Author Topic: Members Of Congress Express Concerns Over SpaceX Transparency  (Read 41025 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Press release: http://coffman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/coffman-presses-nasa-for-transparency-on-spacex

Attached is a copy of the letter to Administrator Bolden dated July 15.

"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, so that Congress can gain a better understand of what has occured and ensure full transparency."

It's signed by Mike Coffman, Mo Brooks and Cory Gardner.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline randomly

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 182
Wow. Sounds like it was drafted by the Boeing PR department.
Boeing seems to be going after Spacex with all FUD guns blazing...

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Full text of the letter:

Quote
Congress at the United States
Washington. DC 20515

July 15, 2014

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr.
Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
300 E St., SW
Washington, DC 20546

Dear Administrator Bolden,

We would like to thank you for your service to our nation and the job that you do. You have great insight
into 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 developed
with substantial taxpayer funds; and

2. 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 commercial
customers. SpaceX contracted or planned for 24 Falcon 9 flights through 2013 and flew seven. They list
nearly 30 flights for this year and next, yet have only flown three times. with the most recent July 14 flight
finally launching after being delayed 12 times since September 2013 for numerous issues, including a
chronic helium leak. This raises the question of schedule for critical launches and whether there will be
adequate support for ISS, DOD and other commercial mission needs. The company publically notes a $4
billion backlog of launches. There is a question as to whether SpaceX can even complete these launches
along with current government obligations. Glaring evidence of this is that NASA has extended the
original contract period for CRS by two years.

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 regarding oversight and the need to
certify providers launching national security payloads. We strongly support the Air Force certification
process 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 these
missions can pose a risk to life and property it a malfunction occurs. The requirements for these vehicles
were put into place to ensure that high standards are met to assure that the necessary precautions are
taken 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 preventable
failures.

Recent news reports have shown that an epidemic of anomalies have occurred during SpaceX launches
or 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 Cargo
Resupply 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 raising
concerns about SpaceX flight anomalies. NASA‘s vague response claimed the agency cannot provide
insight into technical anomalies, citing proprietary information, and placed the burden on SpaceX to
provide the information.

To date, NASA has refused to provide insight into anomalies or mishaps that have occurred during nearly
every phase of nearly every launch on SpaceX vehicles the agency has funded. Concurrently, SpaceX
has introduced major design changes into the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule, further complicating
the 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 fight
for this. It should just be automatic." While Mr. Musk portrays the certification, transparency and
accountability standards as unfair and expensive, similar processes apply to air travel - a less complex
form 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 NASA
publicly release all anomalies and mishap information, un-redacted, so that Congress can gain a better
understanding of what has occurred and ensure full transparency. Because the development of the
vehicles and capsule in question were funded by NASA dollars, we request that you provide Congress
with the information you have on the various aspects of risk and reliability from these programs, including
contractual, management, technical, manufacturing, cost, schedule and safety. We also request your
opinion on the resultant risk to ISS support, resupply and crew well-being. Please provide your
understanding of the specific technical issues, failures and resulting consequences for ISS (i.e. loss of
scientific data, etc.) for each of these flights. Again. because the vehicles in question were funded by
American 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 as
such, we respectfully request that you please provide this information within 30 days of your receipt of this
letter. We thank you in advance for your cooperation and look forward to your prompt reply.

Sincerely,

Mike Coffman
Member of Congress

Mo Brooks
Member of Congress

Cory Gardner
Member of Congress
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Wow. Sounds like it was drafted by the Boeing PR department.
Boeing seems to be going after Spacex with all FUD guns blazing...

The link to the letter: https://iqconnect.lmhostediq.com/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=CO04CG&crop=14268.5819475.5263066.7602914&redirect=http%3a%2f%2fgardner.house.gov%2fsites%2fgardner.house.gov%2ffiles%2f07.15.14%2520SpaceX%2520Concerns.pdf is a Lockheed Martin website.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Not privy to NASA-SpaceX agreements or their confidentiality requirements, but if they say that data shared with NASA may not necessarily be made public, then what? Is a Congressional subpoena powerful enough to override commercial confidentiality?

(my first thought on reading this was that I've been expressing concern[1] about Congressional transparency for a long time now)

1 - my Facebook friends know what I mean.

"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Full text of the letter:

Quote
...
Sincerely,

Mike Coffman
Member of Congress

Mo Brooks
Member of Congress

Cory Gardner
Member of Congress
Michael 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.

Now we'll probably see a letter from California and Texas representatives demanding information on those EELV RL-10 failures, and more insight into Energomash engineering, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 01:21 am by edkyle99 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
The paragraph about EELV competition and Air Force certification seems to be completely irrelevant to the rest of the letter. What do they want Bolden to do about that?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline AJW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 1315
  • Likes Given: 136
Look at the signatories:

“I am proud to represent the hardworking men and women of ULA in Centennial, CO.  Their hard work is helping to secure our nation and provide the critical assets our men and women in uniform need to perform their jobs and to keep them safe,” said Coffman.


[edit... this was spoken to Gardner, not by him.  Apologies]
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."

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.  "You know I support competition, but first it has to establish capability," Brooks, R-Huntsville, told the executives on the sprawling assembly floor where ULA builds Atlas and Delta rockets.

Just follow the money.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 02:51 pm by AJW »
We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
According to Elon, the Falcon 9 was developed without a dime of government funding.

Quote from: Elon Musk
The development of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, all of that, that's 100% private. - source

So their base assumption is fundamentally wrong.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Not much else to say.

Cheesy peezies.  Are they demons?  Zombies? There's gotta be more to say than their congressional districts!

Still. 

Turnabout's fair play. 

I don't know where the correct balance is between proprietary and public.  One thing for sure is that price is not ever proprietary.  Thinkin' about the block buy and all.

With respect to private launch services for taxpayer projects, now's a good time to have the discussion about that there transparency.


[Immediate edit:  AJW:  Mucho thankso!]
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 01:50 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305
 SpaceX should be like ULA. Perfectly transparent with all decisions, costs, technical details, lobbying and Air Force contacts right in the open.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Full text of the letter:

Quote
...
Sincerely,

Mike Coffman
Member of Congress

Mo Brooks
Member of Congress

Cory Gardner
Member of Congress
Michael 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

possibilities ( not in any order)
payback
someone's running for re  election  jobs are jobs
doing real work of oversight (some are still trying to do their job)

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
.. and Lockheed Martin are hosting their letter because Google Drive was down.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
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.

“In the interest of full disclosure and accountability, we request that NASA publicly release all anomalies and mishap information, un-redacted, so that Congress can gain a better understanding of what has occurred and ensure full transparency.  Because the development of the vehicles and capsule in question were funded by NASA dollars, we request that you provide Congress with the information you have on the various aspects of risk and reliability from these programs, including contractual, management, technical, manufacturing, cost, schedule and safety”, wrote Coffman and Gardner.   

According to recent news reports, SpaceX launch attempts have resulted in wide ranging problems, including multiple helium leaks, loss of capsule control, multiple thruster issues, avionics issues, capsule contamination issues, and three consecutive seawater intrusions on ISS Cargo Resupply (CRS) missions.  SpaceX contracted or planned 24 Falcon 9 flights for its NASA, DOD and commercial customers through 2013 and flew seven.  They list approximately 30 flights for this year and next, yet have only flown three times.

“Because the vehicles in question were funded by American 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,”  wrote Coffman and Gardner.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
I notice they've changed the url to the letter in the press release so it's no longer pointing to a Lockheed Martin website.  ;D
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Elon must have went through the roof when he read this.

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.

There's a sense of desperation in this letter. I'm curious to see what the Florida, TX and CA congressional delegation has to say about this letter. Tomorrow you will see some additional congressional correspondence to refute this letter and back-up SpaceX / NASA et al.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
According to Elon, the Falcon 9 was developed without a dime of government funding.

Quote from: Elon Musk
The development of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, all of that, that's 100% private. - source

So their base assumption is fundamentally wrong.

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)

SpaceX should be like ULA. Perfectly transparent with all decisions, costs, technical details, lobbying and Air Force contacts right in the open.

I am so bad at spotting sarcasm on the internets.

.. and Lockheed Martin are hosting their letter because Google Drive was down.

see what I mean? :)
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 02:49 am by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Borklund

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 140
This is astounding. I don't envy you Americans who actually have to live with a broken political system.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
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)

SpaceX doesn't sell rockets.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
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.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
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.
I agree but wrt to the topic at hand, the problem is how the letter was worded and who it was sent by. If this was an OMB or GAO temperate, reasoned  request, I'd feel different. But this is turf protection 101. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
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?

Dude, they flew seven times in 2013! What more do you want?  ;)
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
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)

SpaceX doesn't sell rockets.

Good point. I guess I should modify the analogy to say " full rights to truck manufacturing data because someone used something a truck delivered" or something similar but that's even more ludicrous than what I had at first.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
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."

That's actually Calvin A. Burris writing to Rep Cory Gardner. source.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
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?

What constitutes "significant"?  What is the standard you are using?

So far they have been able to accomplish their primary mission on every Falcon 9 flight, including NASA ones, so apparently what you call "significant" SpaceX might call "recoverable".

How do we resolve these differences?

Quote
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.

I think it is zero.  Which means they are going beyond what they need to do in order to keep the public informed.  How does that interpretation change the conversation?

Quote
It sure seems like they either have to start promising less, or start performing better to bring the two in line with each other.

What people routinely confuse is the difference between a "goal" and a "contractual requirement".

SpaceX is very good about communicating their "goals", and it seems like some people interpret that as "contractual requirements".  They are not the same.

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.  That's really all that matters, and not whether we as bystanders are satisfied with whatever SpaceX is or is not doing.
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 Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
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.pdf

They 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.

The Congresscritters should also read the other GAO reports on the COTS program, including the 2009 one that stated"

"To accomplish its COTS objectives, SpaceX is developing a medium-class launch vehicle (Falcon 9) and a space vehicle (Dragon), which is designed to ferry crew and cargo to and from the space station."

So at least from the COTS program standpoint, SpaceX was not being paid to develop the Falcon 9 v1.0.

That GAO report can be found at:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/300/291011.pdf
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 QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
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. 

Sure they have. SpaceX has had to return a deposit to a customer that sued them for unexplained schedule slips. Remember?
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 04:09 am by QuantumG »
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 04:29 am by yg1968 »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
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. 

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. Also the allegation that NASA has not awarded any science missions since Jason-3. I'm not sure I give all that much credence but it bears mentioning in the "lost customer" context
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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. 

Sure they have. SpaceX has had to return a deposit to a customer that sued them for unexplained schedule slips. Remember?

From what I recall, they had received a subsidy from Ariane in order to do the switch.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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. 

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.

That's Orbcomm. It was reported by SpaceNews. They only had to pay $43M for two F9 flights because of their previous F1 contracts.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 04:52 am by yg1968 »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
I do not know the answers, but these questions came to mind.

1. Does every single member of congress have the right to demand information from any and every part of the government? On this one, I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I believe there are national security matters that only a select few are privy to.

2. Does every member of a congressional oversight committee have the right to demand any and all information related to government activities under the purview of that committee? In this case, I think it depends on whether the info. is classified or not. If the information isn't classified, it may well be that any oversight committee member may be able to demand the information. For classified information, even committee members may or may not be privy.

3. Do congressional oversight chairpersons have the right to such information. In this case, I think the chairperson and the ranking member from the opposing party have the right to classified information. In the case of the Manhattan Project, I think the president, the committee chairpeople, and ranking minority members were the only people in the elected government who had clearance. Even Truman as VP did not know and was informed only after he was sworn in as president.

So to the case in point, I am not certain, but it could be that none of these three is actually authorized to demand the information in question.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
They didn't demand anything.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
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.
I'm confused.

What bit of ULA/LM/Boeing is in Colorado?  :(

I admit the idea of a Congress person reading one of these reports put a smile on my face.

