FAA to oversee investigation of SpaceX Starship's 3rd test flight

News
By Mike Wall
published

The March 14 mission notched some big milestones but ended in the destruction of both Starship stages.

a huge silver rocket launches into a cloudy sky above a sign that reads "gateway to mars"
SpaceX's Starship rocket launches on its third test flight, on March 14, 2024. (Image credit: SpaceX)

For the third time in 11 months, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is investigating a flight of SpaceX's Starship megarocket.

Starship launched for the third time ever on Thursday (March 14), roaring into the skies from SpaceX's Starbase site in South Texas. The company aimed to bring both of Starship's elements — its first-stage Super Heavy booster and its Starship upper stage — down to Earth for ocean landings, but both vehicles ended up breaking apart in the atmosphere.

The test flight therefore qualifies as a mishap, and the FAA wants to know what happened. The agency announced this morning (March 15) that it will oversee a SpaceX-led investigation into Thursday's events.

Related: Relive SpaceX Starship's 3rd flight test in breathtaking photos

The 400-foot-tall (122 meters) Starship, which SpaceX is developing to carry people and cargo to the moon and Mars, flew for the first time in April 2023, on a test flight that lasted just four minutes.

It took to the skies again in November, notching several important milestones, including a successful stage separation. But that second trial mission ended after just eight minutes.

The FAA oversaw SpaceX investigations into both of those flights. The first probe identified 63 corrective actions that the company needed to take before launching again, and the second found 17 required fixes.

The number will likely be lower still for flight number three, given how much progress Starship made. For example, Super Heavy aced its "boostback" burn after separating from the upper stage, though the giant booster failed to execute its landing burn properly and broke apart about 1,515 feet (462 meters) above the Gulf of Mexico.

The Starship upper stage reached orbital velocity and hit its proper "coast" trajectory, on its way to a planned splashdown in the Indian Ocean. The vehicle was rolling a bit as it reentered Earth's atmosphere, however, and broke apart about 50 minutes after launch.

Starship Die Cast Rocket Model Now $69.99 on Amazon. 

Starship Die Cast Rocket Model Now $69.99 on Amazon. 

If you can't see SpaceX's Starship in person, you can score a model of your own. Standing at 13.77 inches (35 cm), this is a 1:375 ratio of SpaceX's Starship as a desktop model. The materials here are alloy steel and it weighs just 225g.

Note: Stock is low so you'll have to act quickly to get this. 

View Deal
RELATED STORIES:

— SpaceX launches giant Starship rocket into space on epic 3rd test flight (video)

— Starship and Super Heavy: SpaceX's Mars transportation system

— SpaceX: Facts about Elon Musk's private spaceflight company

It's unclear when the fourth Starship test flight will take place; the FAA will not consider granting a launch license until the current mishap investigation is over and SpaceX has implemented the required corrective actions, whatever those end up being. But it's safe to assume that SpaceX will be ready to fly when it gets the green light.

"Today, we do have four ships and four Super Heavy boosters built, with more coming off the production line as our star factory continues to grow," Siva Bharadvaj, a space operations engineer at SpaceX, said during a webcast of Thursday's launch. 

"These vehicles are slated for future flight tests just like today's," he added. "In fact, just this week, we static-fired our next ship that's planning to fly and expect to test the booster as soon as the launch mount is free from today's flight test."

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Mike Wall
Mike Wall
Senior Space Writer

Michael Wall is a Senior Space Writer with Space.com and joined the team in 2010. He primarily covers exoplanets, spaceflight and military space, but has been known to dabble in the space art beat. His book about the search for alien life, "Out There," was published on Nov. 13, 2018. Before becoming a science writer, Michael worked as a herpetologist and wildlife biologist. He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz. To find out what his latest project is, you can follow Michael on Twitter.

16 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Unclear Engineer
    Calling this a "mishap" is definitely bureaucratic over-reach. What happened is no worse than some other company launching expendable vehicle stages, which are not "mishaps" when they break-up on re-entry. There is no additional risk to the public from SpaceX trying to do more control on the way down. And neither of the stages was intended to be recovered. This is a test program, and it needs to be reviewed as such.

    So, for instance, if SpaceX decides that it needs more data to figure out how to do better at controlling the re-entry and wants to simply re-fly the same mission with new vehicles and some better methods of collecting data during re-entry, will FAA accept that? Or will FAA insist that no more flights are allowed until SpaceX claims to have already solved the engineering problems that this flight was researching?

