FAA proposes $633k SpaceX fines for Falcon license violations

[JEF_300]

If we take these regulatory violations, and consider them in combination with the Merlin Vac failure back in July, it sort of paints a concerning pattern. While none of these were huge issues, as I understand them, they were also all avoidable. Some of the regulatory violations just required waiting a day or two. The Merlin Vac failure was a quality control issue. These things didn't need to be problems.
(The landing failure should maybe also be on that list? I'm pretty tuned out of the discussion around that.)

Now, I'd like to be very, very clear; I'm pretty far out on a limb with this. No one should finish reading this post holding the belief that SpaceX has 100% succumbed to launch fever, and we're all doomed.

That said, I do think it's worth saying out loud that if SpaceX was getting complacent about Falcon 9 launches and/or was feeling the strain of Falcon 9s busy launch schedule, these are the sorts of problems you would expect to see.

I'm not drawing any conclusions yet or anything, especially since there was a full year between these license violations and the recent failures. But it's a concern that's in my mind today and wasn't yesterday. 

[RedLineTrain]

Will be interesting to learn whether the courts view these licensing activities as within the FAA�s remit.  I think it�s worth a suit to find out.

[sstli2]

I don't ascribe to the idea that there is anything necessarily unsafe about SpaceX's operations today.

I do think undermining regulatory bodies and flaunting the rules is a slippery slope to an eventual material safety issue.

[TheSquirrelPatrol]

Rules and regulations are there for a reason.

You assume ALL rules and regulations are there for a reason, and ALL regulatory agencies are operating efficiently, competently, and with good will. Elon is very vocal about the fact that he does not agree with you.

I haven't heard from or about the Eastern Range or the Space Force in all this. The tank farm is on a launch site leased from the Space Force. One assumes that the actual construction of the tank farm involved lots of actual boots on the ground inspections, certifications, and permits, that haven't been called out as missing. If, from SpaceX's view, the situation is "we engineered a new tank farm. There is nothing new about this, and we've met the actual engineering requirements and been certified as such. We are now waiting on mere paperwork not to actually verify that the engineering, materials, and construction are sound, that's been verified already, but merely to check that we've filled out all the forms, crossed all the t's, dotted all the i's, and properly kneeled on the floor and knocked our forehead on the ground in supplication three times..." Choosing not to play that game is not "a culture that doesn't value safety" it's a culture that values freedom, a can-do attitude, and getting stuff done. What used to be considered American values and one of our great strengths and a source of our industrial might.

The 2 hour hold thing, I'm honestly surprised that the FAA is actually even involved at that level of detail. But even assuming that's valid, and the presence of that hold was at some point determined to be a good thing, SpaceX is now BY FAR the most experienced launch operator in the world. They have run their launch countdown hundreds of times now, for the same rocket design. Do you honestly believe some paper pusher in D.C. is more qualified to make that determination? Even if you assume they are turning around and asking "experts" in say, the Air Force... yeah, they don't have the experience either.

[TheSquirrelPatrol]

What did Boeing violate in terms of their launch licenses, etc?

You are arguing "but Boeing did their paperwork!" Think about that. Do you really value doing the paperwork properly over actual results? Looking at actual real world results, SpaceX is the class of the world that everyone should strive to emulate, and Boeing should be going into receivership about now. But you're acting as if it's the exact opposite, and stating that it's good and proper for the FAA to do likewise.

A sane approach would reflect the fact that SpaceX is simultaneously pushing forward and overcoming hurdle after hurdle to push spaceflight towards the future that we were promised back in the 50's, and doing it with a success and safety record to be envied. Sure, it's not appropriate to go completely hands-off and let them write their own rules, but a light touch is entirely appropriate.

And similarly, a sane approach would involve tearing into Boeing with every tool available. The fact that they've done their paperwork and haven't violated their license has no bearing on the fact that they seem unable to build a reliable spacecraft, and yet are willing to place humans aboard them anyways.

[rfdesigner]

it's not exactly like the airlines though.

The airlines don't make their own jets, I suspect this is part of the problem.  SpaceX is always developing, airlines aren't or at least shouldn't be using forklifts like that.

Glossed over this, but I do want to make it clear, that example was a real life example. Airlines as a way to quicken the process to change engines to get the plane back in the sky( because if a plane isn't flying, it isn't making them money) did use fork lifts to change engines on a DC-10 and it lead to a fatal accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

I did recognise this...  tragic incident and a good example of what can happen if you don't follow the manual when that's all you have, when you have the entire design team to hand, new procedures can be created and approved.

