But what difference does releasing the report make. None. All the issues highlighted in the report will have been fixed. So it's content is publicly irrelevant.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 07/23/2017 07:15 pmBut what difference does releasing the report make. None. All the issues highlighted in the report will have been fixed. So it's content is publicly irrelevant.The report for the Orb-3 accident would have obviously had lots of launch site related information since that is what the NASA money was going to be spent on - rebuilding the launch site.However for the CRS-7 accident that would have focused on the design of the SpaceX proprietary rocket design, and NASA does not have the legal ability to release SpaceX confidential information. Remember NASA did not pay for development of the Falcon 9, only development of the Dragon spacecraft.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/23/2017 07:22 pmQuote from: JamesH65 on 07/23/2017 07:15 pmBut what difference does releasing the report make. None. All the issues highlighted in the report will have been fixed. So it's content is publicly irrelevant.The report for the Orb-3 accident would have obviously had lots of launch site related information since that is what the NASA money was going to be spent on - rebuilding the launch site.However for the CRS-7 accident that would have focused on the design of the SpaceX proprietary rocket design, and NASA does not have the legal ability to release SpaceX confidential information. Remember NASA did not pay for development of the Falcon 9, only development of the Dragon spacecraft.Wrong, NASA money went to Falcon 9 development. See the COTS progress payments.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/23/2017 07:22 pmHowever for the CRS-7 accident that would have focused on the design of the SpaceX proprietary rocket design, and NASA does not have the legal ability to release SpaceX confidential information. Remember NASA did not pay for development of the Falcon 9, only development of the Dragon spacecraft.Wrong, NASA money went to Falcon 9 development. See the COTS progress payments.
However for the CRS-7 accident that would have focused on the design of the SpaceX proprietary rocket design, and NASA does not have the legal ability to release SpaceX confidential information. Remember NASA did not pay for development of the Falcon 9, only development of the Dragon spacecraft.
Horkachuck: We had to jump from the Falcon 5 [five Merlin engines] to the Falcon 9 [nine Merlin engines], because we had no use for a Falcon 5.Buzza: Yes, right. If you look back in history, the first larger rocket was a Falcon 5, and then that soon became the Falcon 9. I would suspect Mike’s correct, that when we started talking about what the capabilities needed to be of that rocket heading into the COTS—when we were doing the contract proposal, that’s when it switched to a 9 in order to get the mass of what was then developing, which was the Dragon capsule.I would say that some of the initial fundamentals were probably driven to make sure we could meet the intent of the contract. This contract was what was going to help us develop the Falcon 9, so it had to do the COTS missions. That certainly had a big role in how the vehicle design ended up. I think you can then look deeper down into all the small stuff, and I’m going to have a hard time identifying them all.But there’s no doubt that through years of working together, fingerprints of meetings and discussions with NASA have ended up on the rocket. Like where there was a selection of a particular type of material on Dragon, due to certain regulations on outgassing. I don’t have a list in front of me that says where I think NASA had a fingerprint on the design of the rocket. We worked together for so many years, it’s all over it.
.You've mentioned a "multi-engine test" in the past, and there is Milestone #12 for "Multi-engine Test" scheduled for September 2008, but that is likely for Dragon Draco multi-engine test.
No, because there is no need for such a test for Dracos.
and what savuporo said.
NASA paid for an integrated spacecraft and launch vehicle system. NASA got to review designs for both vehicles.
Right. But that still doesn't matter for the main discussion in this thread... NASA paying directly or indirectly for a launch vehicle development through service contract with a private entity still does not mean that the public has the right to all information.
NASA (the relevant parts) has full access to the report. SpaceX obviously does as well. The rest of us are simply going to have to be happy to see what we see.
The U.S. Government does not pay for things that are not explicitly called out for in a properly executed contract, and the COTS contract was very specific about what it paid for.
