Author Topic: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure  (Read 32172 times)

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #20 on: 07/02/2016 06:11 pm »
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.
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.

That's not a mirror.  It's a mirror blank, which is unpolished.  That surface will be ground away before optical polishing.
Point being: You can always stand on some predecessor of flight hardware, although it could be the billets out of which the sheet metal is formed.  At some point you can't.
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.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2016 06:16 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3381
  • Liked: 6109
  • Likes Given: 836
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #21 on: 07/02/2016 06:55 pm »
It 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #22 on: 07/02/2016 07:08 pm »

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.

helium tanks?

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #23 on: 07/02/2016 08:04 pm »
It 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.

Note the difference in footwear between the moppers on the mirror blank and the worker on the Hale mirror.  A lot more care is used in the latter.

The "lunatic with a gun" incident involved McDonald Observatory's 107 inch reflector, not the Hale.

Still, I don't think any of this is relevant to rocket flight hardware.  Some parts can take the load, some can't, and one would hope that those who work there know the difference.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #24 on: 07/02/2016 08:28 pm »

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.

helium 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?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #25 on: 07/03/2016 10:28 am »
helium 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?

It may be joke. Jim rarely jokes, but his jokes are very dry.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48139
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36930
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #26 on: 07/19/2017 06:32 am »
The main CRS-7 threads were locked long ago, so I’ll post this update here:

Quote
NASA Will Not Release Public Report on SpaceX Falcon 9 Dragon Failure
 July 18, 2017  Doug Messier

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/07/18/nasa-release-report-spacex-falcon9-dragon-failure/

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #27 on: 07/19/2017 08:59 am »
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.
« Last Edit: 07/19/2017 09:00 am by Dante80 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #28 on: 07/19/2017 09:19 am »
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.
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.

Under CRS NASA does not own the rockets, nor the spacecraft. NASA buys a service from a commercial company and the flights are licensed by FAA, not NASA. If anyone is obliged to release a public report on the mishap than it is FAA, not NASA. But FAA is not going to do that, given that it is FAA that allowed both CRS contractors (SpaceX and Orbital) to investigate themselves when their respective launch mishaps took place.

Aditionally: the link in FutureSpaceTourist's post goes to parabolicarc. Doug, the guy running that site, was banned from NSF permanently for "having an agenda" with regards to SpaceX. This latest hit-piece is another fine example.

Finally: the fact that NASA is paying billions of US dollars for cargo resupply services is no justification for expecting NASA to publish a public report. There are no stipulations or clauses in the CRS contracts that would give NASA "the right" to do so.

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #29 on: 07/19/2017 11:10 am »
This is the relevant clause from the CRS contract (my bolding):

5.2. Mishap Investigation and Corrective Action for Mishaps Occurring Post Launch and Prior to Integrated Operations.

a) An initial investigation by the Contractor is required for all mishaps which have been reported to NASA. NASA reserves discretionary authority to investigate mishaps which involve NASA personnel or resources regardless of location. The Contractor has the discretion to perform any collateral investigations. However, investigations implemented by NASA will take priority with regard to access to evidence, data, and witnesses. The proceedings of NASA investigations will remain confidential. The Contractor will have an opportunity to comment on the investigation report in accordance with NASA protocols.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #30 on: 07/19/2017 11:19 am »
I suspect someone from the media will launch a FOIA.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #31 on: 07/19/2017 12:37 pm »
I 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.

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Liked: 546
  • Likes Given: 2012
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #32 on: 07/19/2017 12:41 pm »
I 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.

They might be able to get a heavily redacted version

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #33 on: 07/19/2017 01:23 pm »
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.
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.
« Last Edit: 07/19/2017 01:24 pm by Dante80 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #34 on: 07/19/2017 05:22 pm »
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.
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.
See reply 29 of this thread.

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #36 on: 07/23/2017 03:15 pm »
Well, 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...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline pb2000

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Calgary, AB
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 237
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #37 on: 07/23/2017 03:30 pm »
The Falcon 9 is on the bleeding edge of American rocket know how, so between ITAR and proprietary information, it would probably be pretty difficult to issue any sort of proper public report.
Launches attended: Worldview-4 (Atlas V 401), Iridium NEXT Flight 1 (Falcon 9 FT), PAZ+Starlink (Falcon 9 FT), Arabsat-6A (Falcon Heavy)
Pilgrimaged to: Boca Chica (09/19 & 01/22)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #38 on: 07/23/2017 07:04 pm »
Well, 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.

Online JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1559
  • Liked: 1739
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure
« Reply #39 on: 07/23/2017 07:15 pm »
Well, 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.

But what difference does releasing the report make. None. All the issues highlighted in the report will have been fixed.  So it's content is publicly irrelevant.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1