Author Topic: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB  (Read 214710 times)

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 6111
  • Likes Given: 837
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 6111
  • Likes Given: 837
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 »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
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: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
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: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
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 —

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11173
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8806
  • Likes Given: 7821
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB
« Reply #367 on: 05/01/2019 12:50 am »
Bump for the conclusion of Failure Investigation:

Justice Department Notice Source

April 30, 2019
RELEASE 19-036

NASA Investigation Uncovers Cause of Two Science Mission Launch Failures

NASA Launch Services Program (LSP) investigators have determined the technical root cause for the Taurus XL launch failures of NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) and Glory missions in 2009 and 2011, respectively: faulty materials provided by the aluminum manufacturer, Sapa Profiles, Inc. (SPI).

LSP’s technical investigation led to the involvement of NASA’s Office of the Inspector General and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ’s efforts recently made public, resulted in the resolution of criminal charges and alleged civil claims against SPI, and its agreement to pay $46 million to the U.S. government and other commercial customers. This relates to a 19-year scheme that included falsifying thousands of certifications for aluminum extrusions to hundreds of customers.

NASA’s updated public summary of the launch failures, which was published Tuesday, comes after a multiyear technical investigation by LSP and updates the previous public summaries on the Taurus XL launch failures for the OCO and Glory missions. Those public summaries concluded that the launch vehicle fairing — a clamshell structure that encapsulates the satellite as it travels through the atmosphere — failed to separate on command, but no technical root cause had been identified. From NASA’s investigation, it is now known that SPI altered test results and provided false certifications to Orbital Sciences Corporation, the manufacturer of the Taurus XL, regarding the aluminum extrusions used in the payload fairing rail frangible joint. A frangible joint is a structural separation system that is initiated using ordnance.

“NASA relies on the integrity of our industry throughout the supply chain. While we do perform our own testing, NASA is not able to retest every single component. That is why we require and pay for certain components to be tested and certified by the supplier,” said Jim Norman, NASA’s director for Launch Services at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “When testing results are altered and certifications are provided falsely, missions fail. In our case, the Taurus XLs that failed for the OCO and Glory missions resulted in the loss of more than $700 million, and years of people’s scientific work. It is critical that we are able to trust our industry to produce, test and certify materials in accordance with the standards we require. In this case, our trust was severely violated.”

To protect the government supply chain, NASA suspended SPI from government contracting and proposed SPI for government-wide debarment. The exclusion from government contracting has been in effect since Sept. 30, 2015. NASA also has proposed debarment for Hydro Extrusion Portland, Inc.,formerly known as SPI,and the company currently is excluded from contracting throughout the federal government.

“Due in large part to the hard work and dedication of many highly motivated people in the NASA Launch Services program, we are able to close out the cause of two extremely disappointing launch vehicle failures and protect the government aerospace supply chain,” said Amanda Mitskevich, LSP program manager at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in, Florida. “It has taken a long time to get here, involving years of investigation and testing, but as of today, it has been worth every minute, and I am extremely pleased with the entire team’s efforts.”

To learn more about NASA’s Launch Services Program, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/launchingrockets/index.html

-end-

Picture
On Space Launch Complex 576-E at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, Orbital Sciences workers monitor NASA's Glory upper stack as a crane lifts it from a stationary rail for attachment to the Taurus XL rocket's Stage 0.
Credits: NASA
« Last Edit: 05/01/2019 03:52 am by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB
« Reply #368 on: 05/01/2019 05:23 am »
Quote
.. Those public summaries concluded that the launch vehicle fairing — a clamshell structure that encapsulates the satellite as it travels through the atmosphere — failed to separate on command, but no technical root cause had been identified. From NASA’s investigation, it is now known that SPI altered test results and provided false certifications to Orbital Sciences Corporation, the manufacturer of the Taurus XL, regarding the aluminum extrusions used in the payload fairing rail frangible joint. ...

Yes but....
There is a logical disconnect between the two bolded statements.
They don't say that the improper material caused the fairing separation failure.
Sapa Profiles likely deserves every bit of their fines, maybe more, maybe jail time, but did NASA determine that their material was the cause of the failure?
This says no, the "technical root cause" has not been identified.
The statements by Jim Norman are all true, no doubt, but do not assign responsibility of the SPI material for the failures.
SPI was just unlucky enough that the thorough investigation into the back to back failures uncovered their malfeasance.
The failures may remain unexplained.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2019 05:24 am by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB
« Reply #369 on: 05/01/2019 05:42 am »
Quote
.. Those public summaries concluded that the launch vehicle fairing — a clamshell structure that encapsulates the satellite as it travels through the atmosphere — failed to separate on command, but no technical root cause had been identified. From NASA’s investigation, it is now known that SPI altered test results and provided false certifications to Orbital Sciences Corporation, the manufacturer of the Taurus XL, regarding the aluminum extrusions used in the payload fairing rail frangible joint. ...

Yes but....
There is a logical disconnect between the two bolded statements.
They don't say that the improper material caused the fairing separation failure.
Sapa Profiles likely deserves every bit of their fines, maybe more, maybe jail time, but did NASA determine that their material was the cause of the failure?
This says no, the "technical root cause" has not been identified.
The statements by Jim Norman are all true, no doubt, but do not assign responsibility of the SPI material for the failures.
SPI was just unlucky enough that the thorough investigation into the back to back failures uncovered their malfeasance.
The failures may remain unexplained.
I think the first bolded line is taken out of context. I see it as meaning "no technical root cause had been identified" ...until now. Other places in the article state that the cause of the failure was the faulty aluminium extrusions.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: 05/01/2019 05:44 am by cd-slam »

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3431
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1602
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: FAILED: Taurus XL, GLORY - March 4, 2011 - VAFB
« Reply #370 on: 05/01/2019 10:48 am »
Quote
.. Those public summaries concluded that the launch vehicle fairing — a clamshell structure that encapsulates the satellite as it travels through the atmosphere — failed to separate on command, but no technical root cause had been identified. From NASA’s investigation, it is now known that SPI altered test results and provided false certifications to Orbital Sciences Corporation, the manufacturer of the Taurus XL, regarding the aluminum extrusions used in the payload fairing rail frangible joint. ...

Yes but....
There is a logical disconnect between the two bolded statements.
They don't say that the improper material caused the fairing separation failure.
Sapa Profiles likely deserves every bit of their fines, maybe more, maybe jail time, but did NASA determine that their material was the cause of the failure?
This says no, the "technical root cause" has not been identified.
The statements by Jim Norman are all true, no doubt, but do not assign responsibility of the SPI material for the failures.
SPI was just unlucky enough that the thorough investigation into the back to back failures uncovered their malfeasance.
The failures may remain unexplained.

You should read the original public summary published by NASA yesterday:

NASA Investigative Summary: Taurus XL T8 and T9 Mission Failures
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/oco_glory_public_summary_update_-_for_the_web_-_04302019.pdf

This goes into much more detail:

LSP Technical Finding
Consequently, NASA LSP has determined the T8 and T9 failures resulted from a combination of three factors:

-Charge Holder Thermal Contraction
-Extrusion Ligament Thickness
-Extrusion Material Properties

LSP determined the first two factors possibly contributed to the failure by potentially eroding margin; but, one factor, improper “Extrusion Material Properties” of the forward fairing side rail, was determined to be the cause.


(copy attached)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0