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

white frost-like material builds up around a cone-shaped rocket nozzle as it glows orange
Screenshot from the webcast of a SpaceX Starlink launch on July 11, 2024, showing a buildup of liquid-oxygen ice on the upper stage of a Falcon 9 rocket. The ice resulted from a leak, which prevented the upper stage from performing a planned engine burn and led to the loss of 20 Starlink broadband satellites. (Image credit: SpaceX)

It's eerily quiet on the spaceflight front.

In the past two weeks, there has been just a single orbital launch — that of a Chinese Long March 4B rocket, which lofted the Gaofen-11 05 Earth-observation satellite on July 18.

The lull stems chiefly from the temporary grounding of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, which suffered an anomaly on July 11 that led to the loss of its payload, 20 of the company's Starlink broadband satellites.

The failure seemed shocking, given the impressive track record of the Falcon 9: It's one of the most reliable and prolific launchers the world has ever known. 

Before the July 11 incident, SpaceX had launched 68 Falcon 9 missions in 2024 already, all of them successful. It was the first in-flight failure for the rocket since June 2015, a stretch that featured more than 300 successful orbital liftoffs. (A Falcon 9 did explode on the pad in September 2016 during preflight testing, however, leading to the loss of its payload, the AMOS-6 communications satellite.)

But we shouldn't be terribly surprised that a Falcon 9 had a bad day; it was bound to happen at some point, according to astrophysicist and satellite tracker Jonathan McDowell.

"This is a very hard business, and you can't expect to never have failures," McDowell told Space.com. "This, I think, just reminds us — and it reminds the SpaceX team — that the price of success is eternal vigilance. And, even with that, you're going to occasionally have failures."

McDowell takes another lesson from the anomaly as well — a time-honored one about not putting all of your eggs in one basket. 

"Falcon 9 is not invulnerable. And that really bolsters NASA's case for having multiple vendors," he said. 

He was referring to the agency's support of two different private astronaut taxis — SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsule and Boeing's Starliner spacecraft. In 2014, NASA awarded multibillion-dollar contracts to both companies to finish developing these vehicles. Dragon has been flying agency astronauts to and from the International Space Station since May 2020, and Starliner launched on its first crewed test flight to the orbiting lab last month. (Dragon's rocket is the Falcon 9, and Starliner flies on United Launch Alliance's Atlas V at the moment.) 

"It reminds other potential customers that it's in their interest for there to be multiple providers," McDowell said of the Falcon 9 failure. "Maybe they should give some launches to some of SpaceX's rivals, even if they're not the cheapest, just to maintain the alternative, if SpaceX has another downtime." 

The current Falcon 9 downtime likely won't last much longer; McDowell said he'd be surprised if the rocket weren't flying again a week from now. Whenever the Falcon 9 gets its wings back, however, its controllers may have a bit more pep in their step. 

"I wonder, too, what the exhaustion level is of the launch crews with this sustained push," McDowell said. "And so, maybe it's a good thing that they're getting a breather."

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Mike Wall
Senior Space Writer

Michael Wall is a Senior Space Writer with Space.com and joined the team in 2010. He primarily covers exoplanets, spaceflight and military space, but has been known to dabble in the space art beat. His book about the search for alien life, "Out There," was published on Nov. 13, 2018. Before becoming a science writer, Michael worked as a herpetologist and wildlife biologist. He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz. To find out what his latest project is, you can follow Michael on Twitter.

  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply