Author Topic: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB  (Read 177750 times)

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 579
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB
« Reply #360 on: 02/23/2013 08:07 PM »
The proper response, I think, would be to convene a failure board to investigate why the failure board did not work.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

How could one know that the failure mode that struck the first review board wouldn't also be present in the second board? Do you have any suspicions or assumptions about what caused the first board to fail?
-- sdsds --

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1866
  • Liked: 2420
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB
« Reply #361 on: 02/24/2013 01:49 AM »
The proper response, I think, would be to convene a failure board to investigate why the failure board did not work.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

How could one know that the failure mode that struck the first review board wouldn't also be present in the second board? Do you have any suspicions or assumptions about what caused the first board to fail?
It's certainly theoretically possible that the second board could conclude they could not figure out why the first board did not work, or could come to wrong conclusion about what made it fail.

But I suspect, based only on human nature, that the cause might be pretty evident in retrospect.  In the Atlas case, one of the investigators had a particular theory they thought was responsible.  They fixed that possible cause, but missed another that turned out to be the real problem.  Likewise, I could easily imagine "cause A was deemed implausible, because of argument blah-blah-blah.  This argument was flawed because...", or "test B was difficult and expensive, and it was not clear that it would yield conclusive results, so instead they blah-blah-blah.  But this was not correct, because..."

So again, I have no personal knowledge of what happened.  But I know from a lifetime in engineering that if you have a problem, and it's *really* important that you fix it, and you are *certain* that you fixed it, and then it blows up again anyway, that it's worth taking a look back and see what you missed.  If nothing else, maybe it saves you from making the same mistake twice somewhere down the road.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1866
  • Liked: 2420
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB
« Reply #362 on: 02/27/2013 12:12 PM »
Aviation week has an article on the Glory failure.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_02_22_2013_p03-01-551139.xml
"Board Fails To Find Root Cause For Glory Loss"

The contents of the article are mainly that of the title, but it repeats the claim that NASA has not cleared the Antares shroud for flight to ISS.  I would assume, without knowing anything about it, that this was one of the main objectives of the first test flight of Antares.

Offline marsman2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB
« Reply #363 on: 02/28/2013 02:05 AM »
Aviation week has an article on the Glory failure.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_02_22_2013_p03-01-551139.xml
"Board Fails To Find Root Cause For Glory Loss"

The contents of the article are mainly that of the title, but it repeats the claim that NASA has not cleared the Antares shroud for flight to ISS.  I would assume, without knowing anything about it, that this was one of the main objectives of the first test flight of Antares.

The Taurus XL 63 inch fairing did fly successfully several times before the OCO and Glory failures.  One successful flight of an Antares fairing means diddly squat if it's declared "flightworthy" without actually being qualified for/to the relevant environments, either by test or a valid analysis with appropriate margins. 

Also all of the issues of manufacturing and assembly consistency and traceability have to be worked out, or again...one flight means diddly squat.  At least those should be easier with the flight rate on Antares compared to 9 flights in 17 years for Taurus XL...
« Last Edit: 02/28/2013 02:22 AM by marsman2020 »

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4913
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2022
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB
« Reply #364 on: 02/28/2013 02:21 AM »
Space News sez the fairing separation system is being redesigned (headline only - paywall)

http://www.spacenews.com/article/orbital-redesigning-rocket-component-cited-in-failures
DM

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB
« Reply #365 on: 02/28/2013 05:53 PM »
The lack of comprehension of risk management is numbing.
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 sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 579
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB
« Reply #366 on: 02/28/2013 06:11 PM »
it's worth taking a look back and see what you missed.

Definitely! And not just what you missed, but why you missed it. The goal for a "review of the review" would be to gain some actionable intelligence. So for example, was there something sub-optimal in the way the board was initially constructed (i.e. how the members were chosen)? Was there something wrong with the statement of task they were given? Were they not provided with appropriate motivation? In short, the review of the review would need to answer the question, "How should someone construct, task, and motivate a board differently than was done for this one?"

If that discussion is taking place it would be interesting indeed to listen in on it!
-- sdsds --

Tags: