Reentry - Eric Berger SpaceX F9 book (24 Sep 2024)

[ugordan]

OK, joking aside, I really felt that back in the day, both Bob and Doug were taking a real chance on a SpaceX vehicle into space, with an attitude that "these guys are really gung-ho, but they're rookies and they don't know what they don't know" so let's pray for the best.

I guess reality was more nuanced years before we ever realized.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Eric Berger cemented his position as a guy with real insight into spaceflight of this era. So many of those quotes about SpaceX and Boeing have been validated by the debacle we are seeing now with the CFT mission.

As all good journalists do, Eric tells it as he sees it and doesn’t slant a story because it benefits one party or another. He then adds his own assessment and will criticise any decision if he thinks it’s warranted. So he doesn’t only report facts but gives us well-informed analysis/insight into what it means.

The result is that he’s earned respect from a lot of space professionals and thus he gets good sources. And so we get great articles and books to read

[Blackstar]

As all good journalists do, Eric tells it as he sees it and doesn’t slant a story because it benefits one party or another. He then adds his own assessment and will criticise any decision if he thinks it’s warranted. So he doesn’t only report facts but gives us well-informed analysis/insight into what it means.

This is simply not true. His article about the IM-1 mission was essentially a press release for the company. He glossed over all the problems and did not dig deeply or ask questions about why the company was giving out positive spin when things were going badly. He will write negative articles about Boeing, but he will never write a negative article about SpaceX because he wants to maintain his access.

[woods170]

As all good journalists do, Eric tells it as he sees it and doesn’t slant a story because it benefits one party or another. He then adds his own assessment and will criticise any decision if he thinks it’s warranted. So he doesn’t only report facts but gives us well-informed analysis/insight into what it means.

This is simply not true. His article about the IM-1 mission was essentially a press release for the company. He glossed over all the problems and did not dig deeply or ask questions about why the company was giving out positive spin when things were going badly. He will write negative articles about Boeing, but he will never write a negative article about SpaceX because he wants to maintain his access.

Risking the wrath of Chris B. but the reason why Berger writes negative articles about Boeing is mostly because Boeing has done litterally nothing positive in the past decade. The facts speak for themselves:

- Both OIG and GAO reports have shown that Boeing's performance on the SLS Core Stage contract is, to put it mildly, "not good": over-budget, behind schedule, under-staffed, and workers working on the Core Stage are sometimes not qualified to do the job.
Berger based his negative reporting on Boeing's SLS efforts on those OIG and GAO reports

- Boeing is 65% more expensive than the other CCP contractor, yet performing much worse than said other contractor. Berger reporting this is factual and once again based on OIG, GAO and NASA facts and figures.

- Boeing tried to make CCP sole-source thru its political contacts. Berger reported this based on first-hand accounts of people involved or witness to what Boeing tried to do: playing dirty.

- Boeing willfully tried to hide the fact that a botched SM hotfire test at White Sands, had resulted in the destruction of the SM hotfire article. It only became publically known after a source tipped-off Berger several weeks later. Some time after, the incident was confirmed in an OIG report. This was not "negative reporting". It was Berger presenting the facts.

- Boeing had a high-visibility parachute failure during the pad abort test, of the "unbelievably dumb" variety (not visibly checking linkages prior to the test flight due to not following the checklist). Calling out stupid and avoidable mistakes is justified.

- Boeing completely screwed-up its uncrewed Starliner test flight (OFT-1) due to a severely inmature software testing program. When the details got out, if was more than justified that reporters like Berger (and many others) asked some really hard question and drew strong conclusions. Subsequent reporting by NASA (after the investigation), OIG and GAO only served to justify the harsh conclusions from Berger and other reporters.

- Corroded valves, due to insufficient purging of the Starliner doghouses, delayed OFT-2 and required swapping out Service Modules, as detailed by NASA and OIG, and as reported by Berger.

- Further parachute issues and the application of flammable tape severely delayed CFT-1, as detailed by NASA and OIG, and as reported by Berger.

- Boeing pushed NASA to go along with launching CFT with a known helium-leak issue and unresolved thruster issues from OFT-2. We've all seen what that has resulted in. Berger mocking Boeing for this latest example of incompetence is wholly and fully justified IMO.

On the other hand:
- SpaceX is 30% cheaper than the other CCP contractor, yet performing much better, as correctly reported by Berger.

