[Sakos]

I just don't understand the repeated takes that this is unfair. There was a failure, it should be investigated and a fix found. Once SpaceX has done that, they can continue launching rockets. I'm not sure where the problem is. This is what we expect from every plane crash too, or did I imagine the existence and purpose of the NTSB?

The same thing happened with the last explosion and the Falcon 9 was eventually allowed to fly again once it was determined there was no public safety issue: https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacexs-falcon-9-cl...

They were even allowed to fly again before SpaceX finished their investigation as soon as the safety question was answered.

This isn't a punishment.

[krisoft]

> There was a failure

There are failures which only cost the company money and there are failures which risks lives.

By all indications this is the first kind. It would be entirely different situation if the rocket thumbled out of control and hit the sea in the wrong spot. Then a grounding would be warranted. Here by all accounts they flown to the right spot but did not stick the landing.

> This is what we expect from every plane crash too, or did I imagine the existence and purpose of the NTSB?

We would not ground the whole fleet of an aircraft model if something adverse but expected happened to one of them.

[saberience]

It is kind of ridiculous though, every other rocket launched by any other company or country basically just blows up in the sea or the air.

Penalizing SpaceX for being the most successful company seems silly. Are they grounding other companies whose rockets cannot land at all?

[firesteelrain]

First, take a deep breath.

All other companies are investigated if this happens. It’s news because SpaceX launches so well and so often that it’s out of the norm.

[philwelch]

It is simply not true that “all other companies” are investigated if their rockets fail to make a successful landing on a ship at sea. This is because no other company in the world has ever successfully landed a rocket on a ship at sea.

[firesteelrain]

You are incorrect. Everyone is subject to the same rules.

See FAA Rule 450 Final: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/additional_inf...

See 14 CFR Chapter III Subchapter C Part 417: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter...

[philwelch]

So you’re telling me every rocket launch from the US prior to 2015 led to an investigation, as well as every rocket launch not performed by SpaceX since then?

[firesteelrain]

Yes, in part:

"Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data show that 50 commercial space launches from 2000 through mid-January 2023 resulted in “mishaps”—the industry term for incidents such as catastrophic explosions and other failures. This represents about 12 percent of 433 launches during the period and caused no fatalities, serious injuries, or significant property damage to the public."

and

"When mishaps occur, FAA can conduct an investigation itself or instead authorize launch operators to lead investigations of their own mishaps under FAA oversight, according to FAA. In practice, however, FAA has authorized operator-led investigations for all mishaps where it had lead investigative authority, GAO found."

Source: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105561

[raverbashing]

> There was a failure, it should be investigated and a fix found.

Yes but you don't need to delay other missions because of this specific failure

[firesteelrain]

How do we know this isn’t currently systemic?

Time to take a knee and pause then examine what went wrong.

[AnimalMuppet]

Yeah, what raverbashing said. Let's say it is systemic. Let's say that boosters that have flown more than 10 times have a high rate of collapse and explosion when they land on the barge. OK, so? Why does the FAA care? It's not like the explosion endangers aircraft - the airspace should be cleared because of the booster's descent anyway.

[firesteelrain]

I think FAA cares because it is under their purview and it did not follow their flightplan.

[raverbashing]

Systemic, possibly. Dangerous? Doesn't look like it