FAA-SpaceX regulatory saga puts launch license under microscope
Before the December launch and crash landing of the Starship SN8 prototype, SpaceX had sought a safety regulation waiver from the Federal Aviation Administration.
The FAA, which issues commercial launch licenses, denied the request “to exceed the maximum public risk allowed” by the agency’s rules.
The company proceeded to launch from Boca Chica, outside of Brownsville.
SpaceX then prepared for its next test. One day in January, it got as far as evacuating nearby residents and fueling its Starship SN9 prototype. But the vehicle never left the South Texas launchpad.
SpaceX was missing something crucial: regulatory approval to launch from Boca Chica.
To the chagrin of onlookers near and far, that approval did not come. Not in January, anyway, as SpaceX felt the ramifications of its hard, fiery landing the month before. The aftermath wasn’t just cleaning debris. SpaceX received extra scrutiny for violating its launch license.
The FAA statement about the December incident, which said that SpaceX launched “without demonstrating that the public risk from far field blast overpressure was within the regulatory criteria,” was rather vague. And it likely wouldn’t have been issued if SpaceX founder Elon Musk hadn’t publicly accused the FAA of having a broken regulatory structure standing between SpaceX and Mars.
Former FAA officials cautioned that a lot of the facts are missing, and multiple scenarios could have prompted that statement.
“To me, it’s not clear how serious the situation was,” said George Nield, who was the FAA’s associate administrator for commercial space transportation from 2008 to 2018. “Key questions include whether the noncompliance was intentional or not, whether it had to do with the vehicle and its operation, or whether it involved making sure no members of the public were exposed to risk.”
But the FAA did determine that the launch license conditions were violated. That likely had to do with far field blast overpressure, which is basically a pressure wave that can break windows or damage buildings. Such waves could be caused by a crash or explosion, Nield said.
SpaceX did not respond to requests for comment.
Falling behind?
Jared Zambrano-Stout, a former official in the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transpiration and the current director of congressional and regulatory policy for the law firm Meeks Butera & Israel, isn’t as concerned about how SpaceX violated its launch license. Rather, he worries about the longterm competitiveness of the launch industry.
He said commercial space companies need to follow the rules and federal regulators need to enforce the rules. Otherwise, there could be consequences that cause the United States to fall behind rivals such as Russia or China.
“If Congress doesn’t have faith in the regulatory system, it could create new laws and regulations,” Zambrano-Stout said. “If we create significant new regulations over the launch industry, that could absolutely put us at a disadvantage against other countries.”
It is not common for a commercial space company to violate its license, which is perhaps why the SpaceX-FAA spat has created such shock waves.
Brian Weeden, director of program planning for the Secure World Foundation, which promotes the sustainable and peaceful use of space, could recall just two other licensing issues that created a similar hubbub.
In 2018, Swarm Technologies, which is seeking to provide global satellite connectivity for internet of things devices, launched small satellites into space without approval from the Federal Communications Commission, which licenses satellite communications.
And in 2019, an Israeli lunar lander was carrying tardigrades, microscopic aquatic animals that are also known as water bears or moss piglets, when it crashed into the moon. This violated planetary protection rules created so that humans don’t contaminate moons or planets, Weeden said.
The SpaceX violation, however, felt especially jarring to Weeden and his peers working for space think tanks or companies. It could have put humans in danger, and it could have set back years of progress in giving more companies access to space.
“I understand Elon is trying to go fast, but there are some just basic public safety things that we have to keep in mind,” Weeden said. “They dropped a rocket back to the ground that exploded. That is a huge hazard that we have to take precautions to make sure it doesn’t kill anybody.”
That’s the FAA’s job: to protect public safety. But this is just one part of its mandate, Nield said. The agency is tasked by Congress with both protecting the public and promoting commercial space transportation.
Under normal circumstances, that can be achieved when launch companies voluntarily comply with the requirements found in the regulations. But if it’s necessary, the FAA can suspend or revoke launch licenses. As a last resort, it can issue fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars a day, Nield said.
For SpaceX, after its December launch of SN8, the FAA suspended Boca Chica testing that could affect public safety until the company completed an investigation, including a comprehensive review of its safety culture and operational decisionmaking, and the FAA approved its proposed corrective actions to protect public safety.
SN9 took flight on Tuesday. SN9 is a prototype of the Starship spacecraft that, paired with the Super Heavy rocket, is being designed to carry people to the moon, Mars and beyond. It is different than the Falcon 9 rocket that SpaceX routinely launches and lands when propelling military satellites or NASA astronauts into space.
SN9 ignited its three Raptor engines Tuesday afternoon and began to climb upward. The engines were intentionally shut down one at a time, causing the Starship prototype to enter a horizontal, belly flop position. Then the engines were supposed to reignite and flip the vehicle for a gentle vertical landing. But like SN8, it landed hard and in flames.
A push to modernize rules
The FAA said it would oversee an investigation of Tuesday’s landing. “Although this was an uncrewed test flight, the investigation will identify the root cause of today’s mishap and possible opportunities to further enhance safety as the program develops,” the FAA said.
So after the rigmarole, SN9 launched a few days behind schedule.
And Musk’s aggressive tweet, well, it was kind of right and kind of wrong, Weeden said. Musk said that FAA rules were designed for just a few expendable launches a year from government facilities. “Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars,” Musk said.
“He’s right in the sense that we do need to modernize our oversight of commercial activities and we need to innovate faster,” Weeden said, noting that commercial space regulations are slowly getting modernized. “He’s wrong in that an extra week or two for a license is the only thing keeping us from getting to Mars.”
There are still many technical and human health questions that need to be answered before humans can colonize Mars.
In the meantime, Starship SN10 is waiting for its chance to stick the landing.