SpaceX Conducts First Nine Engine Firing of Falcon 9 Rocket08.01.08McGregor TX – August 1, 2008 - Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX ) conducted the first nine engine firing of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle at its Texas Test Facility outside McGregor on July 31st. A second firing on August 1st completed a major NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) milestone almost two months early.At full power, the nine engines consumed 3,200 lbs of fuel and liquid oxygen per second, and generated almost 850,000 pounds of force - four times the maximum thrust of a 747 aircraft. This marks the first firing of a Falcon 9 first stage with its full complement of nine Merlin 1C engines . Once a near term Merlin 1C fuel pump upgrade is complete, the sea level thrust will increase to 950,000 lbf, making Falcon 9 the most powerful single core vehicle in the United States.“This was the most difficult milestone in development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and it also constitutes a significant achievement in US space vehicle development. Not since the final flight of the Saturn 1B rocket in 1975, has a rocket had the ability to lose any engine or motor and still successfully complete its mission,” said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX. “Much like a commercial airliner, our multi-engine design has the potential to provide significantly higher reliability than single engine competitors.”“We made a major advancement from the previous five engine test by adding four new Merlin engines at once,” said Tom Mueller, Vice President of Propulsion for SpaceX. “All phases of integration went smoothly and we were elated to see all nine engines working perfectly in concert.”
The story clearly says NASA said for months it would release a public summary. If it couldn't because of confidentiality NASA should have said so last September. It's hard to understand why NASA got that wrong for months. You guys have all missed the really important part of the story. SpaceX had problems with helium leaks in 2014 then an inflight explosion involving a helium tank in 2015 and then a helium tank breach in 2016. For the CRS-7 flight SpaceX's investigation had 11 company employees and 1 FAA rep (who didn't sign final report) who concluded that an outside vendor was to blame. The conclusions of NASA's investigation was different. Therein lies the value of NASA releasing a summary.
There are no specific and unambiguous "Falcon 9 Development" milestones on the COTS contract, only the ambiguous milestone #12 for a "Multi-Engine Test", which I think is for Draco testing and you disagree, but even if that was Falcon 9 it was only a Dragon-related Falcon 9 test, and not related to development of the Falcon 9.
Quote from: Andy Bandy on 07/25/2017 03:35 amThe story clearly says NASA said for months it would release a public summary. If it couldn't because of confidentiality NASA should have said so last September. It's hard to understand why NASA got that wrong for months. You guys have all missed the really important part of the story. SpaceX had problems with helium leaks in 2014 then an inflight explosion involving a helium tank in 2015 and then a helium tank breach in 2016. For the CRS-7 flight SpaceX's investigation had 11 company employees and 1 FAA rep (who didn't sign final report) who concluded that an outside vendor was to blame. The conclusions of NASA's investigation was different. Therein lies the value of NASA releasing a summary.NASA's conclusion was not substantially different. The OIG report said NASA also included some other possible causes, and noted that SpaceX took actions on those other possible causes, as well.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/25/2017 03:08 pmQuote from: Andy Bandy on 07/25/2017 03:35 amThe story clearly says NASA said for months it would release a public summary. If it couldn't because of confidentiality NASA should have said so last September. It's hard to understand why NASA got that wrong for months. You guys have all missed the really important part of the story. SpaceX had problems with helium leaks in 2014 then an inflight explosion involving a helium tank in 2015 and then a helium tank breach in 2016. For the CRS-7 flight SpaceX's investigation had 11 company employees and 1 FAA rep (who didn't sign final report) who concluded that an outside vendor was to blame. The conclusions of NASA's investigation was different. Therein lies the value of NASA releasing a summary.NASA's conclusion was not substantially different. The OIG report said NASA also included some other possible causes, and noted that SpaceX took actions on those other possible causes, as well.The IG report is a bit vague on that. "In addition to the material defects in the strut assembly SpaceX found during its testing, LSP pointed to manufacturing damage or improper installation of the assembly into the rocket as possible initiators of the failure. LSP also highlighted improper material selection and such practices as individuals standing on flight hardware during the assembly process, as possible contributing factors."Does the first part of that sentence say there were material defects in the strut assembly that failed. Or merely acknowledge that SpaceX found material defects in some of the other struts that it tested after the accident. Could improper installation of the assembly have damaged the helium tank in some way? And what does improper material selection mean? What material? It's not a small matter. The official SpaceX story is the strut was defective, it broken in flight, and the supplier is to blame. The only blame SpaceX took was not testing the strut for strength prior to the flight. This and the letter that Bolden and Gerst wrote later on suggest much deeper problems.A more detailed report might answer some of the questions and potentially rule out any connection to the launch pad explosion that occurred in 2016.
