Congress at the United StatesWashington. DC 20515July 15, 2014The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr.AdministratorNational Aeronautics and Space Administration300 E St., SWWashington, DC 20546Dear Administrator Bolden,We would like to thank you for your service to our nation and the job that you do. You have great insightinto our nation's space programs and we share a desire for these programs to be safe and successful.For that reason, we write out of concern for the following issues:1. To date, anomalies that have occurred on launch vehicles under NASA contract and developedwith substantial taxpayer funds; and2. The lack of public disclosure or accountability to the American taxpayer on these anomalies.We are aware of a significant near-term backlog in SpaceX launches for its NASA, DOD, and commercialcustomers. SpaceX contracted or planned for 24 Falcon 9 flights through 2013 and flew seven. They listnearly 30 flights for this year and next, yet have only flown three times. with the most recent July 14 flightfinally launching after being delayed 12 times since September 2013 for numerous issues, including achronic helium leak. This raises the question of schedule for critical launches and whether there will beadequate support for ISS, DOD and other commercial mission needs. The company publically notes a $4billion backlog of launches. There is a question as to whether SpaceX can even complete these launchesalong with current government obligations. Glaring evidence of this is that NASA has extended theoriginal contract period for CRS by two years.We fully support full competition for EELV’s among certified providers. However, we have concerns thatthe process may be weakened due to recent attacks on the Air Force regarding oversight and the need tocertify providers launching national security payloads. We strongly support the Air Force certificationprocess and object to any effort to bypass it or loosen its standards. Similarly, we support NASA‘s high-value payload and human rating certification processes. The highly technical vehicles used for thesemissions can pose a risk to life and property it a malfunction occurs. The requirements for these vehicleswere put into place to ensure that high standards are met to assure that the necessary precautions aretaken to meet high-risk technical demands and to reliably deliver high-value payloads safely into orbit.Ignoring these standards would pose a high risk that would inevitably result in costly and preventablefailures.Recent news reports have shown that an epidemic of anomalies have occurred during SpaceX launchesor launch attempts, including multiple helium leaks, loss of capsule control, multiple thruster issues,avionics issues, capsule contamination issues, and three consecutive seawater intrusions on ISS CargoResupply Service (CR8) missions. lt should be noted that this is supposed to be a reusable capsule.Congressman Mike Rogers of Alabama recently submitted a letter to both NASA and the Air Force raisingconcerns about SpaceX flight anomalies. NASA‘s vague response claimed the agency cannot provideinsight into technical anomalies, citing proprietary information, and placed the burden on SpaceX toprovide the information.To date, NASA has refused to provide insight into anomalies or mishaps that have occurred during nearlyevery phase of nearly every launch on SpaceX vehicles the agency has funded. Concurrently, SpaceXhas introduced major design changes into the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule, further complicatingthe certification issue. Yet SpaceX is demanding to be certified immediately by the Air Force. ln fact,SpaceX owner Elon Musk was recently quoted as saying, "l don't understand why we even have to fightfor this. It should just be automatic." While Mr. Musk portrays the certification, transparency andaccountability standards as unfair and expensive, similar processes apply to air travel - a less complexform of travel - and we see no complaints from that industry.In the interest of full disclosure and accountability to the American taxpayer, we request that NASApublicly release all anomalies and mishap information, un-redacted, so that Congress can gain a betterunderstanding of what has occurred and ensure full transparency. Because the development of thevehicles and capsule in question were funded by NASA dollars, we request that you provide Congresswith the information you have on the various aspects of risk and reliability from these programs, includingcontractual, management, technical, manufacturing, cost, schedule and safety. We also request youropinion on the resultant risk to ISS support, resupply and crew well-being. Please provide yourunderstanding of the specific technical issues, failures and resulting consequences for ISS (i.e. loss ofscientific data, etc.) for each of these flights. Again. because the vehicles in question were funded byAmerican taxpayer dollars, there should be no issue making this report publicly available.This information is critical to Congress‘ understanding of these programs and the associated risks and assuch, we respectfully request that you please provide this information within 30 days of your receipt of thisletter. We thank you in advance for your cooperation and look forward to your prompt reply.Sincerely,Mike CoffmanMember of CongressMo BrooksMember of CongressCory GardnerMember of Congress
Wow. Sounds like it was drafted by the Boeing PR department.Boeing seems to be going after Spacex with all FUD guns blazing...