    FAA is probably thinking that SpaceX will not sue them in court to get them off its back, because the FAA has the power to shut down all of SpaceX's activities in space until such a court suit is settled, and the FAA could drag that out for a decade if angered. It probably is figuring that it will get away with being an over-reaching pest because it is not the worst thing they can do. But, somebody else in government may need to step in an give the FAA some "guidance" on what its real mission is with respect to protecting the public from aviation (and space) activity hazards.
    Reply
  • Philly
    Unclear Engineer said:
    Calling this a "mishap" is definitely bureaucratic over-reach. What happened is no worse than some other company launching expendable vehicle stages, which are not "mishaps" when they break-up on re-entry. There is no additional risk to the public from SpaceX trying to do more control on the way down. And neither of the stages was intended to be recovered. This is a test program, and it needs to be reviewed as such.

    So, for instance, if SpaceX decides that it needs more data to figure out how to do better at controlling the re-entry and wants to simply re-fly the same mission with new vehicles and some better methods of collecting data during re-entry, will FAA accept that? Or will FAA insist that no more flights are allowed until SpaceX claims to have already solved the engineering problems that this flight was researching?

    FAA is probably thinking that SpaceX will not sue them in court to get them off its back, because the FAA has the power to shut down all of SpaceX's activities in space until such a court suit is settled, and the FAA could drag that out for a decade if angered. It probably is figuring that it will get away with being an over-reaching pest because it is not the worst thing they can do. But, somebody else in government may need to step in an give the FAA some "guidance" on what its real mission is with respect to protecting the public from aviation (and space) activity hazards.
    Yeah, when the 1st few attempts at landing the SH and Starship result is explosions, does that trigger year long investigations? Seems likely considering the current pace.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    FAA definitely has a role to play when it comes to Star Ship and Super heavy returning to some sort of crewed base, whether it is at Boca Chica of Kennedy Spaceflight Center. And, they should review the types of failures that occurred during the development process and the engineered solutions to those failures before certifying those vehicles to come down where they can be a hazard. But, that is not what they are doing at this point - they are involving themselves in the SpaceX development process as if this is aircraft test flights with pilots.
    Reply
  • Torbjorn Larsson
    Well, that was exciting, congrats to SpaceX!

    Halving the propellant load time and showing robustness of both engines (all 33 on booster started again) and hot staging (it worked again) was progress. It was especially nice to see the pink of a nitrogen plasma, and how it was concurrent with the Karman line at 100 km.

    The flight attitude instability of both booster (oscillations) and ship (roll) may have contributed to their respective demise (likely propellant sloshing respective exposing unshielded surfaces).

    Unclear Engineer said:
    Calling this a "mishap" is definitely bureaucratic over-reach. ...

    FAA is probably thinking that SpaceX will not sue them in court to get them off its back, because the FAA has the power to shut down all of SpaceX's activities in space until such a court suit is settled, and the FAA could drag that out for a decade if angered. It probably is figuring that it will get away with being an over-reaching pest because it is not the worst thing they can do. But, somebody else in government may need to step in an give the FAA some "guidance" on what its real mission is with respect to protecting the public from aviation (and space) activity hazards.
    Enough with the conspiracy theories already!

    You yourself recognize that FAA mission, which they exercise when they launch mishap investigations, is precisely that of protecting the public.

    The FAA is responsible for protecting the public during commercial space transportation launch and reentry operations. Public safety is at the core of the FAA licensing or permitting process; of the safety inspections conducted before, during and after a launch or reentry; and of the investigation and corrective actions following a mishap event.

    What constitutes a mishap?What constitutes a mishap varies somewhat based on whether a valid FAA launch or reentry license was issued under the new regulations (14 CFR Part 450) or the prior regulations (14 CFR Part 415, 431, or 435). All FAA issued commercial space licenses will be subject to the same definition of a mishap no later than March 2026.

    For licenses issued under 14 CFR Part 450:
    The new FAA regulations describe nine events (see below) that would constitute a mishap (14 CFR 401.7). The occurrence of any of these events, singly or in any combination, during the scope of FAA-authorized commercial space activities constitutes a mishap and must be reported to the FAA (14 CFR 450.173(c)).

    Serious injury or fatality
    Malfunction of a safety-critical system
    Failure of a safety organization, safety operations or safety procedures
    High risk of causing a serious or fatal injury to any space flight participant, crew, government astronaut, or member of the public
    Substantial damage to property not associated with the activity
    Unplanned substantial damage to property associated with the activity
    Unplanned permanent loss of the vehicle
    Impact of hazardous debris outside of defined areas
    Failure to complete a launch or reentry as planned
    https://www.faa.gov/space/compliance_enforcement_mishap
    The occurrences that made FAA launch a mishap investigations should be:
    Unplanned permanent loss of the vehicle
    Impact of hazardous debris outside of defined areas
    Failure to complete a launch or reentry as planned
    Let the administration do their work.