[edzieba]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the timeline from https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/afn-foia-20240917-case-2023WA990028.pdf

* May 2nd, SpaceX submitted to the FAA a request to revise its approved communications plan
* Jun 12th, Starlink launch from SLC-40 (no issues)
* Jun 15th, FAA notifies SpaceX that it won't approve SpaceX's proposed new communications plan before Jun 18th
* Jun 16th, FAA notifies SpaceX that it won't issue a modification to SpaceX's license Jun 18th
* Jun 18th, PFN launch from SLC-40 (license issues)
* Jun 23rd, another Starlink launch from SL-40 (no issues mentioned)
* Sep 17, 2024, FAA send notice of penalty

So SpaceX submit the application 6 weeks before the launch, then wait.

There are presumably a bunch of somewhat tense discussions going on in the week leading up to the launch on the 18th, with some back and forth (suggested by the separate communications on the Thu 15th + Fri 16th). Maybe the overworked staffers at FAA were desperately trying to get it complete before the weekend, and telling SpaceX they might not make it? Then SpaceX querying what the meant for their license for the launch on the Sunday? The end-of-day Friday comes, all the FAA folks go home, and SpaceX are now trying to figure out what to do?

Starlink launches in the weeks before and after are unaffected, so maybe this is specific to that payload?

The question is, why did SpaceX not continue with the same (license compliant) procedure as they had with all launches prior to PSN MFS? There was nothing forcing them to move control centres or skip the T-2h check after all, they made the active decision to leave compliance despite still being capable of a complaint launch 6 days prior. This wasn't a case where SpaceX were in the dark about how to comply (literally just keep doing what they had for years) or were facing not being able to launch (again, keep doing what they had been doing less than a week earlier).

What did Boeing violate in terms of their launch licenses, etc?

You are arguing "but Boeing did their paperwork!" Think about that. Do you really value doing the paperwork properly over actual results? Looking at actual real world results, SpaceX is the class of the world that everyone should strive to emulate, and Boeing should be going into receivership about now. But you're acting as if it's the exact opposite, and stating that it's good and proper for the FAA to do likewise.

A sane approach would reflect the fact that SpaceX is simultaneously pushing forward and overcoming hurdle after hurdle to push spaceflight towards the future that we were promised back in the 50's, and doing it with a success and safety record to be envied. Sure, it's not appropriate to go completely hands-off and let them write their own rules, but a light touch is entirely appropriate.

And similarly, a sane approach would involve tearing into Boeing with every tool available. The fact that they've done their paperwork and haven't violated their license has no bearing on the fact that they seem unable to build a reliable spacecraft, and yet are willing to place humans aboard them anyways.

Boeing are a red herring: Starliner had no involvement from the FAA, they do not license crew capsules (and the moratorium on doing so remains in place). The FAA licensed ULA's launch, but there were no issues with the launch. The FAA did not even license re-entry, as CFT-1 was an all-NASA endeavour.

It'd be like complaining that the NHTSA did not get involved in rotor issues with a helicopter delivered by a flatbed truck solely because the NHTSA handles issues with trucks.

[quagmire]

it's not exactly like the airlines though.

The airlines don't make their own jets, I suspect this is part of the problem.  SpaceX is always developing, airlines aren't or at least shouldn't be using forklifts like that.

Glossed over this, but I do want to make it clear, that example was a real life example. Airlines as a way to quicken the process to change engines to get the plane back in the sky( because if a plane isn't flying, it isn't making them money) did use fork lifts to change engines on a DC-10 and it lead to a fatal accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

I did recognise this...  tragic incident and a good example of what can happen if you don't follow the manual when that's all you have, when you have the entire design team to hand, new procedures can be created and approved.

Certainly and once it goes through the SMS process and risk mitigations which then gets the stamp of approval by the regulator body, all good to go.


There are procedures to follow to change any existing procedure or process. And I�m not trying to say the FAA�s process is perfect. But SpaceX just can�t go F it and do something without that approval.

[Brovane]

I would love to know where Shotwell is in all of this. 

I know that Elon likes to run his companies very lean.  Could this be a issue that the people(s) responsible for the FAA paperwork for launch licensing cannot keep up with the cadence and changes that SpaceX is doing? 

[steveleach]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the timeline from https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/afn-foia-20240917-case-2023WA990028.pdf

* May 2nd, SpaceX submitted to the FAA a request to revise its approved communications plan
* Jun 12th, Starlink launch from SLC-40 (no issues)
* Jun 15th, FAA notifies SpaceX that it won't approve SpaceX's proposed new communications plan before Jun 18th
* Jun 16th, FAA notifies SpaceX that it won't issue a modification to SpaceX's license Jun 18th
* Jun 18th, PFN launch from SLC-40 (license issues)
* Jun 23rd, another Starlink launch from SL-40 (no issues mentioned)
* Sep 17, 2024, FAA send notice of penalty

So SpaceX submit the application 6 weeks before the launch, then wait.

There are presumably a bunch of somewhat tense discussions going on in the week leading up to the launch on the 18th, with some back and forth (suggested by the separate communications on the Thu 15th + Fri 16th). Maybe the overworked staffers at FAA were desperately trying to get it complete before the weekend, and telling SpaceX they might not make it? Then SpaceX querying what the meant for their license for the launch on the Sunday? The end-of-day Friday comes, all the FAA folks go home, and SpaceX are now trying to figure out what to do?

Starlink launches in the weeks before and after are unaffected, so maybe this is specific to that payload?

The question is, why did SpaceX not continue with the same (license compliant) procedure as they had with all launches prior to PSN MFS? There was nothing forcing them to move control centres or skip the T-2h check after all, they made the active decision to leave compliance despite still being capable of a complaint launch 6 days prior. This wasn't a case where SpaceX were in the dark about how to comply (literally just keep doing what they had for years) or were facing not being able to launch (again, keep doing what they had been doing less than a week earlier).

I'm not at all convinced that SpaceX knew they had to do a T-2h check and deliberately chose not to do it, tbh.

I'm still looking for an interpretation of events that doesn't require someone behaving like an absolute idiot. Thinking you have approval and not checking properly is sloppy and bad; knowing you don't have approval and just ignoring the regulators is idiocy.

Also, let's not forget that SpaceX goes through the FAA launch licensing process more often than any other organisation in existence.

As for the selection of the control centre, maybe some new piece of control hardware had to be racked up and wired in, and SpaceX had to decide which control centre to do that in. Maybe the FAA had told them (verbally) that the approval was being finalised and would be ready in time, and SpaceX (rashly?) made the decision based on that, only to learn a few days later that there was going to be more delay. Then maybe everyone is rushing to get it all sorted before the weekend, and the last thing SpaceX hear from their FAA contact is "phew, done, I'm taking it upstairs for signature now" at 4.30pm on the Friday. And then silence. 

This scenario is pure speculation, of course, but it could result in what we've seen, and would at least be somewhat understandable.

[dondar]

it's not exactly like the airlines though.

The airlines don't make their own jets, I suspect this is part of the problem.  SpaceX is always developing, airlines aren't or at least shouldn't be using forklifts like that.

Glossed over this, but I do want to make it clear, that example was a real life example. Airlines as a way to quicken the process to change engines to get the plane back in the sky( because if a plane isn't flying, it isn't making them money) did use fork lifts to change engines on a DC-10 and it lead to a fatal accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

you mistake governmental licensing (to operate) regulations with technical safety manuals. Completely different animals.

[dondar]

I repeat a statement I made earlier, that shows a culture that does not foster safety.

How? Seriously, how?

Don't give me  examples from the automotive industry. Spell out to us, *in detail*, exactly how these activities by SpaceX show us a culture that does not foster safety.

Intentionally launching without proper approvals of the changes made already being implemented. Easiest and biggest sign of a bad culture that doesn�t promote safety.

Disregard for rules and regulations like that is biggest red flag ever.

No, it isn't. And you've failed to identify specific actions, which the FAA is proposing to fine, that actually manifest unsafe practices. So, I'm going to pose the question once again, Quagmire: Spell out to us, *in detail*, exactly how these activities by SpaceX show us a culture that does not foster safety.

Yes it is.

Rules and regulations are there for a reason. You disregard them? Tells me you don't care about safety. You put your launch schedule ahead of safety. They didn't have the approvals to use the new tank farm, they used it anyway.

Complain at how slow it takes? Have at it. Say F it launch without approval? How does that tell you they care about safety? It tells me they care more about schedule than anything.

