[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

[philwelch]

Why are you deliberately being obtuse?

Here, I’ll make it simple for you. On July 30, ULA launched USSF-51, an Atlas V mission in which the first stage did not successfully land on a drone ship, but rather was unceremoniously dumped in the Atlantic Ocean. Can you find me the investigation for that launch?

[firesteelrain]

I am not understanding. Dumping in the Atlantic Ocean was part of their plan. The recent SpaceX landing failed. Landing was part of their overall flight plan.

[philwelch]

For the past several years, SpaceX has attempted to recover their rockets in the ocean, with the well-understood risk that such a landing might fail, with the consequence of dumping the rocket into the ocean. SpaceX is currently the only orbital launch provider in the world with this capability. So on the rare occasion that this capability fails, SpaceX and SpaceX alone faces additional scrutiny over the otherwise completely acceptable consequence of the rocket getting dumped into the ocean.

It would be one thing if every launch provider faced scrutiny for not recovering their rockets, but they don't. As a matter of public policy, it's obviously acceptable to dump rockets into the ocean. Every other launch provider gets away with it. The US government gets away with it. SpaceX is the only launch provider that doesn't get away with it; they are, in effect, being penalized for having a capability that other launch providers don't have and plainly serves the public interest. This may indeed be an unintended consequence of FAA regulations being inflexible about "plans", but it is a consequence nonetheless.

[me_me_me]

ummm... someone is trying really hard to be a smartass and making himself looking like an ass.

> unceremoniously dumped in the Atlantic Ocean.

It wasnt ' unceremoniously dumped in the Atlantic Ocean' it was crashed into a designated area. Ensuring no, dmg to any property boat or people. They dont crash anything randomly somewhere in the ocean.

[philwelch]

“Crashed” and “dumped” are broadly synonymous when one is crashing or dumping a solid object into the sea, and while the spent rockets may be precisely or even painstakingly dumped into a particular designated area of the sea, that does not necessarily imply that such dumping and/or crashing is what either of us would call “ceremonious”.

And I’m sure you would agree that however precise or painstaking those dumpings/crashings may be, they are certainly no more precise or painstaking than SpaceX’s recovery attempts, which are likewise designed to endanger only the SpaceX unmanned drone ship itself. So this is hardly sufficient to explain why a failed landing attempt is somehow more worthy of governmental scrutiny than not even making the attempt in the first place.