- The only reason SpaceX got a CCP contract is because the NASA contracting officer decided to play the game fair and square, as reported by Berger and confirmed by Lori Garver (who was a direct witness of the process leading up to that decision).


- When SpaceX lost a CRS mission due to the use of unsuited material (brittle stainless steel struts submerged in LOX), Berger reported this factually.

- When the Crew Dragon pad abort test showed that the SuperDracos lacked performance, SpaceX re-designed SuperDraco to get to the required performance. NASA never bothered to publically report this, it only showed up in an internal report. Berger subsequently also didn't report it, because he was unaware of it (because NASA hadn't publically reported it).
 
- When the pad abort test showed that a 3-parachute set-up was insufficient, SpaceX redesigned the recovery compartment to include a fourth parachute. As mentioned by NASA and OIG and as reported correctly by Berger.

- When SpaceX blew up a Crew Dragon during a botched hotfire test, they immediately informed NASA as well as all the CCP-assigned astronauts. As mentioned by NASA and as correctly reported by Berger.

- During the subsequent redesign of the abort system, NASA was kept fully in the loop, as mentioned by NASA itself and correctly reported by Berger.

- When testing showed that the parachute design for Crew Dragon had weaker-than-expected links and seems, SpaceX immediately selected a much stronger system and performed 14 drop tests in rapid succession to qualify the system, going above and beyond NASA qualification requirements. As detailed by NASA and the OIG, and as correctly reported by Berger.

There is ample justified reasons why Berger's articles on Boeing are very much less positive than Berger's articles on SpaceX. It's literally because Boeing keeps dropping the ball (or SLS core stage bulkheads in some cases) while SpaceX mostly is not dropping the ball.

[Hyperborealis]

Blackstar will speak for himself, but I don't think he denies Boeing's failures. He is making the much more tendentious claim without evidence given that Berger suppreses the bad stories he knows about SpaceX to maintain journalistic access with the company.

This is as unwarranted slur on Berger's character, wholly unsubstantiated, and at odds with the non-flattering elements I recall from Liftoff. Iirc Musk wasn't happy with the book and its coverage initially.

[Blackstar]

Risking the wrath of Chris B. but the reason why Berger writes negative articles about Boeing is mostly because Boeing has done litterally nothing positive in the past decade. The facts speak for themselves:

You completely missed my point. My point is that he's not an objective, unbiased journalist. He doesn't approach every company with the same neutrality. He clearly favors certain companies, notably SpaceX. But his coverage of the IM-1 mission was also not objective. They invited him in and gave him a tour and he never asked about their misleading statements (i.e. "everything is fine") during the mission.

[jdon759]

[Blackstar] is making the much more tendentious claim without evidence given that Berger suppreses the bad stories he knows about SpaceX to maintain journalistic access with the company.

I don't think this is entirely without evidence.  As one relevant example, Berger himself has said that he is not going to say anything about the Falcon 9 full-reuse program.  Now, whether or not you would call SpaceX's decision to cancel this project a "failure" (personally I wouldn't), it is a failure for the F9 reuse project - which is what the book is about.  Instead of recognising it's relevance, Berger has called it a "loose end."

I hope you wrote something about the designs for full reuse on Falcon…

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1757619552190431707

Alas, I must say I did not. There were about 10 million different loose ends I could have written about. As it is, the book is already quite long, more than 110,000 words.

Perhaps this is just a minor omission, but similarly minor-but-relevant omissions seem to appear often in Berger's work, and very frequently they favour SpaceX.

Regardless, I'm sure this will be a great read filled with many interesting details I did not know about Falcon and SpaceX.  Berger is good at writing!

[Oersted]

I don't think being enthusiastic about companies that overperform and critical of companies that underperform is a sign of bias. It is just a human way of reflecting the subject matter.

[thespacecow]

You completely missed my point. My point is that he's not an objective, unbiased journalist. He doesn't approach every company with the same neutrality. He clearly favors certain companies, notably SpaceX.

Nobody is completely unbiased, but Berger is a lot more objective than his mainstream media counterparts who only write hit pieces against Elon Musk's companies these days.