Intentional noncompliance is a disregard to safety. That is what SpaceX did here. They were told they would not have approval in time for the launch. They said, " F it" and did it anyway. This isn't a slip up of, " Oh we thought we had approval". They knew ahead of time. They still chose to do something they were not approved in doing yet.

How would you feel about stepping onto a brand new 737 Max 9 that United just took delivery of and United pressed it into revenue service because they really needed that plane to fly your flight on time, but wasn't approved by the FAA for revenue service yet?

737-9 MAX was approved by FAA, and is suspended "for checks". The incidents happen while it was legal vehicle.

There was at least one american company which kept operating MAX (for not passenger roles directly after the incident. Most of non-US companies continue to operate these birds. Some with no changes .
 FAA regulations don't have much to do with safety. If this nonsense about "regulations are written with blood" will continue we can call GA crowd here.

[alain1951]

My querry is did the Mercury,  Gemini, Apollo missions all require  this FAA  Microscopic check of every rocket flight?. In the days of the space race there was a lot of rockets failing and the next launch proceeded quickly.

The FAA's mandate excludes NASA and the Armed Forces. It includes Commercial Space Launch Services.

[rcoppola]

My philosophy about this is fairly straight forward.

We need our regulatory agencies to be as innovative and nimble as those they regulate. They need to keep pace and allow industry to compete effectively in a very competitive world but without allowing said companies to put the public in unnecessary danger. And they need to be more predictive and less reactionary.

There should always be a good tension between regulator and regulated. But if the regulator can't keep pace, then it's incumbent upon the regulated to call them out and become a forcing function for change.

Regulations are not inherently bad. But nor are they sacrosanct.

[mn]

...
If this nonsense about "regulations are written with blood" will continue we can call GA crowd here.

Sorry but regulations are indeed written as a response to accident investigations all the time and those regulations have made flying significantly safer over the years.

Now the process is certainly not perfect, there are many rules that the NTSB would love to implement but they only have the power to suggest, but not actually make any rules. (and it goes both ways, there are definitely rules that have outlived their usefulness and can/should be reviewed to determine if they should be changed or just canceled altogether)

But overall this is not nonsense at all, it is very far from nonsense.

(I have this fantasy that one day a president will issue an executive order that for every new law or regulation written, at least two old laws/regulations must be abolished)

[Stan-1967]

Certainly and once it goes through the SMS process and risk mitigations which then gets the stamp of approval by the regulator body, all good to go.


There are procedures to follow to change any existing procedure or process. And I�m not trying to say the FAA�s process is perfect. But SpaceX just can�t go F it and do something without that approval.

I picked this quote to illustrate what I see happens when cargo cult mentality seeps into cultural niches that are divorced from having the capability of understanding the how successful attributes of what they say they value or desire are created.  ( whether it be material goods, cultural/social, whatever).  The mistakenly resort to outward superficial expressions that bear little if any true relevance to the creation of the valued thing.

I see this personally in my professional life when exposed to a wide array of companies trying to execute their business.  I've seen cargo cult thinking come from senior executives as they fill out org trees of expensive titles & roles, I see it QA/QMI professionals  who mistake the quality system as the creator of a companies wealth ( vs. guardian/guarantor).  I see it regulatory bodies like the FAA, FDA, some National Labs, & some members of this board who have experience in that sector.

I also see & live it in my professional life with engineering teams in something I call the "POR" cargo cult.  This one is doubly & triply pernicious when combined with QA & risk review boards.  A successful POR is a wonderful thing, but it does not help you innovate, and as the POR gets old, and the creators & teams who understood how it actually works move on or leave the org, depending on the detail contained in the POR, it loses its value.  As the world changes ( materials, suppliers, equipment, people)  clinging to the POR in face of obvious gaps in specifications and knowledge is very challenging and separates succesful companies from deficient companies.  I think you have to continuously be re-learning the POR and iterating into a new POR.  Failure to do this will result in stagnation & ignorance of how the wealth is created, and potentially even destroy that wealth.

Bringing this full circle to FAA/SpaceX situation, for me, they jury is out on what is really going on.   I do see the SpaceX countersuit as a good indicator of what they think the nature of regulatory bodies have become, and I think the statements of the FAA officials recently testifying to congress on the Space Act ( per the SpaceNews article) do display a detachment from reality in how safe space travel can be encouraged and managed by regulation.  As the final point of warning, if cargo cult thinking obtains government sanction, we can all kiss goodbye the fruits of successful space focused business activity.  This is not exclusive to SpaceX.

