[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.

[firesteelrain]

I understand now what you are saying.

SpaceX would face an FAA investigation if a mishap occurs during a landing attempt (whether on land or at sea) because the FAA is responsible for ensuring the safety and compliance of all commercial space launches and reentries in the United States.

Even though landing at sea is a unique SpaceX capability, the location or method of landing doesn’t change the FAA's oversight role.

If SpaceX landings start to fail, what is to say that the next one goes more awry and lands on a home in Cape Canaveral? They do land landings sometimes and we don’t want that to happen.

Like you sort of imply, it seems they are being held accountable for being better but still if they provide any capability it has to be done safely.

[philwelch]

I agree an investigation would be warranted if SpaceX missed the landing zone entirely, but in this case they not only landed inside the landing zone, they even managed to land on the ship itself before the booster fell over into the sea. And the landing zone is, much like the dump site for an expendable rocket, cleared of marine traffic ahead of time.

[firesteelrain]

I get you. It’s still a mishap nonetheless that needs and will be investigated by the FAA. Even if it’s a “lite” version.

[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.

[me_me_me]

funny how you still double down, and trying to use grammar to not admit being wrong, and absolutely not addressing the point i made.

Only to prove you my point.

Its really simple, spaceX wanted to land but crashed, hmm this could have been dangerous.

Any other rocket, we will crash land in this part of ocean at this time. And crash at the designated area at the designated time - all according to plan no people should be there.

[philwelch]

What you’re missing is that the landing zone for SpaceX booster stages is also cleared of marine traffic.

[me_me_me]

christ on a stick. Its like talking to a wind up toy.

Their plan was not to land anywhere in the world, duh.

Their plan was to land in designated area, but the landing failed. This could have endangered lives. Investigation is to ensure no one was at risk and contingency was in place.

Why is this so hard?

[philwelch]

The Falcon 9 booster fell into the ocean well inside of a designated area clear of marine traffic, other than the unmanned drone ship it attempted to land on. No lives were endangered. The only thing that went wrong is that it didn’t stick the landing on the drone ship, but that’s not a safety issue since the booster still came down inside the designated area.