ValveTech, a manufacturer previously hired by Boeing supplier Aerojet Rocketdyne to build valves for Starliner’s propulsion system, is warning NASA to “immediately halt” the spacecraft’s first crewed launch, which may come as early as Friday.

The company—which sued Aerojet in 2017 alleging a violation of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) and misuse of trade secrets—urged the space agency to “redouble safety checks and re-examine safety protocols” before the mission, which was scrubbed on May 6 due to a valve issue.

The faulty valve was located on United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas V rocket, which will launch Starliner into orbit. Tory Bruno, president and CEO of ULA, addressed ValveTech president Erin Faville’s comments directly in a post on social media platform X.

“Not sure what to say about this one,” Bruno wrote. “Close to none of it is correct: Not urgent. Not leaking. Etc. Remarkable that the particular person quoted doesn’t seem to know how this type of valve works…”

ValveTech says it supplies 14 valve components to Starliner vendors, but ULA tells FLYING it is not one of them. ValveTech did not immediately respond to FLYING’s request for comment.

Starliner has been described by NASA as a redundant alternative to SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule, which so far has flown eight Commercial Crew astronaut rotation missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Starliner, similarly, was designed as a reusable spacecraft to ferry astronauts to low-Earth orbit destinations.

The Starliner CFT, which had already been delayed several times, was scrubbed earlier this month due to an oscillating pressure regulation valve on the Atlas V rocket, forcing NASA to push back the launch to no earlier than Friday at 6:16 p.m. EDT.

Although NASA and ULA have already investigated and decided to remove and replace the valve, Faville warned against catastrophe should they attempt another launch.

“As a valued NASA partner and as valve experts, we strongly urge them not to attempt a second launch due to the risk of a disaster occurring on the launchpad,” said Faville. “According to media reports, a buzzing sound indicating the leaking valve was noticed by someone walking by the Starliner minutes before launch. This sound could indicate that the valve has passed its life cycle.”

NASA and ULA made no mention of a leaking valve in their assessments of the incident, saying only that the valve was oscillating abnormally.

“After evaluating the valve history, data signatures from the launch attempt, and assessing the risks relative to continued use, the ULA team determined the valve exceeded its qualification and mission managers agreed to remove and replace the valve,” NASA wrote in a blog post.

Faville later clarified that she is not calling for a permanent end to the Starliner program but rather a more thorough assessment of safety concerns.

“What I said was that NASA needs to redouble safety checks and re-examine safety protocols to make sure the Starliner is safe before trying to launch the Starliner again,” said Faville. “As a valued NASA partner, it would make no sense and not be in my company’s interest to end this mission.”

Since parting ways in 2017, ValveTech and Aerojet, a division of defense contractor L3Harris, have been tangled in a prolonged legal dispute. That year, ValveTech filed suit alleging that Aerojet breached NDAs and misused trade secrets in developing the flight valve for Starliner’s service module propulsion system.

In November, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York ruled that Aerojet had indeed breached two NDAs—awarding ValveTech $850,000 in damages—but had not misappropriated trade secrets.

According to Payload Space, the company sought further restrictions on Aerojet, but a judge closed the case on May 6.

In its statement regarding the May 6 launch scrub, ValveTech raised concerns about an earlier issue with one of Starliner’s valves. But the events appear to be unrelated.

In August 2021, Boeing scrubbed Starliner’s first uncrewed flight test due to a problem with the spacecraft’s service module propulsion system—the same system ValveTech alleges Aerojet built using trade secrets.

ValveTech alleges that “NASA, Boeing, and Aerojet…qualified this valve for [Starliner CFT] without proper supporting data or previous history or legacy information,” citing witness testimony from its November trial.

However, according to NASA and ULA, the incident on May 6 involved a pressure regulation valve on ULA’s Atlas V rocket—not the service module, which is on the Starliner capsule itself.

“The concerns raised by ValveTech in relation to the Crew Flight Test (CFT) mission are not applicable to the pressure regulation valve with off nominal performance during the first launch attempt,” a ULA spokesperson told FLYING.

ValveTech and Faville’s comments appear unlikely to deter NASA and Boeing from attempting a second Starliner CFT launch as early as Friday.

The companies have a $4.2 billion contract that includes six Commercial Crew rotation missions to the ISS on an unspecified timeline. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon already fills that role for the space agency. But NASA hopes to put a second spacecraft in the rotation for redundancy in the case of a contingency.

Safety, of course, remains a priority for the space agency. But with the program now several years behind schedule and an estimated $1.5 billion over budget, stakeholders will be eager to see Starliner fly with a crew as soon as possible.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post ULA Pushes Back on Warning to NASA to Halt Boeing Starliner Launch appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

There were 177 on board when the aircraft lost a door plug while climbing through 16,000 feet and experienced explosive decompression, resulting in a door-sized hole on the left side of the fuselage. The accident happened 13 minutes after takeoff from Portland International Airport (KPDX) in Oregon. The aircraft was bound for Ontario, California.

The four passengers are represented by Mark Lindquist, a Seattle-area personal injury attorney who also represented the families of dozens of victims after the 2018 and 2019 fatal crashes involving the Boeing 737 Max 8.

The airliner that became Flight 1282 was delivered to Alaska Airlines in October 2023. Prior to the Flight 1282 blowout, three different flight crews noticed issues with the aircraft pressurization system and wrote it up after receiving warning lights. The system has a triple redundancy. The first and second systems are activated by computer. The third system requires manual activation. The FAA allows the aircraft to fly with warnings from the system because of the triple redundancy.

