat7551]

I'm going to guess that the failure occurred during manufacturing or during transportation of the second stage. Something didn't get tightened enough during second stage assembly, or that vibrated loose during transportation. This means that there wouldn't be a problem with the design that needs to be changed, but a problem with quality control... I wonder if that would be much harder to investigate and fix than an identifiable part that needs to be redesigned?

[@BernardWei]

Engine RUD, but the second stage was still able to deploy the Starlink satellites into a lower than the nominal orbit.

[@External2737]

Space X still has FAA NOTAMs for Saturday 7/20/2024. They filled paperwork to launch again. It is in FAA's hands now. Note: they *must* ground after such incidents (Hello Starliner, but you cannot ground in flight...).

[@Jazzmaster1992]

Evidently a drone ship departed Port Canaveral this morning, which suggests an FAA approval and subsequent return to flights is imminent.

[@NASASpaceflight]

Yeah, reported via the cams NSF has at the port and crack fleet tracker SpaceOffshore (Gav). x.com/KSpaceAcademy/status/1813959851086856473?t=1O9JD4Yp0bx9HTZDoKTV3w&s=19

[@Jazzmaster1992]

@@NASASpaceflight true, I DID see this on your forums and should've just stated that. haha

[@NASASpaceflight]

All good, believe me, this video was ready to go and we're like 🤦‍♂️ haha - Das

[@Masaq_TM]

Gotta love Das.

[@MrSango123]

great comments

[@robertbackhaus8911]

I disagree with #7. SpaceX has had missions that have not done a planned de-orbit burn before, and we only know about it when the 2nd stage gets catalogued as on orbit afterwards. There has never been a FAA announcement after these launches.

[@Shivaho]

It looked like one of the 2nd Stage release cables broke & was flopping around outside the first stage. Part of it still attached to the 2nd stage probably damaged the plumbing when it separated & broke.

[@ale131296]

Those are engine bleed lines and they always break away from the second stage and get all "floppy" inside the interstage.

[@billinct860]

This could create a backlog of launches and it could raise insurance prices for future payloads... even though no customer is involved in this one. I'm hoping all will be resolved quickly.

[@JeremySmith-k6n]

Notice that in normal launches the wrap around the engine is puffed noticeably by something at about a 1 Hz rate. Maybe that vent, whatever it is, stuck open?

[@kellyteacher9682]

So, does this mean that the two Starlink launches in the NextSpaceFlight for this weekend might go up?

[@thomashayden804]

They just sent out a droneship this morning so they seem confident in being able to launch pretty soon! The FAA hasn't approved yet but good chance it will be coming any day now (or at least SpaceX seems to think that)

[@miltdanfoss]

FAA has launch authority oversight for commercial launches.. They are a required seat on launch on console. They ensure safety of flight from launch through end of S/C sep. If NASA launch, NASA is the authority. If DoD, then DoD has this authority. Who calls for an anomaly investigation is also driven by this. FAA would always try to have a console on Pegasus flights and NASA always turned them down because they had the FAAs authority there.

[@DougVanDorn]

Here's a question as the FAA process relates to what happened to the booster on Starship's IFT-4. It now seems obvious that the booster exploded after it splashed down. From your overview of the events that trigger an FAA investigation, it seems that this event would not have triggered a mishap report, as the booster had already splashed down when it went boom. But, if that's the case, why did SpaceX carefully edit every scrap of video they released of the booster splashing down to remove said explosion? I get it that the onboard cameras would have cut off the moment the explosion occurred, though the one feed we saw did show an enormous lick of flame appearing after the thing started going over sideways in the water, just as it cut out. But the buoy footage we've seen has also been cut right after the splash and before the explosion. Really makes it appear like SpaceX was trying to cover up the fact that the thing blew up, to avoid a mishap report and a delay in IFT-5. Why would they do that, if the RUD wouldn't have triggered a mishap report?

[@thomashayden804]

That's likely just a PR move. They're fine with failure but don't necessarily want to be putting it out there, especially if it's happening right after the super impressive landing the want to show off

[@DougVanDorn]

@@thomashayden804 Yep, that's the only conclusion I could come up with. Which is strange, since SpaceX has historically been quite open about publishing videos of their RUD failures. Certainly a lot more open than BO has been, and ULA has actually followed SpaceX's lead and started to release videos of their testing failures (which NASA has always done). So, yeah I agree, but it's not really in keeping with how Elon has done things in the past. Maybe the PR division has taken over ALL video release decisions from Elon?