    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Using the criteria you posted, this is not a mishap.

    The vehicles were intended to be "lost".
    The vehicles did not impact outside of the predefined areas.
    The launch and reentry both occurred as planned.

    Case should be closed, as I already posted.

    The FAA is basing its "mishap" on the ways in which the vehicles were "lost", but that is the way that other vehicles are always "lost", and they are not investigating those "mishaps". So why is trying to control something that is not usually controlled at all considered a "mishap" while the process is only being tried for the first time and is not fully successful?

    Unless you can show me some hazard created by flight 3 that was not already within the envelope of approved events, then you really have no legitimate case.

    And, there is no "conspiracy theory" involved in my statement. We know the facts of what happened and we know what the FAA is doing.
    Reply
  • George²
    This vehicle is huge and heavy and can cause a lot of casualties on earth surface even when flying without a crew.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    George² said:
    This vehicle is huge and heavy and can cause a lot of casualties on earth surface even when flying without a crew.
    But that was known before the flight, and the flight was approved.

    The question is what happened in this flight which creates more risk to the public than what was already approved. I have not seen anything that fits that description.

    In the first flight, clearly the damage to the craft from the damage to the pad, plus the delay in the destruct process, were the types of events that should be and were investigated by the FAA with corrective actions required before allowing another test.

    But, based on the data that has been published so far, I am not seeing anything in this third flight that fits the criteria of suggesting sources or levels of risk to the public that have not already been approved.
    Reply
  • trailrider
    I don't see this as a "mishap" either. I wish I had more data. If the booster was oscillating, it could be propellant sloshing. If it "broke up", could that be the FTS determining the downward velocity was not decreasing within spec due to lack of the landing burn? As to the Starship, could the cargo door not closing have caused the roll seen, so the heaviest heat shield tiles did not absorb the heating the way they were supposed to? Might they need heavier tiles? Since SpaceX is supposed to be developing the lunar landing craft for Artemis, maybe Congress should step in and tell FAA to straighten up and fly right on a development program.
    Reply
  • Waka
    Unclear Engineer said:
    Calling this a "mishap" is definitely bureaucratic over-reach. What happened is no worse than some other company launching expendable vehicle stages, which are not "mishaps" when they break-up on re-entry. There is no additional risk to the public from SpaceX trying to do more control on the way down. And neither of the stages was intended to be recovered. This is a test program, and it needs to be reviewed as such.

    So, for instance, if SpaceX decides that it needs more data to figure out how to do better at controlling the re-entry and wants to simply re-fly the same mission with new vehicles and some better methods of collecting data during re-entry, will FAA accept that? Or will FAA insist that no more flights are allowed until SpaceX claims to have already solved the engineering problems that this flight was researching?

    FAA is probably thinking that SpaceX will not sue them in court to get them off its back, because the FAA has the power to shut down all of SpaceX's activities in space until such a court suit is settled, and the FAA could drag that out for a decade if angered. It probably is figuring that it will get away with being an over-reaching pest because it is not the worst thing they can do. But, somebody else in government may need to step in an give the FAA some "guidance" on what its real mission is with respect to protecting the public from aviation (and space) activity hazards.
    I'm not sure I would call it bureaucratic overreach. The fact is that Space X will already be analysing the data and making their own list of corrective actions internally. The FAA don't lead the investigation, they review and sign off on Space X's own mishap report (assuming of course it meets the FAA's requirements).
    The full mission goals included a soft splash landing for super heavy and a hard splash landing for the ship. Although they were optimistic - ideal scenario - goals, they were the approved and licensed mission goals. RUD of either vehicle will always be considered a mishap and needs investigating by Space X and by the designated public safety authorities (FAA).
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Regarding the development process, there was some discussion on the live broadcast commentary about Super Heavy, (and maybe StarShip ?) using the vents for the cryogenic propellants for attitude control of the vehicle(s?) and some wonder about the ice that forms doing that potentially fouling up the process. I was thinking about valves getting stuck by icing as I heard the discussion. So, maybe the vehicles are going to need more engineered attitude control thrusters to be able to adequately control the fuel positioning in tanks as well as the roll and potential tumble parameters. The engineering is not difficult - it is routinely done for other space vehicles. But, it would need to be bigger for such large vehicles and it will add weight.
    Reply