• READ MORE: Passengers Sue Boeing

In response to the maintenance write-ups, Alaska Airlines pulled the aircraft from overwater operations but allowed it to fly over land.

According to Lindquist, Alaska Airlines is also named as a defendant.

“Alaska Airlines management decided the subject plane was not safe to fly over the ocean but was somehow safe enough to fly over land,” Lindquist said. “[This] risky decision [endangered passengers]. There’s no reasonable way for an airline executive to explain to the jury how they thought the plane was not safe to fly over the ocean but was safe to fly over land.” 

At the time of the blowout, the airplane was still climbing, and all the passengers were still wearing their seat belts. The flight back to KPDX was terrifying, Lindquist alleged, as the “passengers did not know if the plane could continue to fly while depressurized with a gaping hole in the fuselage.”

The seats directly next to the door plug were unoccupied, although a 15-year-old boy sitting close to it had his shirt torn from his body by the force of the decompression, and loose objects in the cabin, such as cellphones and stuffed animals, were sucked out into the night sky.

The airplane returned safely to Portland, where some passengers were treated for non-life-threatening injuries. Alaska Airlines swiftly grounded its fleet of 737 Max 9s, and within hours the FAA made the grounding a countrywide event.

• READ MORE: Alaska Airlines Grounds 737 Max Fleet Following Explosive Decompression

“It took the FAA three months and a second crash to ground the Max 8,” Lindquist said, “so it’s good to see this quick action. Lessons were learned by the FAA, if not Boeing.” 

According to information Lindquist sent to FLYING, the passengers aboard Flight 1282 described hearing “a loud bang and blare as a door plug blew out of the fuselage and the plane rapidly depressurized. This shocking blowout caused intense fear, distress, anxiety, trauma, physical pain, and other injuries to plaintiffs and fellow passengers.”

Lindquist added that Boeing “has long been on notice of quality control issues” and faced allegations the company “puts profits ahead of safety.”

The lawsuit alleges that “Boeing delivered a plane with a faulty door plug that blew out of the fuselage at 16,000 feet and air masks that apparently did not function properly. Plaintiffs feared the gaping hole in the fuselage, rapid depressurization, and general havoc was a prelude to the plane’s destruction and their own likely death.” 

According to Lindquist, “Some passengers were sending what they thought would be their final text messages in this world.”

One plaintiff wrote, “Mom our plane depressed. We’re in masks. I love you.”

The lawsuit charges three counts: one count of negligence against Boeing, one count of strict product liability against Boeing under Washington state’s Product Liability Act of 1981, and one count of negligence against Alaska Airlines.

A few days after the Max 9 incident, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun referred to the blowout as a “quality escape,” which Lindquist cited in the lawsuit. Calhoun explained “quality escape” was “anything that could potentially lead to an accident.” The lawsuit alleges the CEO thus admitted “a mistake” by Boeing.

In the Max 8 disasters, Boeing initially denied responsibility. “It’s encouraging to see the CEO step up this time and recognize the importance of accountability,” Lindquist said.

• READ MORE: FAA Scolds Boeing Over Door Plug Decompression Incident

The Investigation

The door plug was recovered in the backyard of a Portland high school teacher. The door has been shipped to the NTSB lab in Washington, D.C., for study. Investigators want to know if the four bolts designed to hold the door in place failed, or if they were mistakenly left out of the aircraft at assembly.

“Though it’s too soon to know for sure what exactly went wrong, we do know Boeing is ultimately responsible for the safety of their planes, and Alaska Airlines is ultimately responsible for the safety of their passengers,” Lindquist said.

After the aircraft returned to Portland, passengers were offered other flights to get to their destination of Ontario, California. In addition, the airline sent an email to each passenger offering them $1,500 each. According to Lindquist, many passengers were offended by both the amount and lack of a personal touch.

“While all the passengers have some things in common, their injuries are different based on where they were seated, their individual reactions, and how they are faring,” Lindquist said. “Each passenger is an individual with individual interests.”

FLYING reached out to both Alaska Airlines and Boeing for comment. Boeing replied that it had nothing to add, and Alaska Airlines stated that it does not comment on pending litigation.

On Wednesday morning, Alaska Airlines CEO Ben Minicucci sent an explanatory email to its customers to update them on the situation.

Minicucci apologized to the passengers of Flight 1282 and also to customers whose travel plans have been upset by the grounding of the Max 9. The model makes up 20 percent of Alaska Airlines’ fleet.

“Since Alaska Airlines and the FAA have grounded these aircraft, that means we are canceling between 110 to 150 flights every day,” said Minicucci, adding that because of the cancellations he has asked the reservations team to notify customers as soon as possible.

“Our reservations team is working around the clock to accommodate people on other flights. To all who’ve been impacted by these interruptions, I am sorry. When you make plans, you put your trust in us, and we haven’t been able to deliver over the past week.”

About the Inspections

According to Minicucci, the inspections of the aircraft began on Saturday, January 13, and are a joint effort by the airline, FAA, and Boeing. The information gathered will be compiled by Boeing and the FAA to determine the appropriate next steps in order to return the Max 9 fleet safely back to service. 

“At this time we do not yet know how long this process will take, but we will keep you updated as much as we can,” Minicucci said. “Aviation safety is based on having multiple levels of quality control and safety assurance, much like system redundancies that are built into an aircraft for operational safety together.”

