The proper response, I think, would be to convene a failure board to investigate why the failure board did not work.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 02/22/2013 03:42 amThe 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?
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.
it's worth taking a look back and see what you missed.
.. 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. ...
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.