Full text of the letter:Quote...Sincerely,Mike CoffmanMember of CongressMo BrooksMember of CongressCory GardnerMember of Congress
...Sincerely,Mike CoffmanMember of CongressMo BrooksMember of CongressCory GardnerMember of Congress
The development of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, all of that, that's 100% private. - source
Not much else to say.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/16/2014 12:53 amFull text of the letter:Quote...Sincerely,Mike CoffmanMember of CongressMo BrooksMember of CongressCory GardnerMember of CongressMichael Coffman is the U.S. Representative for Colorado's 6th congressional district. Congressman Mo Brooks' is the Representative for Alabama's 5th congressional District.Cory Scott Gardner is the Republican U.S. Representative for Colorado's 4th congressional district.Not much else to say. - Ed Kyle
According to Elon, the Falcon 9 was developed without a dime of government funding. Quote from: Elon MuskThe development of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, all of that, that's 100% private. - sourceSo their base assumption is fundamentally wrong.
SpaceX should be like ULA. Perfectly transparent with all decisions, costs, technical details, lobbying and Air Force contacts right in the open.
.. and Lockheed Martin are hosting their letter because Google Drive was down.
I agree with you but they might argue that the specific vehicles used for the CRS missions were bought with government money (which is correct) and therefore that gives the government full rights to all data (which would only be true if the government has full rights to all pencil manufacturing data from Dixon because someone bought a pencil once)
Is it not true that there have been significant anomalies on most SpaceX flights, and all of them if you include the time before launch?I think it is true, and I also think that SpaceX, as a commercial provider of a service, has relatively modest responsibilities to publicly release such information. It might be zero if they weren't receiving some public money and providing services to the public in that way. In fact, it might be zero anyway.I'd like to see SpaceX succeed, and I root for every launch, but they do have a very large backlog and the only thing consistent about their launch tempo is their over-predictions about it. It sure seems like they either have to start promising less, or start performing better to bring the two in line with each other.
Is it not true that there have been significant anomalies on most SpaceX flights, and all of them if you include the time before launch?
Quote from: Lar on 07/16/2014 02:47 amI agree with you but they might argue that the specific vehicles used for the CRS missions were bought with government money (which is correct) and therefore that gives the government full rights to all data (which would only be true if the government has full rights to all pencil manufacturing data from Dixon because someone bought a pencil once)SpaceX doesn't sell rockets.
The Honorable Cory Gardner:"Please vote to defeat any bill that would restrict the use of the Russian made RD-180 engine on the Atlas V launch vehicle. Passage of such a bill would do little to mitigate political tensions between Russia and Ukraine. However, it would have a devastating effect on me and my family. In addition, thousands of United Launch Alliance (ULA) employees and their families living in Colorado, Texas, and Alabama would be put at risk."
I think it is true, and I also think that SpaceX, as a commercial provider of a service, has relatively modest responsibilities to publicly release such information...In fact, it might be zero anyway.
It sure seems like they either have to start promising less, or start performing better to bring the two in line with each other.
Ultimately it is the customer that determines whether SpaceX is meeting their needs, and so far SpaceX has not been sued by a customer nor has it lost a customer due to real or perceived delays.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2014 03:56 amUltimately it is the customer that determines whether SpaceX is meeting their needs, and so far SpaceX has not been sued by a customer nor has it lost a customer due to real or perceived delays. Sure they have. SpaceX has had to return a deposit to a customer that sued them for unexplained schedule slips. Remember?
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/16/2014 04:07 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2014 03:56 amUltimately it is the customer that determines whether SpaceX is meeting their needs, and so far SpaceX has not been sued by a customer nor has it lost a customer due to real or perceived delays. Sure they have. SpaceX has had to return a deposit to a customer that sued them for unexplained schedule slips. Remember?There are also a number of rumors floating round about at least one customer switched from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 that got very discounted rates.