• READ MORE: Boeing Bolstering Its Quality Inspections

In addition, Alaska Airlines is having its quality and audit team begin a thorough review of production, quality, and control systems, including vendor oversight.

“They will partner with our maintenance team on the design of enhanced processes for our own quality control over aircraft and Boeing,” Minicucci said. “And starting this week, we will have our own quality oversight of Alaska aircraft on the Boeing production line, adding more experienced professionals to the teams that validate work and quality on the production line for the 737.”

The post Additional Passengers Sue Alaska Airlines, Boeing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

A seventh person, the husband of a passenger, is also named in the complaint filed in King County Superior Court on Thursday by the Stritmatter Firm in Seattle. The law firm specializes in personal injury cases.

What Happened

On January 5 at around 5 p.m. PST, Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 took off from Portland International Airport (KPDX) in Oregon destined for Ontario, California. Approximately 13 minutes into the flight as the aircraft climbed through 16,000 feet, the door plug blew off. There was explosive decompression that sucked cellphones and parts of the seats adjacent to the hole out of the aircraft. A 15-year-old boy sitting next to the hole had his shirt ripped off his body by the force of the event.

The flight crew declared an emergency and the aircraft returned to the airport. There were no serious injuries reported among the 177 on board.

However, according to the complaint, “the event physically injured some passengers and emotionally traumatized most if not all aboard. The violence of the event bruised the bodies of some. The cockpit door blew open, and a flight attendant rushed to try to close it. The pressure change made ears bleed, and combined with low oxygen, loud wind noise, and traumatic stress, made heads ache severely. Passengers were shocked, terrorized, and confused, thrust into a waking nightmare, hoping they would live long enough to walk the earth again.”

The depressurization caused the oxygen masks to drop from the overhead panels. The complaint alleges that some of the oxygen masks “did not seem to work,” and “the flight attendants sought to attend to children, questions and concerns, and carried oxygen bottles to some, but did not or could not help all those whose oxygen masks seemed not to be functioning.”

Following the incident, the passengers aboard Flight 1282 received an email from Alaska Airlines providing them with a full refund.”As an immediate gesture of care, within the first 24 hours, we also provided a $1,500 cash payment to cover any incidental expenses to ensure their immediate needs were taken care of,” the airline said. “The payment was provided without any stipulations or conditions. This is in addition to offering 24/7 access to mental health resources and counseling sessions from Empathia, our incident response and family assistance partner. We are in communication with our guests of Flight 1282 and will continue to work with them to address their specific needs and concerns.”

FLYING reached out to Boeing regarding the complaint. The company replied that it has nothing to add.

Shortly after the event, Alaska Airlines voluntarily grounded its 737 Max 9s.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the FAA are investigating the incident, stressing that the safety of the traveling public is paramount.

Within hours of the incident, the F AA issued a worldwide grounding of all 737 Max 9 aircraft and instructed the operators to inspect them. The jet is widely used by both Alaska Airlines and United Airlines, two of the largest air carriers. Both have reported finding loose bolts during the inspection.

Both airlines have canceled hundreds of flights as result of the removal of the 737 Max 9 from operations.

• READ MORE: Alaska Airlines Grounds 737 Max Fleet Following Explosive Decompression

The Investigation Continues

On January 11 the NTSB recovered the door plug of the airliner from a backyard in a Portland residential neighborhood. The door plug and other bits and pieces torn from the aircraft are being studied in the NTSB laboratory in Washington, D.C. Investigators are trying to determine what caused the door plug to disengage from the aircraft.

According to Clint Crookshanks, an NTSB aerospace engineer who is part of the structures team on the investigation, the door plug is held in place by 12 stop pads that interface with 12 pins to prevent it from blowing out of the fuselage. The door is installed using guide tracks and roller guides then secured with four bolts. Crookshanks noted the guide tracks from the door plug were fractured, but as of yet, the NTSB has not determined if the bolts that were supposed to secure the door failed or if they had even been installed.

The aircraft was delivered to Alaska Airlines in October 2023 and at the time of the accident had flown 145 flights. According to the NTSB, prior to the accident flight there were three maintenance write-ups made by the crews for air pressurization warning lights. The air pressurization system is a triple redundant system, with a primary and secondary that control cabin pressure by computer and a third system controlled manually. Maintenance issues were reported on December 7, January 3, and January 4.

The FAA allows aircraft to fly with these maintenance issues since it is considered a triple redundancy. However, the aircraft was limited to overland operations.

The NTSB said it will be investigating whether the warning lights were “correlated in any way to the expulsion of the door plug and the rapid decompression.” The agency said the probe into the blowout could take months.

The grounding of the twin-engine jets has resulted in hundreds of flight cancellations and delays.

In the meantime, the FAA is investigating Boeing to determine if the aerospace giant’s manufacturing processes comply with the high safety standards the company is legally accountable to meet.

In a letter sent to Boeing on January 9, the agency stated that it had received notification of “additional discrepancies on other Boeing 737-9 airplanes” and noted these circumstances “indicate that Boeing may have failed to ensure its completed products conformed to its approved design and were in a condition for safe operation in accordance with quality system inspection and test procedures.”

Boeing has 10 days to respond to the FAA.

In the meantime, Spirit AeroSystems, a Boeing subcontractor, is also facing litigation for allegedly ignoring concerns raised by former employees about product quality. The complaint, filed in December, alleges corporate officials at the Wichita, Kansas-based company were repeatedly warned about “sustained quality failures” and “excessive amounts of defects,” but those concerns were ignored.