[novo2044]

...
If this nonsense about "regulations are written with blood" will continue we can call GA crowd here.

Sorry but regulations are indeed written as a response to accident investigations all the time and those regulations have made flying significantly safer over the years.

Now the process is certainly not perfect, there are many rules that the NTSB would love to implement but they only have the power to suggest, but not actually make any rules. (and it goes both ways, there are definitely rules that have outlived their usefulness and can/should be reviewed to determine if they should be changed or just canceled altogether)

But overall this is not nonsense at all, it is very far from nonsense.

(I have this fantasy that one day a president will issue an executive order that for every new law or regulation written, at least two old laws/regulations must be abolished)

The problem is regulations tend to be a one way ratchet.  And as they accumulate they can become outdated, counterproductive, or onerous to point of degrading overall performance.

Just for example, to minimize errors while working at a federal facility we had to do a checklist that verified what we were planning to do and that key safety measures were being adhered to.  Perfectly reasonable.  But what was once a six element list gradually expanded into a 20 page computer assisted monstrosity.  It still had references to things that hadn�t been used in decades. It had questions about Ebola screening in response to the Ebola scare several years back. I�m quite certain the COVID screening isn�t going anywhere any time soon.

Sometimes it was used multiple times a day.  And as it got longer everyone just starting clicking next without thinking about it. So not only did it take longer to complete, it became less effective over time.

There were good reasons for every question on that list.  But adding them is easy, removing them is hard.  Don�t you care about safety?  Why would you be against a safety checklist?  At some point adherence to process becomes more important that what that process was meant to achieve, and it�s all too common in both the private and public sector.

[envy887]

My querry is did the Mercury,  Gemini, Apollo missions all require  this FAA  Microscopic check of every rocket flight?. In the days of the space race there was a lot of rockets failing and the next launch proceeded quickly.

The FAA's mandate excludes NASA and the Armed Forces. It includes Commercial Space Launch Services.

That's kind of the problem here. SpaceX already needs USSF approval as range operator and NASA approval as pad owner in order to launch out of 39A, both of whom are better equipped to do safety evaluations on a launch operations than FAA is. Adding FAA oversight is little more than government CYA with a side of launch delays and/or fines.

[JEF_300]

But if the regulator can't keep pace, then it's incumbent upon the regulated to call them out and become a forcing function for change.

Absolutely. But the FAA is keeping pace just fine. At least with Falcon 9.
You guys should all be reading the information the FAA put out about these fines.

With the first launch, SpaceX had another launch 5 days later, which they aren't being fined for. Meaning that the FAA was, at most, 5 days behind SpaceX. Even if use of the new control room and procedures was absolutely mission critical for this launch (and why would this launch be different in that regard to the hundreds before it?) they would only have had to wait less than a week to get approval.

The propellant farm issue is far more damning; SpaceX proposed the launch license update for the new propellant farm on Wednesday July 19th, and then launched a Falcon Heavy using that propellant farm on Friday July 28th. That's 9 days guys, 7 work days. That's blatantly absurd. I agree that regulation should be fast, but are we really now arguing that two weeks of notice is too long?

[spacenut]

I have worked with government regulatory agencies.  They can be arrogant like you can't do anything without my permission, to just plain stupid (young inexperienced and don't know how to use a measuring tape) situation.  They can really slow you down, cause financial loses, and have customers waiting for service while we are waiting for permits.  Regulations can get so involved, especially during boom times economically, that they are overworked doing paperwork.  I see this happening. 

SpaceX is launching more than ever, and plan to launch more next year.  IT COST SPACEX MONEY to be unsafe.  Therefore something going wrong, costs them money without regulations.  The regulatory agencies should know they aren't doing things that are not safe.  So, if they can't get permits out in a reasonable time, they either have too many unnecessary regulations, or they need more help.  That is how I see it.  Some customers can't wait.  Launching satellites have to be at the right timing.  For instance Europa Clipper has to be launched at the right time or it has to wait several more years or have a bigger rocket.  SpaceX has 42,000 Starlink satellites to put up, they desperately need Starship.  Testing may not be perfect, but test flights has to be made.  Otherwise, they are going to either have to move to another country, or offshore outside US jurisdiction.  Every rocket launch, and landing for that mater, has a certain amount of risk.  Always will have.  Rockets haven't reached airline numbers yet, but it will within a few years with other companies developing reusable rockets.  Therefore the FAA has to hire more people to push the paper and streamline their regulations.