I don't think this is entirely without evidence.  As one relevant example, Berger himself has said that he is not going to say anything about the Falcon 9 full-reuse program.  Now, whether or not you would call SpaceX's decision to cancel this project a "failure" (personally I wouldn't), it is a failure for the F9 reuse project - which is what the book is about.  Instead of recognising it's relevance, Berger has called it a "loose end."

No it's not, 2nd stage reuse was abandoned not due to any failure, but due to Elon wanting to focus resources on Starship. And to tell the full story Berger will have to explain the history of Starship, which would be better left to the next book anyways.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

[Blackstar] is making the much more tendentious claim without evidence given that Berger suppreses the bad stories he knows about SpaceX to maintain journalistic access with the company.

I don't think this is entirely without evidence.  As one relevant example, Berger himself has said that he is not going to say anything about the Falcon 9 full-reuse program.  Now, whether or not you would call SpaceX's decision to cancel this project a "failure" (personally I wouldn't), it is a failure for the F9 reuse project - which is what the book is about.  Instead of recognising its relevance, Berger has called it a "loose end."

I think equating not including S2 reuse in the book with suppressing bad stories is a bit of a stretch. Changes in direction - in this case focussing on Starship instead - are common at SpaceX (Falcon V, Grey and Red Dragon, Dragon propulsive landing etc). Actual bad stories (CRS-7, F9R explosion and I believe the ‘ULA sniper’) are in the book.

Yes, I’d like S2 reuse to be in the book, but beyond the original concept video there may not be much work on it to talk about. Also, as Reentry is 50% longer than Liftoff, I have to respect Eric deciding that he wants to focus on more significant parts of the F9 and Dragon story.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/peterrhague/status/1828167007633658340

Published my review of Reentry by @SciGuySpace

There are a lot of inspiring stories to be found here, and plenty of stuff I didn't know about the Falcon 9 development program.

I think its an especially good book to give to those who have formed their opinion on what SpaceX is as a company based entirely on their opinion of the CEO (and his politics).

https://planetocracy.org/p/review-of-reentry

[woods170]

Blackstar will speak for himself, but I don't think he denies Boeing's failures. He is making the much more tendentious claim without evidence given that Berger suppreses the bad stories he knows about SpaceX to maintain journalistic access with the company.

Yeah, that's the thing: people (not just here, but at other establishments at the interwebs as well) keep claiming that Berger is willingly hiding "bad stories" from SpaceX. Yet, when asked to provide evidence for their claims, these people usually come up empty-handed.

The relatively few "bad stories" about SpaceX that made it into the public realm have almost always been single source. Which makes them suspicious. Without a solid second source (and even third source) backing up the "bad story", they are at best rumours, and at worst "hit pieces".
And there is plenty of hit pieces about SpaceX out there, usually driven by some sort of hate or dislike for Musk.

[chopsticks]

Do you think that your contacts at SpaceX are going to be forthcoming about bad decisions and mistakes that have been made so that you as a journalist can publish them? Or Boeing or Blue Origin for that matter.

I agree with Blackstar about him not being objective, especially with the IM-1 situation. But if you're known to be a "tough" journalist and publish the unvarnished stories, you'll probably lose your contacts in those companies.

Lately the "bad stuff" about Boeing I believe is coming from his contacts at NASA, which isn't a commercial company. If the same thing was happening with Dragon, I think we would hear the same info from him.

[litton4]

......

- When the Crew Dragon pad abort test showed that the SuperDracos lacked performance, SpaceX re-designed SuperDraco to get to the required performance. NASA never bothered to publically report this, it only showed up in an internal report. Berger subsequently also didn't report it, because he was unaware of it (because NASA hadn't publically reported it).
 
- When the pad abort test showed that a 3-parachute set-up was insufficient, SpaceX redesigned the recovery compartment to include a fourth parachute. As mentioned by NASA and OIG and as reported correctly by Berger.

.........

- When testing showed that the parachute design for Crew Dragon had weaker-than-expected links and seems, SpaceX immediately selected a much stronger system and performed 14 drop tests in rapid succession to qualify the system, going above and beyond NASA qualification requirements. As detailed by NASA and the OIG, and as correctly reported by Berger.

Links to information about these 3?

I wasn't aware of the SuperDraco underperformance.
I thought that it was NASA just wanting extra safety margin that prompted the extra 'chute, rather than it being driven by test data.
I think I saw some comment about the links (at the same time that the Boeing issue came to light?)