• READ MORE: Boeing Subcontractor Scrutinized Over Door Plug Failure

Employees allegedly discussed that it was only a matter of time before one of these substandard parts made it onto a jet delivered to a customer. Among the parts made by Spirit AeroSystems is the door plug that is used to turn a space for an optional emergency exit into a window. From the interior of the cabin, it looks like the other windows. From the exterior, the outline of the door is clearly seen on the fuselage.

In a statement to FLYING, Spirit AeroSystems indicated the company is cooperating with the NTSB’s investigation.

In the meantime, the FAA said the 737 9 Max will stay grounded until all the aircraft have been inspected and found to be safe, noting “the safety of the flying public, not speed, will determine the timeline for returning the Boeing 737-9 Max to service.”

Today the FAA announced it is making changes in how it worked with Boeing to include an audit involving the Boeing 737-9 MAX production line and its suppliers to evaluate Boeing’s compliance with its approved quality procedures. The results of the FAA’s audit analysis will determine whether additional audits are necessary.

There will be an increase in monitoring of Boeing 737-9 MAX in-service events, along with an assessment of safety risks around delegated authority and quality oversight, and examination of options to move these functions under independent, third-party entities.

“It is time to re-examine the delegation of authority and assess any associated safety risks,” FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker said. “The grounding of the 737-9 and the multiple production-related issues identified in recent years require us to look at every option to reduce risk. The FAA is exploring the use of an independent third party to oversee Boeing’s inspections and its quality system.”

The post Passengers Sue Boeing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“The FAA completed the safety review portion of the SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy license evaluation on October 31,” the agency told FLYING.

The safety review is the “principal component” of the FAA’s vehicle operator license evaluation, which grants companies the authority to launch rockets. In its review, the agency assessed the impact of Starship launches on public health and property damage. It also evaluated SpaceX’s safety organization, system safety processes, and flight safety analysis, as well as quantitative risk criteria related to launch, reentry, and vehicle disposal.

Starship—whose two reusable components, the Super Heavy Booster and Starship upper stage, stand close to 400 feet when stacked together—is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built. But its maiden voyage in April began and ended in flames, when the spacecraft lost control and exploded during stage separation just minutes into the flight.

Meanwhile, the impact of Super Heavy’s 33 Raptor engines on the company’s Boca Chica, Texas, launch pad, Starbase, created a massive crater. Starship’s liftoff broke windows, shook buildings, and sprayed ash and debris over an area far larger than expected, including 6 miles away in the town of Port Isabel.

While the FAA’s license evaluation safety review centered around Starship’s impact to people and property, the agency is now working on an environmental review to gauge its effect on nearby wildlife.

Coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act, the FAA must produce an updated biological assessment for Starship. An initial biological assessment, published in October 2021, assessed threats to wildlife surrounding Starbase.

According to USFWS, the ongoing environmental assessment focuses on a new water deluge system installed at Starbase, one of several upgrades the company has made to the launch pad since April. Most launch pads have either a water deluge system or a flame trench to suppress heat and sound. But Starbase lacked such a system during Starship’s first launch, which may have exacerbated the damage caused by the engines.

The FAA initiated a consultation with USFWS on October 19, giving the latter 135 days to issue an amended biological opinion based on the FAA’s assessment. However, it does not expect to take the full amount of time.

The FAA’s completion of Starship’s safety review and the ongoing work toward the environmental review bring SpaceX closer to modifying its launch license, which would clear the way for the massive rocket to fly again. But the company may still have hurdles beyond the FAA’s evaluation.

Starship’s maiden voyage was permitted under the FAA’s April written reevaluation of the programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) it awarded to SpaceX in 2022. But the April explosion brought scrutiny upon the PEA in the form of a lawsuit brought against the FAA by five environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity.

The plaintiffs claim the FAA could have mitigated the damage from the launch and subsequent explosion. Had the agency conducted an environmental impact statement (EIS) instead of a PEA “based on SpaceX’s preference,” as the groups allege, the impact may have been less severe.

Both a PEA and an EIS can give an operator the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) compliance required to greenlight a launch. But unlike an EIS, the PEA allowed SpaceX to analyze the potential impact of its own launch proposal and may have authorized Starship to fly sooner. The FAA required SpaceX to take more than 75 actions after submitting its PEA. But the lawsuit alleges these were not sufficient to prevent a mishap.

SpaceX in June joined the suit as a codefendant, and it and the FAA are now seeking to dismiss it. If they lose, the FAA would be required to conduct an EIS, which could represent a major setback for Starship.

However, SpaceX last week said Starship is ready to fly pending the approval of its license modification, and the company should still be able to conduct test flights despite the ongoing lawsuit.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post SpaceX’s Starship—the Most Powerful Rocket in History—Nears Return to Flight appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

That’s been one of CEO Elon Musk’s retorts to those who stand in the way of his goal of commercial space dominance. And at the moment, the regulator may pose the greatest threat.

There appears to be a misunderstanding between the two surrounding Starship’s second test flight, which Musk in June said would happen in “six to eight weeks.” We’re now well past that timeframe. But on Tuesday, the SpaceX, Tesla, and X (formerly Twitter) CEO took to the latter platform to share some good news: the most powerful rocket ever built is “ready to launch.”

