What FAA just Did with ULA Vulcan FAIL Shocked Elon Musk SpaceX!

This is insane. Once again, the FAA applies a double standard in enforcing its regulations, but this time not to Boeing and SpaceX, but to ULA and SpaceX. Frankly, without the FAA's support, testing ULA's new Vulcan Centaur rocket recently would not have ended so smoothly. Meanwhile, the stories of SpaceX's Falcon 9 are totally different. It seems like one of the strangest things in the rocketry that SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has ever seen. Find out everything in today's TechMap episode. But before we begin, let's subscribe to the channel to stay up to date with the latest space news. After a long time delay resulting in paying postponement fees for the Air Force in the summer, ULA finally decided to skip its customer, Sierra Space, to launch its Vulcan Centaur rocket with a dummy payload on October 4th. This is the compulsory second launch of the new generation rocket, called CERT-2, needed to certify the vehicle for carrying national security payloads. Although hailed as a success, it was certainly not a perfect test flight since one of its solid rocket boosters suffered an anomaly. Frankly, the anomaly in a test flight is not strange because even the most reliable rocket, SpaceX's workhorse Falcon 9, also experienced such incidents. Of course, anomaly means a thing, situation, etc. that is different from what is normal or expected, which is not very close to a total failure of a flight or a serious accident affecting public safety. Fortunately, in the case of the Falcon 9, there is no record of an anomaly that would affect public safety, and Vulcan Centaur's CERT-2 might be similar. Videos from the launch show that there appeared to be material coming off the right side booster, whose plume changed appearance, suggesting damage to the SRB's nozzle. ULA's CEO, Tori Bruno, confirmed the incident was not very close to a failure of the SRB itself and described it as a nozzle anomaly that did not involve the booster casing or fuel grain and was compensated for by the booster, but it's just the release of the nozzle. No explosions occurred, he said. Anyway, in the end, the rocket still completes its mission. The FAA seems to agree with that statement, saying because no public injuries or public property damage have been reported, it determined no investigation is warranted at this time. The U.S. Federal Agency, which regulates commercial space launches, said it is assessing the operation and will issue an updated statement if the agency determines an investigation is warranted. This reminds me of some of the incidents that happened with the Falcon 9 which made the FAA conduct an investigation or even ground the rocket's fleet. Friendly reminder, Falcon 9 is the cash cow of SpaceX, the arch-rival of ULA. On the night of July 11, SpaceX's workhorse Falcon 9 rocket suffered a rare anomaly. Given that the rocket's upper stage, which was hauling 20 Starlink spacecraft to low-Earth orbit, encountered a leak of liquid oxygen, which had serious repercussions for the mission. However, the company affirmed that the failed satellites do not pose a threat to other satellites in orbit or to public safety. As a result, an investigation was required by the FAA, and the fleet was grounded over two weeks. In August, the FAA continued to ground Falcon 9 because the rocket failed an attempt to land on a seafaring barge as usual and toppled into the ocean after a fiery touchdown even though previously it successfully launched a batch of Starlink internet satellites into orbit. The incident involved the failure of the Falcon 9 booster rocket while landing on a drone ship at sea. No public injuries or public property damage have been reported. The FAA is requiring an investigation, an FAA spokesperson said. The chorus of investigation by the FAA doesn't stop here when on September 28, they again required investigation of anomaly on SpaceX's Crew 9 astronaut launch. The reason is the second stage of the Falcon 9 landed outside the designated danger zone. Clearly, the FAA said no public injuries or public property damage have been reported, but they still required an investigation. Hopefully, at this point, you can see something strange. While like Vulcan's SIRT-2, Falcon 9's anomalies don't impact public safety, the FAA delays Falcon 9 but not Vulcan. Not only the public but also SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is confused by the double-standard regulatory style of a US federal agency. He responded with three question marks to a post by Eric Berger, senior space editor at Ars Technica, on the subject. Some comments also expressed their anger, along with Elon Musk. This is insane. God forbid you have a an investigation, but an explosion of an SRO on liftoff is no big deal. We're safety-driven, but an SRB nozzle literally blowing off isn't something worth investigating? It's thankful it didn't destroy the entire booster, but it's crazy to see a piece of a rocket just unintentionally falling off and it isn't a FAA concern? Ridiculous. Really? Politics. So, how about you? Are you confused by the FAA's double-standard regulatory style in this case? Please comment. One in the FAA's recent movement comes amid ULA. A 50-50 joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin is accelerating its pace to clear the new rocket, Vulcan Centaur, for launching military satellites under lucrative Space Force contracts. To certify the rocket, the Space Force required ULA to complete two successful Vulcan test flights. The debut test flight of the Vulcan rocket was on January 8, which sent a commercial lunar lander from Astrobotic on a trajectory toward the Moon. The launch in January was nearly perfect. With the test this time, despite the booster malfunction, ULA officials clearly believe the Vulcan rocket did enough for the Space Force to certify it. The success of Vulcan's second certification flight heralds a new age of forward-looking technology committed to meeting the ever-growing requirements of space launch and supporting our nation's assured access to space, Bruno said in a statement. We had an observation on one of our solid rocket boosters, SRBs, that we are reviewing, but we are overall pleased with the rocket's performance and had a bull's-eye insertion. The Space Force hailed the test flight as a certification milestone. This is a significant achievement for both ULA and an important milestone for the nation's strategic space lift capability, said Brig. Gen. Kristen Ponsenhagen, Space Systems Command's Program Executive Officer for Assured Access to Space. The Space Force's partnership with launch companies such as ULA is absolutely critical in deploying on-orbit capabilities that protect our national interests. We are already starting to review the performance data from this launch, and we look forward to Vulcan meeting the certification requirements for a range of national security space missions. Vulcan is a program the Air Force is deeply invested in because it serves a strategic purpose by replacing ULA's Atlas V rocket in the National Security Launch Fleet. This transition is mandated by a 2016 law that prohibits the U.S. military from using launch vehicles reliant on the Russian-made RD-180 engine. ULA targeted a reusable type of rocket engine for Vulcan's first stage, and they chose American-made B-4 engines from Blue Origin. So, assuming the FAA conducts an investigation into Vulcan like they did with Falcon that would result in a delay in ULA's work, it would be a huge blow to ULA and the Space Force. Nevertheless, engineers still decided to investigate what happened with one of Vulcan's solid rocket boosters shortly after liftoff, and the timing of the next Vulcan launch, if the Space Force certifies the new rocket, will likely hinge on the outcome of the investigation into the booster anomaly. ULA was formed almost 20 years ago to provide the Defense Department with assured access to space. This defense contractor is one of the Pentagon's key partners in launching national security satellites into space, but currently it is recognized as not being able to meet the needs to counter China and build the arsenal in orbit with a new rocket that ULA has been developing for years. On May 13, Air Force Assistant Secretary Frank Calvelli sent a letter to heads of Boeing's and Lockheed Martin's Space Division. By unusually blunt terms, he said, I am growing concerned with ULA's ability to scale manufacturing of its Vulcan rocket and scale its launch cadence to meet our needs. Currently, there is military satellite capability sitting on the ground due to Vulcan delays, he wrote. In 2020, ULA, along with SpaceX, secured a multi-billion-dollar contract from the U.S. Space Force. The national security space launch phase two contract requires ULA to launch 25 missions by the end of 2027. However, Vulcan's lack of certification has resulted in a backlog of those 25 missions to date. As the Air Force Assistant Secretary said in the letter, 90 days is a needed time for both Boeing and Lockheed Martin Corporation to work together to complete an independent review of ULA's ability in this case. And that just about wraps it up for today's episode. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing you next time.