Let's do this the right way....the news release:Coffman Presses NASA for Transparency on SpaceX(Washington, D.C.) Today, U.S. Representative Mike Coffman (R-CO), along with Representative Cory Gardner (R-CO), sent a letter to the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) expressing strong concerns over anomalies that have occurred on taxpayer-funded space launch vehicles, and the lack of public disclosure or transparency of these anomalies. The letter expresses concern over an epidemic of anomalies that have occurred during SpaceX launches or launch attempts, and communicates frustrations with NASA’s refusal to provide insight into those mishaps.
What bit of ULA/LM/Boeing is in Colorado?
Elon must have went through the roof when he read this.
I'd like to see SpaceX succeed, and I root for every launch, but they do have a very large backlog and the only thing consistent about their launch tempo is their over-predictions about it.
Jeff Greason had figured it out a while ago. He said that, what I see in Congress is "Baby wants its rattle back". See his quote at 4:35 of this video:http://www.xcor.com/video/isdc.html
Recent news reports have shown that an epidemic of anomalies have occurred during SpaceX launchesor launch attempts, including multiple helium leaks, loss of capsule control, multiple thruster issues,avionics issues, capsule contamination issues, and three consecutive seawater intrusions on ISS CargoResupply Service (CRS) missions.
Look at the signatories:“I am proud to represent the hardworking men and women of ULA in Centennial, CO. ...” said Coffman. The Honorable Cory Gardner:"Please vote to defeat any bill that would .. have a devastating effect on me and my family. In addition, thousands of United Launch Alliance (ULA) employees and their families living in Colorado, Texas, and Alabama would be put at risk."DECATUR, Alabama -- United Launch Alliance managers used a tour of their rocket planet here Thursday to lobby U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks for help against a threat to their government launch business. ...Just follow the money.
It's kind of ironic, they say that SpaceX isn't being transparent about their issues and they go on about issues that SpaceX has had recently. If SpaceX's wasn't being transparent, how would they even know about these issues.
Perhaps the honorable Congresscritters should just read the GAO final report on the COTS program?http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY13/IG-13-016.pdfThey do a very good job of listing all of the various issues that both SpaceX and Orbital had on the COTS program and their launches and vehicles.
Although each flight experienced some anomalies, none were serious enough to substantially impact the missions. During the final demonstration flight, SpaceX needed to adjust its Dragon capsule’s guidance system, causing a short delay in the capsule’s final approach to the ISS. During its first cargo mission, SpaceX encountered a failure on one [call it 1] of the nine Merlin engines in its Falcon 9 rocket, several [call it 3] hardware failures caused by radiation exposure, three [call it 3] instances of sensors losing functionality in the Dragon’s thrusters, and the loss of all three [call it 3] coolant pumps due to a water leak after splashdown in the ocean. All radiation effects were resolved with no mission impact, the faulty temperature sensors represented a loss of redundancy only, and the failure of the coolant pumps did not affect the science experiments on board in the return payload. However, these issues contributed to a 2-month delay of the launch of the second cargo mission, which was moved from January to March 2013.
During the second cargo mission, a [call it 1] malfunction initially limited the operation of three of the four thruster pods used to boost the Dragon to a higher orbit and perform the final maneuvers necessary to rendezvous with the ISS. The problem was corrected [call it -1] and the Dragon berthed with the ISS one day later than scheduled with no operational impact to the mission. As of the end of fiscal year (FY) 2012, NASA had paid SpaceX $858 million for development and cargo resupply services under both its funded Space Act Agreement and FAR-based contract.
This is astounding. I don't envy you Americans who actually have to live with a broken political system.