Starship is ready to launch, awaiting FAA license approval https://t.co/WjENkdudo9

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 6, 2023

Concurrently, SpaceX posted images of the Starship rocket stacked on top of the Super Heavy booster at the company’s Starbase launchpad in Boca Chica, Texas. 

However, the FAA felt the need to clarify that Starship is still very much under investigation, casting doubt on Musk’s optimism.

“The SpaceX Starship mishap investigation remains open,” the agency told FLYING in a statement. “The FAA will not authorize another Starship launch until SpaceX implements the corrective actions identified during the mishap investigation and demonstrates compliance with all the regulatory requirements of the license modification process.”

The FAA clarified the ball is technically in its court. It’s still reviewing the final mishap investigation report SpaceX submitted in August and identifying the corrective actions the firm must take. Those will include modifications to its launch license to comply with regulatory requirements before it receives another green light to launch. A mishap investigation is standard when a launch or its impact does not go as planned.

Eric Berger of Ars Technica speculated, given the FAA’s update, Starship’s next launch is “likely to occur no earlier than the last 10 days of the month.”

Where Starship’s Problems Began

The FAA has now repeatedly communicated that Starship is not yet ready for another test flight. But that hasn’t diminished the optimism of Musk, SpaceX, and their supporters.

The agency’s investigation follows an April orbital test flight that began and ended in flames. The Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor engines roared to life on the launchpad, sending the 400-foot-tall rocket and booster 24 miles high before they spiraled out of control and exploded. SpaceX said it sent a command to Starship’s flight termination system (FTS) after the rocket and booster failed to separate as planned, causing a “rapid unscheduled disassembly.”

The explosion sent debris tumbling into the Gulf of Mexico. But even worse for SpaceX, the fireball created by the first-stage engines severely damaged the launchpad, carving out a massive crater.

The impact would also prove to be an issue for the surrounding area. It sparked a 3.5-acre brush fire and sent ash-like particulate and concrete and metal debris raining down as far away as Port Isabel, a town about 6.5 miles north of Starbase. Residents also reported broken windows, shaking buildings, and ear-splitting noise. Musk described the impact as a “rock tornado.”

The debris field was expected to span about 700 acres or just one square mile, equivalent to that of Starship’s largest explosion to date. Immediately, the FAA grounded Starship, opened its mishap investigation, and began reviewing data on the FTS (which took 40 seconds to initiate after activation) and the environmental impact on the nearby area. Starbase is surrounded by protected wetlands and the Gulf of Mexico.

The launch and explosion also sparked a lawsuit against the FAA brought by five environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and Save Rio Grande Valley. The plaintiffs allege the agency allowed SpaceX to self-conduct a programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) in lieu of a more robust, FAA-conducted environmental impact statement (EIS) “based on SpaceX’s preference.” They claim the PEA allowed Starship to fly sooner, while an EIS may have mitigated some of the launch’s effects.

If SpaceX and the FAA lose the case and are forced to conduct an EIS, it could add months—or potentially years—to Starship’s launch timeline. SpaceX joined the suit as a codefendant in June, and the company and the FAA are now seeking to dismiss it.

Still, the legal drama hasn’t stopped Musk from sharing what on the surface appear to be promising updates.

Updates to Starship and Starbase

Since April’s explosion, SpaceX has made “over 1,000 changes” to Starship and the Starbase launchpad, Musk told journalist Ashlee Vance in a discussion on Twitter Spaces in June.

The biggest is the addition of a water deluge system to the pad, which should shield it from the fireball and ear-splitting noise created by the 33 lower-stage engines and prevent debris from scattering for miles. The system is “basically like a gigantic upside-down shower head” that blasts water at the rocket while it sits on the pad, Musk told Vance.

The SpaceX CEO said he scrapped plans to install a water-cooled steel plate beneath the launcher for Starship’s first flight because it “wasn’t ready in time.” He later added the company thought the concrete would survive the flames.

The new system was evaluated during a static fire test in August, turning fire from the engines into steam. However, SpaceX reportedly did not apply for the proper environmental permits that would allow it to dispose of industrial wastewater from the test.

The company also upgraded the interstage area between the Starship rocket and Super Heavy booster. The changes will enable a “hot staging” maneuver, allowing the upper-stage engines to ignite before the booster engines finish burning, which Musk told Vance would improve Super Heavy’s mass-to-orbit performance by 10 percent. He added that the next flight will include more uniform engines, contrasting them to the “hodgepodge” of hardware used on the maiden voyage.

Outside of those key changes, SpaceX has conducted propellant load tests and tested a modified version of Starship’s FTS. In recent weeks, it completed hot fire tests of the Booster 9 rocket and upper-stage Ship 25 prototypes that were largely successful.

Starship’s next flight will not carry a payload. Rather, it will seek to demonstrate the performance of the 33 booster engines, stage separation between Starship and Super Heavy, and the ignition of the rocket’s six upper-stage engines. If it’s able to withstand the duration of the flight, it will splash down north of the Hawaiian island of Kauai.

As it gears up for another test launch, SpaceX continues to deploy Starlink satellites, including a record-breaking 62nd orbital launch of the year earlier this week. Musk said SpaceX in 2023 accounts for around eight in ten payload deliveries from Earth to orbit. By 2024, he expects the company to handle nine in ten —and one day, he hopes to exceed 99 percent.

