SpaceX rocket failure highlights need for multiple launch options: 'Falcon 9 is not invulnerable

[Admin]

SpaceX's workhorse Falcon 9 is one of the most reliable and prolific rockets ever flown. But it's not invulnerable, as we saw earlier this month.

SpaceX rocket failure highlights need for multiple launch options: 'Falcon 9 is not invulnerable : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Considering that the Dragon Capsule uses a different upper stage with different rocket motors (Dracos instead of Merlins), this seems like a stretch to ground the whole Falcon 9 vehicle line. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_rocket_engines for the current line of SpaceX rocket motors.

The FAA was asked to find that the RUD of the Merlin in the second stage of that launch did not "endanger public safety", but has not done so, so far.

I think that it should be required for the FAA to determine that it does endanger public safety before grounding a vehicle. I am not aware of any showing by the agency or anybody else that the failure that occurred had any significant potential public safety impacts.

Contrasting this to the FAA not grounding the Boeing 737 Max until after its second crash that killed hundreds of people, there seems to be some bias in the agency's treatment of the different companies I am wondering if this has anything to do with "saving" the Boeing Starliner program.

For its own credibility, the FAA needs to make a rational explanation of its positions.

 

[Philly]

I agree 1000% but is it really SX's fault, that the other new and established aerospace companies are clowns and can't get their act together. BO is older, better funded and has had plenty of time to get their act together. I mean with everything they have going for it, they haven't been able to put even a rock into LEO yet. It isn't like there are many options out there to serve as a backup to SX. Boeing is a mess right now. The SLS is ridiculously expensive.

Artemis is a folly of a program. Super complex and expensive all to re-enact the Apollo missions from over almost 55 years ago. The tech will face the same dead end that Apollo did, of landing and not being able to do too much more. There is no way to build a Moon/Mars base with such limited and expensive hardware.