Quote from: cuddihy on 07/01/2016 11:29 amI look forward to the day when launch operations are so routine that standing on flight hardware is nothing out of the ordinary--as long as the part in question is fairly sturdy.Or do it like airplanes. You can step on certain parts, like the wings, provided you avoid the "no step" area. And there must be some explicit analysis to show it *is* safe to step on the allowed areas.It sometime surprising where stepping is allowed. Here are folks standing on the mirror of an optical telescope, and cleaning it with a mop.
I look forward to the day when launch operations are so routine that standing on flight hardware is nothing out of the ordinary--as long as the part in question is fairly sturdy.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 07/02/2016 06:00 pmIt sometime surprising where stepping is allowed. Here are folks standing on the mirror of an optical telescope, and cleaning it with a mop.That's not a mirror. It's a mirror blank, which is unpolished. That surface will be ground away before optical polishing.
It sometime surprising where stepping is allowed. Here are folks standing on the mirror of an optical telescope, and cleaning it with a mop.
We have seen photos of workers inside Falcon 9 elements, and can't believe that's the issue.I really wonder what specific flight hardware workers were observed standing on.
Quote from: Comga on 07/02/2016 06:11 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 07/02/2016 06:00 pmIt sometime surprising where stepping is allowed. Here are folks standing on the mirror of an optical telescope, and cleaning it with a mop.That's not a mirror. It's a mirror blank, which is unpolished. That surface will be ground away before optical polishing.No, you can stand on a telescope mirror after final polishing. Here are folks standing on the polished mirror of the Hale 5 meter telescope, cleaning it with sponges.I even think there are cases of people standing on polished and *coated* mirrors. If I recall correctly, it was after some lunatic attacked the mirror with a gun. The bullet put a few cm chip in the mirror, which mostly causes problems by dispersing light from the unintended edges. So a worker went out on the mirror and painted the pit black. It was used the next night.
Quote from: Comga on 07/02/2016 06:11 pmWe have seen photos of workers inside Falcon 9 elements, and can't believe that's the issue.I really wonder what specific flight hardware workers were observed standing on.helium tanks?
Quote from: Jim on 07/02/2016 07:08 pmhelium tanks?From almost anyone else a half sentence question like that would be dismissable.From you, it hints the specific action was observed by you or someone with whom you have spoken.You usually say what you can, however succinctly, but can you say more?
helium tanks?
NASA Will Not Release Public Report on SpaceX Falcon 9 Dragon Failure July 18, 2017 Doug Messier
I really do not understand why NASA would not release a report on this. Especially when in the past they specifically said they would. The only thing I can think of is that SpaceX is pressuring them not to. Which sucks. Especially since there is a lot of public monies involved in this.
I suspect someone from the media will launch a FOIA.
Quote from: Star One on 07/19/2017 11:19 amI suspect someone from the media will launch a FOIA.Which will be denied given certain CRS contract stipulations as well as the presence of proprietary information in the mishap report.
Quote from: Dante80 on 07/19/2017 08:59 amI really do not understand why NASA would not release a report on this. Especially when in the past they specifically said they would. The only thing I can think of is that SpaceX is pressuring them not to. Which sucks. Especially since there is a lot of public monies involved in this. No. Has nothing to do with pressure but everything with the "release of proprietary information"-clause in the CRS contracts, as well as NASA having no obligation whatsoever to release any mishap report with regards to CRS.
Quote from: woods170 on 07/19/2017 09:19 amQuote from: Dante80 on 07/19/2017 08:59 amI really do not understand why NASA would not release a report on this. Especially when in the past they specifically said they would. The only thing I can think of is that SpaceX is pressuring them not to. Which sucks. Especially since there is a lot of public monies involved in this. No. Has nothing to do with pressure but everything with the "release of proprietary information"-clause in the CRS contracts, as well as NASA having no obligation whatsoever to release any mishap report with regards to CRS.NASA has no obligation but they did state they would publish a(n obviously redacted) summary from the investigation. What happened to change that? ESPECIALLY if we take into account what SpaceX has published about the mishap..and what OIG later talked about the root cause and other things.I know who Doug Messier is. I am talking about the facts here.
Well, here's someone else's opinion on this: http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/editorial/opinion-inconsistency-nasa-treats-private-partners/
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 07/23/2017 02:28 pmWell, here's someone else's opinion on this: http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/editorial/opinion-inconsistency-nasa-treats-private-partners/Ah yes, Jason Rhian. I haven't followed his articles for the past few years, but he didn't used to be a SpaceX fan.Jason makes many points, and references quite a few external sources (including Russia's RT), but one of the key points he missed was that in the case of the Orb-3 accident, where NASA did release a report, NASA paid $5M for the repair of the launch facility, whereas with CRS-7 there was no launch pad damage since the failure occurred mid-flight.Jason does also try to argue that NASA should have released a report because the Falcon 9 is intended to eventually carry humans, and that any accident is then a cause of concern for that goal, but apparently he's unaware that the version of Falcon 9 that will carry humans (i.e. Block 5) is not the same version that was launching CRS-7 (Block v1.1).Jason does reference probably the most transparent reason for why there is no public report:"Despite these findings, NASA’s assertions that it is not required to produce a report on the accident is 100 percent accurate."Because it's not required to issue one.So to summarize, if a transportation contractor loses NASA cargo while in transit, NASA is not required to issue a report. But if a transportation contractor loses NASA cargo, AND causes damage that NASA has to pay for, then NASA has to issue a report.That's what appears to be the situation...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/23/2017 03:15 pmQuote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 07/23/2017 02:28 pmWell, here's someone else's opinion on this: http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/editorial/opinion-inconsistency-nasa-treats-private-partners/Ah yes, Jason Rhian. I haven't followed his articles for the past few years, but he didn't used to be a SpaceX fan.Jason makes many points, and references quite a few external sources (including Russia's RT), but one of the key points he missed was that in the case of the Orb-3 accident, where NASA did release a report, NASA paid $5M for the repair of the launch facility, whereas with CRS-7 there was no launch pad damage since the failure occurred mid-flight.Jason does also try to argue that NASA should have released a report because the Falcon 9 is intended to eventually carry humans, and that any accident is then a cause of concern for that goal, but apparently he's unaware that the version of Falcon 9 that will carry humans (i.e. Block 5) is not the same version that was launching CRS-7 (Block v1.1).Jason does reference probably the most transparent reason for why there is no public report:"Despite these findings, NASA’s assertions that it is not required to produce a report on the accident is 100 percent accurate."Because it's not required to issue one.So to summarize, if a transportation contractor loses NASA cargo while in transit, NASA is not required to issue a report. But if a transportation contractor loses NASA cargo, AND causes damage that NASA has to pay for, then NASA has to issue a report.That's what appears to be the situation...Some might argue just because it's a different version to the one that will carry humans that this isn't sufficient reason alone to duck releasing any kind of report.