SpaceX also sends astronauts and paying customers to the International Space Station on its Crew Dragon spacecraft through partnerships with NASA and Axiom Space. In a few years, it will provide the system that transports astronauts from lunar orbit to the moon’s surface and back again on NASA’s Artemis III mission, scheduled for December 2025. 

However, the agency all but blamed SpaceX for a potential delay to that timeline, with associate administrator for exploration systems development Jim Free worrying about the company’s “significant number of launches to go.”

Ultimately, Musk and SpaceX’s goal is to one day ferry hundreds of humans at a time to Mars. Musk has stated his hopes to establish a permanent human colony on the red planet by 2050—an aim NASA appears to share.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post SpaceX Starship Is ‘Ready to Launch’ Again—Or Is It? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Archer Aviation and rival Wisk Aero, the eVTOL subsidiary of aviation giant Boeing, jointly announced an agreement to settle a bitter, yearslong trade secrets dispute on undisclosed terms. Archer will issue warrants to Wisk for up to 13.2 million shares as part of the settlement.

But the agreement is twofold. In a twist nobody saw coming, the longtime competitors will actually enter a collaboration to make Wisk the sole provider of autonomy technology for Archer. Not only that, but Boeing—which bought out Kitty Hawk’s remaining shares in Wisk to become its sole owner in June—will fund the integration of the tech on a future variant of Archer’s Midnight eVTOL.

“This collaboration puts Archer in a unique position—to be able to source autonomy technology from a leader in the industry,” the company said in a press release. “Over the long term, autonomy is seen as one of the keys to achieving scale across all AAM applications, from passenger to cargo and beyond.”

The settlement gets a monkey off Archer’s back, and Boeing’s investment could one day allow the company to shift to autonomous flight, which has been the goal since the beginning. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Separately, Archer announced a $215 million investment from Stellantis, United Airlines, and ARK Investment Management, raising Archer’s valuation to a whopping $1.1 billion. The funding includes Boeing’s money as well as a $70 million acceleration from Stellantis, part of the exclusive manufacturing partnership the automaker signed with Archer in January.

And there’s even more. In its second-quarter shareholder letter, Archer revealed the FAA has greenlit Midnight for initial test flights. The approval keeps the company on track for type design flight testing in 2024 and a commercial launch the following year. Additionally, the first delivery of Midnight aircraft to an Air Force base—part of the firm’s recent $142 million AFWERX contract—is on schedule.

The trio of announcements comes just over a month before Archer and Wisk’s legal dispute was set to head to trial.

In May 2021, Wisk sued Archer for the “brazen theft” of over 50 trade secrets. It alleged that a former Wisk employee had downloaded sensitive information before departing for Archer and that Archer knowingly used Wisk intellectual property to develop Maker, the precursor to Midnight. Supporting its case were the similarities between the two designs.

Archer, predictably, disagreed. That August, it escalated the dispute with a countersuit for $1 billion in damages, claiming defamation. It referred to Wisk’s claims as an “extra-judicial smear campaign.”

Each side secured small victories in the disagreement. Wisk had a motion for injunction denied, allowing Archer to continue developing Maker. But when Archer responded by trying to have the case dismissed, Judge William Orrick III blocked it, arguing that Wisk’s allegations were plausible.

Still, Wisk’s allegations would have been difficult to prove. It needed to show not only that employees downloaded trade secrets, but also that Archer knew this when it began working on Midnight. In February 2022, federal prosecutors declined to charge Jing Xue, the former company engineer at the center of the case, dealing a blow to its efforts.

Archer and Wisk entered a second round of mediation this past March, but to no avail.

Now, however, both companies will be free to focus entirely on certifying their aircraft. That should happen for Archer before it does for Wisk, given the latter’s decision to fly autonomously from the jump.

Like rival Joby Aviation, Archer’s net loss widened significantly in Q2 as it prepares to ramp up manufacturing and flight testing. But while Joby reported about $1.2 billion in cash and short-term investments on hand, Archer has less than half that, about $407 million. That’s still a boatload of money. But its main rival—which has already begun flight testing its production prototype—appears to have a slight edge.

Archer, Joby, Wisk, and others will compete in the emerging advanced air mobility (AAM) market, flying passengers on short trips to and from airfields. Archer has agreements to fly in Chicago and New York City with United, while Joby plans to fly in New York and Los Angeles with Delta Airlines.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Archer Aviation Earns Fresh Funding from Bitter Rival Turned Ally appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Additional view of Starship flame deflector test pic.twitter.com/fOLVfAZVZ2

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) July 28, 2023

But about six weeks since Musk made his prediction, Starship is still grounded—and may stay that way.

The FAA told FLYING that SpaceX has not yet submitted a final mishap investigation report as part of the agency’s ongoing investigation of the April explosion. To modify its launch license and add flights to its calendar, SpaceX must file the report and take FAA-required actions, steps that could add months to the company’s timetable.

“Public safety and actions yet to be taken by SpaceX will dictate the timeline,” the FAA told FLYING, refusing to speculate on when exactly its investigation may close.

In the wake of the Starship explosion that sent concrete and metal debris flying over six miles away, the FAA opened a mishap investigation, which is standard when a launch does not go as planned. The investigation’s goal is to determine the root cause of the accident and identify the actions SpaceX needs to take to prevent it from happening again.

The investigation, also overseen by NASA and the National Transportation Safety Board, can only close once the FAA approves SpaceX’s final report, including those required actions. And further, SpaceX must implement the actions before Starship flies again, adding more time to the process.