How many Congress people are trained engineers?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
What bit of ULA/LM/Boeing is in Colorado?  :(

Corporate headquarters for ULA is in Coffman's district.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
It may have just been my speakers but I heard a lot of "nominal" yesterday.

ULA can say truthfully and fairly that they have never suffered a first stage, in over 100 or so launches, that has propulsively descended to the ocean surface, deployed landing legs in workman-like manner, dutifully consumed its propellant, and promptly fallen over, thereby rendering itself incapable of re-use.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Elon must have went through the roof when he read this.
No he didn't. After reading the letter his only response was: "Boring..."


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.
Funny, there has been a time that your statement would have been a perfect description of Arianespace. Yet nobody ever cried foul of them for not immediately launching in the tempo promised.


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
Jeff Greason nailed it. That's exactly what is going on. And it's pathetic. Grown men and women behaving like babies.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 07:10 am by woods170 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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.

Quote
Recent news reports have shown that an epidemic of anomalies have occurred during SpaceX launches
or 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 Cargo
Resupply Service (CRS) missions.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 11:34 am by yg1968 »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
"I am so bad at spotting sarcasm on the internets."

That's ok.  You should take my fictitious online class!  Here's a few handy hints!

"Jeff Greason nailed it. That's exactly what is going on. And it's pathetic. Grown men and women behaving like babies."

Wait a sec.  Let's leave the women and children out of this.  Oh wait.  KBH is a woman.  Well, so they say.

"...three consecutive seawater intrusions on ISS Cargo Resupply Service (CRS) missions."

Dang.  Every time we land this thing in the ocean, it gets wet!

"ULA can say truthfully and fairly that they have never ... promptly fallen over, thereby rendering itself incapable of re-use."

Edited that for ya.

"I guess I should modify the analogy to say 'full rights to truck manufacturing data because someone used something a truck delivered' or something similar but that's even more ludicrous than what I had at first."

Now you're catching on!

Deletion in 4... 3... 2...
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
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.

Oh yeah.  There would be a "devastating effect on" him personally?  What's money got to do with it?

Of course, as has been authoritatively stated, ULA is not a party to any case which concerns SpaceX.   To suggest that they are would be a, well, "total misrepresentation and obfuscation of the facts"

So it's good to know that the *cough* "expressions of concern" have no bias whatsoever.

Nothing happening here.  Move along.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Oxygen.  Magnesium.

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.

Here's how:

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.pdf

They 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.

Quote from: IG-13-016.pdf
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.

[1+3+3+3=10, right?]

Quote from: IG-13-016.pdf
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.

[1-1=0, right?]

So....  The "epidemic" is ten anomalies, all secretly listed in the GAO PDF?

Do something Gromit!



*****************************************

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.

Oh yeah.  There would be a "devastating effect on" him personally?  What's money got to do with it?

Of course, as has been authoritatively stated, ULA is not a party to any case which concerns SpaceX.   To suggest that they are would be a, well, "total misrepresentation and obfuscation of the facts"

So it's good to know that the *cough* "expressions of concern" have no bias whatsoever.

Nothing happening here.  Move along.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 01:17 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
This is astounding. I don't envy you Americans who actually have to live with a broken political system.

At least we don't get all the government that we pay for...
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
The battle lines are forming... on many fronts.

Quote
“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.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/41270us-air-force-seeks-bids-for-nro-launch

"First they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you..."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Note: Though the topic of this thread is nominally SpaceX transparency, this is not about transparency* -- it is about a singular threat to the status quo.  LM (ULA) has no dog in the ISS cargo arena; their issue is with this single source of competition threatening their lucrative EELV monopoly.  Kill it before it spreads!!!

* (unless you lend one iota of credibility to the Congressional concerns)
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 01:53 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
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. 

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.
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 baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
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. 

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.
All contracts have some sort of failure to perform. In the rocket business they have a lot of leeway, but it is bounded. SpaceX performance has not been much worse than EELV first tempo, even thought their client had other LV for a smooth transition.
It doesn't helps that the letter includes spacecraft anomalies, yet doesn't talks about the rest of anomalies in ATV, HTV, Cygnus, Progress and Soyuz... or STS, for that matter. 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.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
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.

Jeff Foust suggests the timing of the letter may be related to the Senate hearing now underway.  Rep. Gardner is hoping to unseat Sen. Udall, who is participating in the hearing.  Hence, the timing may be part of Gardner's election strategy.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
What 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.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
What 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.
Yes but SNC is not vying for EELV contracts which seems to be the primary driver of this delegation. Perhaps they are also looking to create some mayhem wrt the CC down-select but I really don't see NASA getting bullied into anything on that front. It's NASA's decision and I don't see Gen. Bolden altering any CC decisions on behalf of three turf-protecting Congressmen when there are just as many if not more Congressmen/women and Senators on the other side of this issue.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2014 05:33 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
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.

The only reason to send this to NASA is to somehow effect either the next awards for CRS or the impending down-select. But who is going to outbid SpaceX for CRS part 2? There's no more development funding for that. You need to show up, be certified and provide the services at a competitive price.

-Orbital needs to execute their re-engine program.
-BO? Doubt it.
-DC Cargo variant on an Atlas V? No
-CST-100 Cargo variant on an Atlas V? Maybe. But competitive on price? Doubt it.

As for CC, they absolutely need dissimilar systems as with CRS. So Dragon V2 & (insert name here) seem likely.

So what exactly do they really think this letter is going to do? Have they even thought this through beyond Ready, Fire, Aim?
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
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.


No, this is about EELV and not CRS-2 & CC.  It is just the typical "if it is space, then it is NASA" POV. 

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
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.


No, this is about EELV and not CRS-2 & CC.  It is just the typical "if it is space, then it is NASA" POV.
Yes, that's what I originally thought as well. I think you're right.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
I do not know the answers, but these questions came to mind. ...

Short answer: Conceivably yes if Congress wanted to go to the mat over it; practically speaking the probability that they (or anyone else in Congress) will get the information they are asking for is nil.  The information available to NASA is limited, and the use or disclosure of the data NASA does have is limited (see "government rights in data").  It will require much more than simply a letter expressing "concern" and "requesting" the information.

Coffman, Brooks and Gardner must know that unless legally compelled to do so, NASA cannot provide the requested information, otherwise NASA would put itself in legal jeopardy.  In any case if they wanted to take it that far, it would likely result in another squabble over Executive vs. Legislative powers.  Coffman, Brooks and Gardner must also know that no one is going to expend any political capital on such a fight.

The letter is notable only in that it is an astoundingly ill-formed and ill-informed piece of BS.

« Last Edit: 07/17/2014 01:49 am by joek »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Well, I'm certain that the cretans in question all have BS degrees.  Sheesh.  So do I.

Finally took an opportunity to review their letter, pasted at: Reply#2.

Quote from: Mr. Coffman
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...

Non-cretans would discuss all launch anomalies under NASA purview, as well as the serious "lack of public disclosure or accountability" which pertains to what I guess is the "proprietary" nature of the "substantial taxpayer funds" required by Mr. Coffman's corporate overlord.

As it turns out, ULA had apparently obligated the USAF to spend $70B as early as '95 or '96 on the EELV program.  And who's to argue with capitalism?  Once you get a sole source IDQ contract, it is the functional equivalent of having keys to the printing presses at Treasury.  Nice work when, not if you can get it.  In a way, no blame to ULA for going for, and getting, the brass gold ring.

Mr. Coffman's childishly slanted letter neglects to observe that the USAF sure seems to have deliberately neglected its legal duties as well:

Quote from: 72-main.pdf
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.

In the bid protest, the point was raised, deliberately lost in Mr. Coffman's completely inaccurate claims to the contrary, that the USAF has deliberately employed "complex contractural structures" which "eliminate transparencey".

Quote from: Case 1:14-cv-00354-SGB
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.

See also:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661330.pdf

This is another open source document that Mr. Coffman deliberately refuses to acknowledge.  There is no question but that Mr. Coffman is telling the smallest sub-set the of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth that he can get away with.

Any argument positing that he only needs to tell the truth when under oath would be a quiet admission of his deliberately misleading raft of paltry accusations.

Mr. Coffman does make one valid observation:

Quote from: Mr. Coffman
We are aware of a significant near-term backlog in SpaceX launches for its NASA, DOD, and commercial customers.

Everybody at SpaceX, from the head honcho on down knows this to be true; their work on scheduling and launch ops is not done yet; their careers page is an obvious and welcome acknowledgement that they are working this problem.  You know what they say tho:  Good help is hard to find.  Ya ain't gonna find it in congress.

This is all perfectly legal, as Mr. Coffman inadvertently notes: "NASA has extended the original contract period for CRS by two years".

Quote from: Mr. coffman
We fully support full competition for EELV’s among certified providers...

Except Mr. Gass says they don't.  But never mind that.

Quote from: Mr. Coffman
However, we have concerns that the process may be weakened due to recent attacks on the Air Force...

A babbling attempt to be vaguely inflammatory.

Quote from: Mr. Coffman
We strongly support the Air Force certification process and object to any effort to bypass it or loosen its standards...

One would think that a straw man would ignite with all of these inflammatory statements.

Quote from: Mr. Coffman
To date, NASA has refused to provide insight into anomalies...

So how much helium are we talking about here?  I could run a covert overt [sorry] op and snitch buy [sorry] the tank at the Kroger up on Route 29...

Quote from: Mr. Coffman
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..

Turns out he's telling the "truth" after all!  He said "all anomalies".  Must be referring to "all" launch providers.  Sheesh.

Quote from: Mr. Coffman
We ... look forward to your prompt reply.

Like that's gonna happen.

Don't forget... there are "lives at stake"
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Are you implying that Mr. Coffman wrote (or even read) this letter?
Unsubstantiated.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Sheesh.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Are you implying that Mr. Coffman wrote (or even read) this letter?
Unsubstantiated.

Are you implying that a Congressman would sign his name, or vote for, something he hadn't read and fully understood? I'm shocked that you would think that. Shocked.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21590368-why-congress-writes-such-long-laws-outrageous-bills

ACA was 2400 pages, No Child Left Behind was 1000. I am sure every member of congress pored over every word of both those bills before deciding to vote on them. That surely left them ample time to review all the PR that their offices put out. Ample, I tell you. Ample.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
So Lar.... Help us to understand this... Are you saying that you're amply shocked?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
1) Lockheed provides IT support to Congress, so it's slightly logical that it would've been innocently on a Lockheed web site.

2) These Congressmen and their staff are completely naive of what the contracts say.  That language governs all data rights.  This ignorance and lack of simple research is disturbing.

3) Eyetar.  See #2.

4) I don't think there have been any Falcon-capable NASA awards since Jason-3.

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.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428

4) I don't think there have been any Falcon-capable NASA awards since Jason-3.


The last 4 Delta II's and Insight?

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
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.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
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.

ICESAT-2 was a year later

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
ULA should make all of its anomaly paperwork public, then too.

Yep, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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. 

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
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.

Nit: In then-year money it was $500M each to LM and Boeing for a USG total of $1B, excluding the concurrently awarded initial launch contracts.*  If you count the pre-EMD contracts it was an additional $90M each ($30M+$60M).

* edit: $2.03B, $1.38B to Boeing, $650M to LM.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2014 09:37 pm by joek »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
It wouldn't be good for either the goose or the gander. The "problems" would be blown out of proportion by the companies' detractors.

At the risk of stating the obvious, lack of disclosure or information never has and never will impede detractors, critics, cranks, dingbats, crackpots, kooks and lunatics from blowing things out of proportion (real or imagined).

The best we can hope for is a level playing field, and that the audience (especially decision-makers) can discriminate between those on the detractors-lunatics spectrum. To Antare's point, it is disturbing that some of the decision-makers appear to fall into the less informed band of that spectrum.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Corporate headquarters for ULA is in Coffman's district.