“Competition is a good thing and there is no competition in this to speak of,” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the subcommittee’s chairman, said of the national security launch marketplace during the July 15 markup hearing. “We’re going to change that with this bill.”Currently, virtually all operational U.S. national security missions are launched by EELV incumbent contractor United Launch Alliance of Denver. But upstart rocket maker Space Exploration Technologies Corp. is challenging the status quo.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/16/2014 04:07 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2014 03:56 amUltimately it is the customer that determines whether SpaceX is meeting their needs, and so far SpaceX has not been sued by a customer nor has it lost a customer due to real or perceived delays. Sure they have. SpaceX has had to return a deposit to a customer that sued them for unexplained schedule slips. Remember?Hadn't heard of that one, so thanks for pointing it out.Does show the system works, in that a customer can get their deposit back from SpaceX and that SpaceX doesn't have some sort of ironclad contract that forces customers to stay with them regardless how bad a service they are providing.
No coincidence this comes so soon after another successful launch, a new client for the FH and the latest AF announcement that the three submitted F9 flights were deemed successful allowing them to continue through the Certification process.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 07/16/2014 06:30 amWhat bit of ULA/LM/Boeing is in Colorado? Corporate headquarters for ULA is in Coffman's district.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/16/2014 06:40 amQuote from: john smith 19 on 07/16/2014 06:30 amWhat bit of ULA/LM/Boeing is in Colorado? Corporate headquarters for ULA is in Coffman's district.but just remember SNC has DC operations in Colorado.
Perhaps this is more about CRS-2 & CC then I initially thought. The USAF is doing certification, so that's out of their sphere of influence now. The mention of Com-Sat operations is completely out of their purview.
Quote from: rcoppola on 07/16/2014 06:15 pmPerhaps this is more about CRS-2 & CC then I initially thought. The USAF is doing certification, so that's out of their sphere of influence now. The mention of Com-Sat operations is completely out of their purview.No, this is about EELV and not CRS-2 & CC. It is just the typical "if it is space, then it is NASA" POV.
I do not know the answers, but these questions came to mind. ...
To date, anomalies that have occurred on launch vehicles under NASA contract and developed with substantial taxpayer funds... The lack of public disclosure or accountability...
Had the Air Force conducted a rational cost and price analysis as required by law, it would have realized that the sole source pricing charged by ULA included exhorbitant profits for ULA's Russian supplier at the expense of the American public.
The EELV Program has been criticized by extemal auditors like the Govemment Accountability Office ("GAO") for its strategic use of complex contractual structures that eliminate transparency.
We are aware of a significant near-term backlog in SpaceX launches for its NASA, DOD, and commercial customers.
We fully support full competition for EELV’s among certified providers...
However, we have concerns that the process may be weakened due to recent attacks on the Air Force...
We strongly support the Air Force certification process and object to any effort to bypass it or loosen its standards...
To date, NASA has refused to provide insight into anomalies...
In the interest of full disclosure and accountability to the American taxpayer, we request that NASA publicly release all anomalies and mishap information, un-redacted... blah blah blah..
We ... look forward to your prompt reply.
Are you implying that Mr. Coffman wrote (or even read) this letter?Unsubstantiated.
4) I don't think there have been any Falcon-capable NASA awards since Jason-3.
I think the Delta II awards were simultaneous with Jason-3. Insight is a good point, but NASA may want more flight experience before putting a planetary on F9.
ULA should make all of its anomaly paperwork public, then too.
Quote from: Antares on 07/18/2014 03:58 pm ULA should make all of its anomaly paperwork public, then too.Yep, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
5) I myself am shocked that no one on this thread has yet pointed out that EELVs were both developed on $500M ($690M inflated) plus the ELC payment for fixed costs and have launched 12 NASA missions. ULA should make all of its anomaly paperwork public, then too.
It wouldn't be good for either the goose or the gander. The "problems" would be blown out of proportion by the companies' detractors.
Corporate headquarters for ULA is in Coffman's district.
It made a very bad impression on me, right just with the question of a Representative from Detroit that asked Elon, point blank "what's in for my district" in a congressional hearing about the CRS program and its cost wrt STS.
NASA has successfully returned space station resupply launches to U.S. soil, ending our reliance on other countries to get to space and bringing the associated jobs back to America. Our private sector partners in this effort are meeting their obligations under their Commercial Resupply Services contracts. The contracts and certification process allow us to work with Orbital Sciences and SpaceX to ensure that flights are as safe and reliable as possible. To date, NASA’s partners have delivered about 14,000 pounds of vital supplies to the International Space Station, including science and research experiments, supplies, and hardware for the orbiting laboratory.
In a letter to Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) a member of the House Armed Services Committee, the Air Force said there were problems in three of SpaceX’s missions: reignition failure in a second-stage rocket engine in September 2013, an engine fire during the December 2013 mission, and “unacceptable fuel reserves” at one point in the January mission, states the letter dated May 20 and cited in a report Monday from Bloomberg.
Quote from: Jim on 07/18/2014 07:01 pmQuote from: Antares on 07/18/2014 03:58 pm ULA should make all of its anomaly paperwork public, then too.Yep, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.It wouldn't be good for either the goose or the gander. The "problems" would be blown out of proportion by the companies' detractors.
It's not a reply, it's just a statement that they released to the International Business Time. This part of the article is interesting:QuoteIn a letter to Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) a member of the House Armed Services Committee, the Air Force said there were problems in three of SpaceX’s missions: reignition failure in a second-stage rocket engine in September 2013, an engine fire during the December 2013 mission, and “unacceptable fuel reserves” at one point in the January mission, states the letter dated May 20 and cited in a report Monday from Bloomberg.
They didn't demand anything.
They're demanding release of details, not the mere existence of the anomalies. I thought that was obvious, even if they're not entitled to those details and releasing them would be a violation of ITAR, etc.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/16/2014 05:04 amThey didn't demand anything.Quote from: QuantumG on 07/22/2014 04:12 amThey're demanding release of details, not the mere existence of the anomalies. I thought that was obvious, even if they're not entitled to those details and releasing them would be a violation of ITAR, etc.Which one is it? You can't have it both ways. Or was the first reply just snark?
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/22/2014 01:34 amIt's not a reply, it's just a statement that they released to the International Business Time. This part of the article is interesting:QuoteIn a letter to Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) a member of the House Armed Services Committee, the Air Force said there were problems in three of SpaceX’s missions: reignition failure in a second-stage rocket engine in September 2013, an engine fire during the December 2013 mission, and “unacceptable fuel reserves” at one point in the January mission, states the letter dated May 20 and cited in a report Monday from Bloomberg.The "engine fire" during the Dec. 2013 mission - that must be the Thanksgiving Day launch abort that required replacement of a Merlin 1D gas generator? If so, we already knew about this one.We knew about the Sept 2013 restart failure too, of course. I'm not sure about the low fuel reserves bit, which would have been during the Thaicom 6 flight that as near as we outsiders could tell went to its planned orbit. All three of these missions put their payloads where they were supposed to go.It seems that the Congressmen were demanding the release of information that was already known, for the most part. - Ed Kyle
They can get the details, just not publicly. They are US citizens and they can receive the data and protect it, ITAR is not an issue. Entitlement is another issue. But if NASA or the USAF has the data, they can get it.
Quote from: Jim on 07/22/2014 11:16 amThey can get the details, just not publicly. They are US citizens and they can receive the data and protect it, ITAR is not an issue. Entitlement is another issue. But if NASA or the USAF has the data, they can get it.But only within the data rights limits of the contract or SAA or CRADA that the government obtained that data. Some contracts or agreements state that only personnel working on that project can see it. Some allow broader distribution within the government.
The knowledge that the US congress is pouring over the technical details and potential issues of their launch must be heartwarming to Thaicom executives in Bangkok. Meanwhile two US government launches have suffered from back to back scrubs sue to technical problems, but nobody is seeing an "epidemic of anomalies". Seems like launches for Canada, SES and Thaicom are held to higher standard than USG's own. Very hospitable.
Quote from: saliva_sweet on 07/23/2014 11:57 pmThe knowledge that the US congress is pouring over the technical details and potential issues of their launch must be heartwarming to Thaicom executives in Bangkok. Meanwhile two US government launches have suffered from back to back scrubs sue to technical problems, but nobody is seeing an "epidemic of anomalies". Seems like launches for Canada, SES and Thaicom are held to higher standard than USG's own. Very hospitable. GSE issues and not vehicle issues, so your post is meaningless