SpaceX did not immediately respond to FLYING’s request for comment.

How SpaceX Got Here

Since April, SpaceX has been grounded because of a test flight that both began and ended in flames.

The launch of the fully integrated Starship rocket and Super Heavy booster—combined, the most powerful spacecraft ever built—was scrapped minutes before its original launch on April 17. But that Thursday, the 400-foot tall rocket took off, reached 24 miles in altitude, and promptly spiraled out of control, exploding and sending debris tumbling into the Gulf of Mexico.

My Autotrack software captures the moment that Starship lost control. Excitement was very much guaranteed. Great first attempt by the SpaceX team!

Tune in to hear our live reaction! @NASASpaceflight https://t.co/uutBwWSABz pic.twitter.com/in201JaOiU

— Michael Baylor (@MichaelBaylor_) April 20, 2023

SpaceX said the “rapid unscheduled disassembly” was caused by Starship’s flight termination system, essentially a self-destruct mechanism. The company did not say whether it was automatically or manually activated.

Prior to the launch, Musk himself gave Starship just a 50 percent chance of reaching orbit, saying the mission would be a success so long as it didn’t “blow up the launchpad.” But the Boca Chica, Texas launchpad, which unlike other large launch sites, did not have a flame trench or water deluge system, was severely damaged by a massive crater.

The launch strewed concrete and metal debris for miles and an ash-like particulate was reported in Port Isabel, about 6.5 miles from Starbase. Shaking buildings and broken windows were also reported in Port Isabel and South Padre Island, where onlookers gathered to watch the flight 5 miles away. In addition, the flight caused more noise than expected and sparked brush fires near the launchpad. Musk described the impact as a “rock tornado.”

The debris field was expected to span 700 acres or about one square mile, equivalent to the one created by Starship’s largest explosion to date. Almost immediately, the FAA grounded Starship and launched its investigation. It also called on SpaceX to analyze the impact of the launch and complete “environmental mitigations.”

A Lawsuit Creates More Headaches

The town of Port Isabel said the launch created no “immediate concern for people’s health,” adding that environmental groups were holding judgment. 

But some of them didn’t hold off for very long. On May 1, five environmental organizations sued the FAA over its launch handling. They called for it to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS), which they say would have mitigated the launch’s effects.

In approving Starship’s inaugural launch, the FAA instead relied on a programmatic environmental assessment (PEA), considered less stringent than an EIS because SpaceX itself conducted it. In fact, the groups accused the agency of forgoing an EIS “on SpaceX’s behalf.”

After submitting its PEA, SpaceX was required to take over 75 actions to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. But the groups further allege those actions were insufficient and that the FAA did not consider alternative proposals, such as a timeline with fewer launches.

While SpaceX itself isn’t being sued, the suit threatens to delay Starship launches potentially for years. If the FAA loses, it would be required to conduct an EIS for Starship. For context, nearly one year passed between the draft of SpaceX’s PEA and the final proposal. An EIS typically takes longer.

In June, SpaceX joined the FAA as a co-defendant in the case, and the two are now seeking to dismiss it.

The Outlook for SpaceX

SpaceX prototypes have exploded in the past, and the recent Starship incident appears to be particularly severe. But in other areas of the company, it’s business as usual.

In addition to sharing updates on propellant load and flame shield testing, SpaceX continues to deploy satellites with Falcon Heavy, launching a mission just last week. The company has also completed several Starlink launches in the past few months and will fly a mission to the International Space Station with its Dragon spacecraft in August.

However, the investigation into Starship could sideline NASA’s Artemis 3 moon mission, currently planned for 2025. In June, the agency all but blamed SpaceX for the potential delay in its launch timeline.

“They have a significant number of launches to go, and that of course gives me concern about the December of 2025 date,” said Jim Free, associate administrator for exploration systems development at NASA.

To chart the future, SpaceX will need to learn from its past. But so far, it appears the company has been doodling during class. Per CNBC, it did not apply for the proper environmental permits that would allow it to dispose of industrial wastewater in the surrounding area during its recent flame deflector testing. The testing involved a new steel plate, which was added to shield the launchpad from the fireball created by the launch.

The post SpaceX Yet to File Paperwork in Starship Investigation, FAA Says appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Figuratively, that is. On Monday, five environmental groups sued the FAA over its handling of the Starship launch, accusing the agency of making concessions to SpaceX that contributed to the test flight’s impact on surrounding areas.

Specifically, the groups criticized the FAA for not having conducted an environmental impact statement (EIS), which they claim would have mitigated damage from the launch and subsequent explosion. Per multiple reports, the test flight sent particulate matter and chunks of concrete flying six miles away and started a 3.5-acre brush fire on protected state land.

Five organizations comprise the case’s plaintiffs: the Center for Biological Diversity; Save RGV (Rio Grande Valley); the Carrizo-Comecrudo Nation of Texas; the American Bird Conservancy; and the Surfrider Foundation.

The FAA declined to comment on the suit.

In a court filing, the environmental groups accused the FAA of forgoing an EIS “based on SpaceX’s preference.” It’s unclear whether the firm swayed the FAA’s decision, but the agency instead relied on a programmatic environmental assessment (PEA), an analysis by SpaceX itself of the launch’s environmental impacts. A PEA is considered to have a lower standard than an EIS, which may have helped SpaceX launch sooner.

That PEA returned a mitigated finding of no significant impact (FONSI), which resulted in the FAA requiring SpaceX to take over 75 actions to reduce the launch’s impact. But that was enough for the Starship program to earn National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, meaning an EIS was no longer required.

