|
yinzer
|
|
« Reply #330 on: 05/18/2011 04:46 AM » |
|
For all of the second guessers out there, it's not like a test flight wasn't considered after T8/OCO. The highest levels of NASA weighed the additional cost and schedule needed to do it and decided the cost-benefit wasn't there. Obviously they were wrong, but risk management is what every executive team does. Hindsight is always 20-20. I'm not sure how the calculus is different because it's happened twice. It's a dictum of Decision Analysis that sunk costs do not enter into the cost-benefit calculation. To do otherwise is not rational.
Surely it's not the cost that has changed, but the perceived benefit of a test flight. Which depends on how likely you think Orbital is right when they say "We found the fairing separation problem from the last flight, fixed it, and now have a design that works." After T8 there was no real reason to doubt this statement. After T9 we are in a "this time it's different" situation.
|
|
|
|
baldusi
|
|
« Reply #331 on: 05/18/2011 11:38 AM » |
|
How similar are the Taurus 2 fairing and the Taurus XL? Because they do have a Demo Flight for Taurus 2 without a payload.
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #332 on: 05/18/2011 03:32 PM » |
|
This whole affair has made me really unhappy with Orbital as a company. Thats two failures because of the same thing. In a row. At least spacex's early pains were separate issues but Orbital has been around for quite some time. I just hope the COTS rocket they are developing does not experience the same kinds of issues.
Frankly have alot more faith in Spacex at this point.
That is funny. Orbital did not have enough data after the first one. They guessed what the mistake was, and corrected that mistake. They guessed wrong. But, for this flight they included a lot more sensors so that, if something did happen, they'd have more data so as to implement a fix. That is how a professional company does things. They fix what they think is a problem, but they hedge their bet by making sure if it happens again, they will nail down the root cause.
|
|
|
|
baldusi
|
|
« Reply #333 on: 05/18/2011 04:00 PM » |
|
They had stated that the accident board had completed the findings and was about to disclose the failure cause. But nothing came of it. Any news?
|
|
|
|
Antares
|
|
« Reply #334 on: 05/18/2011 06:40 PM » |
|
There were/are separate NASA and Orbital investigation boards for both of these failures, as well as many NASA and Orbital return to flight executive review meetings where both sides bought into the cause and corrective action. It's not proper to leave NASA out of the blame process (cf. "Orbital did not have enough data after the first one," and "how likely you think Orbital is right when they say"). NASA was wrong too.
|
|
|
|
yinzer
|
|
« Reply #335 on: 05/18/2011 07:10 PM » |
|
There were/are separate NASA and Orbital investigation boards for both of these failures, as well as many NASA and Orbital return to flight executive review meetings where both sides bought into the cause and corrective action. It's not proper to leave NASA out of the blame process (cf. "Orbital did not have enough data after the first one," and "how likely you think Orbital is right when they say"). NASA was wrong too.
OK. NASA now has less confidence in their ability to judge the reliability of a Taurus launch following a failure than they did before T9 dropped Glory into the ocean. Their newfound lack of confidence means that a test launch now offers more benefit, perhaps enough to outweigh the cost.
|
|
|
|
A_M_Swallow
|
|
« Reply #336 on: 05/18/2011 11:15 PM » |
|
Is there any way of testing a moving fairing without having to blast it into space?
Could a cheaper rocket, such as a sounding rocket, be used?
|
|
|
|
Rocket Science
|
|
« Reply #337 on: 05/18/2011 11:21 PM » |
|
Is there any way of testing a moving fairing without having to blast it into space?
Could a cheaper rocket, such as a sounding rocket, be used?
Well, I got a few SRB's laying around here, I guess I could get you one for a good price... Let's talk money;)
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #338 on: 05/19/2011 12:23 AM » |
|
Is there any way of testing a moving fairing without having to blast it into space?
Could a cheaper rocket, such as a sounding rocket, be used?
no, because A. It would cost just as much to engineer a stand in that provides the same aerodynamic pressure, loads, dynamics, etc b. it would fail the policy: test like you fly.
|
|
|
|
dsmillman
|
|
« Reply #339 on: 08/19/2011 04:40 PM » |
|
It has been nearly six months since the mishap board was appointed. Has it issued a report? Is there any additional information available on this failure?
|
|
|
|
marsman2020
|
|
« Reply #340 on: 02/13/2012 12:54 AM » |
|
11 months and no MIB report or executive summary.
NASA is required under their own regulations for mishap investigations to release an executive summary and a version of the full report with ITAR/proprietary information removed (the latter was not done for OCO, in violation of NASAs policy).
|
|
|
|
Antares
|
|
« Reply #341 on: 02/13/2012 02:02 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
rdale
|
|
« Reply #342 on: 02/13/2012 02:33 AM » |
|
Antares - that looks like the OCO summary, not Glory. Link check?
|
|
|
|
Antares
|
|
« Reply #343 on: 02/13/2012 04:49 PM » |
|
Right. The previous poster said it wasn't done for OCO. The link refutes that.
|
|
|
|
rdale
|
|
« Reply #344 on: 02/13/2012 05:29 PM » |
|
That looks like the executive summary, not the a version of the full report with ITAR/proprietary information removed that he was referring to with OCO.
|
|
|
|