Additional info on these would be gratefully received .....

[woods170]

......

- When the Crew Dragon pad abort test showed that the SuperDracos lacked performance, SpaceX re-designed SuperDraco to get to the required performance. NASA never bothered to publically report this, it only showed up in an internal report. Berger subsequently also didn't report it, because he was unaware of it (because NASA hadn't publically reported it).
 
- When the pad abort test showed that a 3-parachute set-up was insufficient, SpaceX redesigned the recovery compartment to include a fourth parachute. As mentioned by NASA and OIG and as reported correctly by Berger.

.........

- When testing showed that the parachute design for Crew Dragon had weaker-than-expected links and seems, SpaceX immediately selected a much stronger system and performed 14 drop tests in rapid succession to qualify the system, going above and beyond NASA qualification requirements. As detailed by NASA and the OIG, and as correctly reported by Berger.

Links to information about these 3?

I wasn't aware of the SuperDraco underperformance.

SuperDraco underperformance was known even before the pad abort capsule had splashed-down. The first indicator was the "slightly below nomical" altitude callout after SuperDraco shutdown. I followed up with SpaceX and NASA sources several months later, who confirmed that the expected thrust profile did not match actual performance during the pad abort.
This eventually led to a modification of the SuperDraco design.

I thought that it was NASA just wanting extra safety margin that prompted the extra 'chute, rather than it being driven by test data.

Test data indicated that Crew Dragon could land safely on 3 parachutes. The same test data indicated that things could get dicy in a one-chute-failed situation. This led to NASA requesting SpaceX to improve the odds in the situation where one of the parachutes wouldn't deploy properly. NASA did NOT ask for a fourth parachute. They asked SpaceX to improve the odds, based on the test data they had gotten from SpaceX. SpaceX chose to do so by adding a fourth parachute to the system.

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that NASA doesn't tell the contractors HOW to fix a (potential) problem. NASA just tells them that they feel there is a problem and that the contractor needs to fix it. HOW the contractors fix the problem, is up to the contractors.

I think I saw some comment about the links (at the same time that the Boeing issue came to light?)

Additional info on these would be gratefully received .....

The switch to the Mark 3 version of the Crew Dragon parachutes came not too long after SpaceX had added a fourth parachute to the system. They discovered during drop testing of this Mark 2 set up (Mark 1 type parachutes, but four of them, instead of three) that there was substantial asymmetric loading of the parachutes during deployment. In one drop test this led to a complete failure of a parachute when the links gave way and parachute seems tore open.

The result was that SpaceX decided to have the parachutes constructed from much stronger materials. For example, Nylon was deleted from the design and replaced by Zylon (more generally known as PBO), a fiber that is 1.5 times stronger than Kevlar.
These much stronger, but also much more expensive parachutes, are the Mark 3 version. After this switch, no furter damage from asymmetric loading  has been observed.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1831801849957249504

The audiobook version of Reentry is now available for pre-order. Listen to the first five minutes of Chapter One:

https://www.audible.com/pd/Reentry-Audiobook/B0DDM997NY

[Comga]

I've seen enough of his reporting to know that he has a bias. Look at the tweets posted above and you'll see some of it. I'm not saying he's totally in the tank, but he is not always objective when it comes to SpaceX.

So what?
I loved Dorothy Kearns Goodwin’s biography of Lincoln, and learned a lot from it, but she makes absolutely no pretense of being objective.  It’s still a great, informative, and moving book.

[Blackstar]

So what?
I loved Dorothy Kearns Goodwin’s biography of Lincoln, and learned a lot from it, but she makes absolutely no pretense of being objective.  It’s still a great, informative, and moving book.

So we are both agreeing that he is biased and not objective.

[Redclaws]

So what?
I loved Dorothy Kearns Goodwin’s biography of Lincoln, and learned a lot from it, but she makes absolutely no pretense of being objective.  It’s still a great, informative, and moving book.

So we are both agreeing that he is biased and not objective.

What an angry and kind of pointless distinction to make.  As though bias and objectivity are entirely separate things, black and white, and people go exclusively in buckets.  Just say you dislike his perspective on things and think he gets some things wrong.  This "agree he is biased" business is childish.

[Blackstar]

Just say you dislike his perspective on things and think he gets some things wrong.  This "agree he is biased" business is childish.

I'm just agreeing with Comga.