While SpaceX followed the FAA’s instructions, the suit alleges that they were not significant enough to prevent future mishaps, adding that the FAA did not properly explain how the measures would mitigate impacts on the environment. It also argues that so-called “anomalies”—like the Starship explosion—are a feature of the program rather than a bug, claiming the FAA has acknowledged there will be more to come over the next five years.

Further, environmental groups claim the FAA violated NEPA by failing to consider alternatives to SpaceX’s proposal. According to the suit, the agency considered only SpaceX’s proposal and a “no action” alternative rather than examining, for instance, a plan with fewer launches.

Can They Win?

If past lawsuits against the FAA are any indication, the five environmental groups could win their case—or at least get what they want. 

In 2017, the city of Santa Monica, California, settled a suit with the agency, laying the path for the closure of the Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) after 2028. That same year, the courts sided with the city of Phoenix in another suit, requiring the FAA to conduct an environmental study on flight paths and revert to previous routing into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (KPHX).

• READ MORE: City Council Votes To Close Santa Monica Airport

And in a 2010 case brought against the FAA by families of passengers who died in the Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash, a settlement resulted in updated FAA rules concerning airline transport pilot training, certification, and rest requirements that are still under debate.  

So, there is precedent for lawsuits brought against the agency ending in varying degrees of change, even if through settlement. And if the environmental groups get their way in this case, it could be a while before Starship is back in the sky.

An EIS Could Spell Trouble

According to a timeline on the FAA’s official site, to launch a new EIS for Starship would take a minimum of 75 days, or a little more than two months. That accounts for mandatory waiting periods during the scoping and public comment processes and does not include the time required to research, review, and draft the final statement.

All told, the process would likely extend significantly beyond the 75-day minimum timeline. For context, nearly a year passed between the draft of SpaceX’s PEA and the release of the final proposal. An EIS is considered to be even more thorough than a PEA and could therefore take even longer.

An EIS would represent a third major hurdle SpaceX must clear before its next test flight. Already, the firm is contending with an FAA investigation into the safety of the project and the arduous task of rebuilding its Boca Chica launch pad, both of which could take months.

Still, as of April 20, the date of last month’s launch, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk remained confident in the firm’s ability to get back in the air soon:

Congrats @SpaceX team on an exciting test launch of Starship!

Learned a lot for next test launch in a few months. pic.twitter.com/gswdFut1dK

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 20, 2023

Is it possible we see another Starship launch by June? Absolutely. But considering the FAA’s ongoing investigation, and now a lawsuit, Musk’s assessment may be a bit optimistic.

The post FAA Faces Lawsuit Over Handling of SpaceX Starship Program appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Honda Aircraft, also known as HACI, said Jet It “continues to remain an important customer to   HACI, and HACI will continue to provide service and support.”

Late last year Honda Aircraft filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit against Jet-It, one of its largest customers, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. In the suit, Honda alleged that Jet-It had violated terms of certain agreements and made “disparaging comments” about the aircraft maker. Both companies are based in Greensboro, North Carolina.

• READ MORE: Jet-It Pivots Away From HondaJet to Phenom 300

Prior to the lawsuit, Glenn Gonzales, the founder and CEO of Jet-It, had claimed that his company suffered significant losses attributable to poor reliability of the Honda aircraft in the company’s fleet and inadequate customer service.

Gonzales had also told customers that the company was adding the Embraer Phenom 300 aircraft to its fleet after having a “disappointing” experience working with Honda Aircraft. At the time Honda said its dispatch reliability stood at 99.7 percent, while Gonzales said it was far less, claiming that “for every nine days that we fly a HondaJet, it requires six days of maintenance.”

The post Honda Aircraft Says It Settled Its Lawsuit Against Jet-It appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In the lawsuit filed in federal court, Comair, which was a licensee for British Airways, alleged that Boeing “misrepresented and concealed material facts concerning the 737 Max,” and refused to return the advanced deposits of more than $45 million for aircraft it did not deliver.

A spokesperson for Boeing declined to comment.

• READ MORE: Boeing Facing Criminal Charges for 737 Max Accidents

In a statement released Tuesday, Comair said it paid in full for one 737 Max and took delivery of the aircraft, but the worldwide grounding of the 737 fleet after two fatal accidents put the airline at a loss of more than $83 million.

Comair alleges that Boeing has a “conceal culture” as the company tried to downplay issues created by the position of the engines that resulted in uncommanded pitch issues. Rather than initiating a costly redesign of the aircraft, “Boeing tried to combat it with a new software called the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (“MCAS”), which automatically applied downward stabilizer trim,” it said in a statement.

Boeing has been criticized for not providing adequate information or training on the use of MCAS to the pilots of the 737 Max.

• READ MORE: NTSB, Ethiopian Investigators Clash Over 737 Max Accident Report

The malfunctioning MCAS was cited in two 737 Max crashes. The first was on October 28, 2018, when Lion Air Flight 610 went down 11 minutes after takeoff from Jakarta, Indonesia, killing all 189 souls on board. 

The second accident was March 10, 2019, when Ethiopian Air Flight 302 crashed six minutes after takeoff from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, killing all 157 souls on board. In both cases the MCAS put the airplanes into dives from which the crew could not recover.

The post Comair Claims Fraud In Boeing 737 Max Lawsuit appeared first on FLYING Magazine.