That would be good enough reason to start getting itchy.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
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.
That's an honest politician.

He's actually admitting he wants a hand out.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Seems like there's been a reply from NASA: http://www.ibtimes.com/spacex-flights-are-safe-reliable-possible-nasa-backs-musks-company-response-air-force-1634628

Quote
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.

Interesting way to reply.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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:

Quote
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.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
A quick search found these Delta anomalies (95% success over 300 launched).  1960...quite a long time to observe and find problems.

"The Delta design emphasized reliability rather than performance by replacing components which had caused problems on earlier Thor flights.  The Delta name stems from its position as the fourth, or D version, of the Thor based rocket combination."

2012 upper stage anomaly October 4, 2012, when a leak developed above the narrow throat portion of the thrust chamber in the RL10B-2 engine within the Delta's upper stage... The root cause of the leak had not been determined by March 2013.[5] Though the root cause of the fault was not fully understood, the rocket was cleared for launch on May 10, 2013. Further investigation into the same anomaly led to the delay of Delta flight 365 with the GPS IIF-5 satellite. The launch was originally planned to take place on October 15, 2013[7] eventually lifting off four months later on February 21, 2014

Second Scrub 02-Nov-10 A second shot at launching SkyMed4 was scrubbed last night with about 2 minutes left in the countdown. Engineers noted insufficient flow in a gaseous nitrogen purge system in the vehicle’s main engine section, meant to “ensure that critical components in close proximity to cryogenic propulsion systems are kept warm,” according to a ULA press release.

A Halloween-evening launch—the only scheduled Delta II flight of 2010—has been scrubbed. An unspecified technical issue brought a halt to proceedings about 25 minutes before the instantaneous launch window, set for 02:20:07 UTC on November 1. [UPDATE, 1 Nov 16:45 CDT] A heater meant to keep the engine section warm during fueling failed to operate.

10-Dec-09 The next launch of a Delta II rocket, carrying NASA’s WISE infrared surveyor, has been postponed by three days. During final checkout on 9 December, one of the vehicle’s main-stage vernier engines was found to have excessive resistance to movement.

18-Aug-06 STEREO continues to be delayed, but remains at the top of the launch schedule — currently no sooner than from now. This mission has had a total of seven delays since April for a series of minor glitches, including a small hydrazine leak on the Observatory A spacecraft and a faulty launch pad crane that prevented booster motor stacking.  21-Aug-06 delayed again.   Follow-up analysis of a similar second stage tank revealed that it “was marginally thin in an area of the oxidizer tank.

30-Oct-02 Mishap at the Pad Apparently, on Friday the pad’s lifting crane pulled the container upward after it was bolted to the Delta vehicle but before detachment of its bottom panels, resulting in unspecified “damage to flight hardware,” likely part of the third stage or its lower attach fittings. The mishap is expected to delay the launch of GPS IIR-8 by at least a month.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
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:

Quote
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.
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
« Last Edit: 07/22/2014 02:45 am by edkyle99 »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Congressmen not having their facts straight? Say it isn't so!! /s
DM

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
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.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
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.

Which one is it? You can't have it both ways. Or was the first reply just snark?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
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.

Which one is it? You can't have it both ways. Or was the first reply just snark?

You're right. I should have said "requesting".. at least in the letter to Bolden. I expect they're being a little more direct to the Air Force.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
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.


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.

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 166
Did anything result in LOM?
Has ULA released info for their sub-optimal orbit inserts?

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
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:

Quote
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.
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

we might know it, but Congress likes to put things into the record.   Got to think like they do :o
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
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.

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.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
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.

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.

Isn't that a proprietary issue vs ITAR?

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Yes, but still constrained by contract/agreement terms.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
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.

GSE issues and not vehicle issues, so your post is meaningless
« Last Edit: 07/24/2014 01:20 am by Jim »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
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.

GSE issues and not vehicle issues, so your post is meaningless
What company's GSE failed?

Tags:
 

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