Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 CRS/SpX-10 Dragon - Feb. 19, 2017 - Discussion  (Read 418683 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37818
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22048
  • Likes Given: 430

Right. If the Process

What process?  That is the issue.

Offline ATPTourFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 4520
The Process that today recognizes that computer code and sensors aren't perfect and allows for a human-initiated abort window.

I guess I don't understand what the alternative is you would suggest they use.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2017 08:12 pm by ATPTourFan »

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6503
  • Liked: 4623
  • Likes Given: 5353
The point is about processes

Correct and that is why Challenger and Columbia are no longer relevant comparisons.

In this case your expert opinion is still just opinion.
"Lessons Learned" are never learned by all, and never all learned. Those remain valid lessons, as do your points that some of the perceived differences aren't so different. It could be said that Challenger and Columbia are irrelevant because it's a warm day and there is no spray-on foam, bit we know that would be silly. 
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37818
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22048
  • Likes Given: 430
The Process that today recognizes that computer code and sensors aren't perfect and allows for a human-initiated abort window.

I guess I don't understand what the alternative is you would suggest they use.

No, if this is an issue, then there should be hard and fast rules dealing with it and not gut feeling.  If it is not good to launch today, then it shouldn't be good to launch any other day.

Offline ATPTourFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 4520
The rules today indicated green to launch. But sometimes the real-world combination of factors is more than the code can handle, and it shows Green.

Understanding where weaknesses could potentially reside in your launch process, even if realized at T-15, still warrant an abort.

Should Elon stand by and say nothing if he feels the process has encountered a weakness given the unique scenario.

Processes are designed by flawed humans, very smart flawed humans. Over decades they get more robust, but can you ever just sit back and tell yourself -- it's green so we're good? Haven't there been failures (by everyone who ever endeavored to launch a rocket) in the past using that exact position?

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Today was as good a wet rehearsal as you can get. I'm sure that they learned a number of valuable lessons about process and the new pad today. I fail to see why the Chief Technical Officer shouldn't call abort if he sees the need to.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37818
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22048
  • Likes Given: 430
The rules today indicated green to launch.

The rules were flawed then, if they stopped the launch without following them.
Also, launch rules are not just computer code.  There are many that required human action and intervention.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2017 08:43 pm by Jim »

Offline ATPTourFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 4520
The rules today indicated green to launch.

The rules were flawed, if they stopped the launch

So from what I'm hearing you say, SpaceX should have by now designed a "perfect" process/rules. How many other organizations thought they had a perfect process, followed rules, and still experienced failures?

Realizing that your process can have weak areas and taking action, and permanent corrective action, is in my opinion smart. There is no perfect set of rules, no perfect process. If there was we'd have one button and could sit back and watch the magic without scrutinizing dozens of computer screens constantly throughout the mission.

Offline southshore26

The rules today indicated green to launch.

The rules were flawed, if they stopped the launch

So from what I'm hearing you say, SpaceX should have by now designed a "perfect" process/rules. How many other organizations thought they had a perfect process, followed rules, and still experienced failures?

Realizing that your process can have weak areas and taking action, and permanent corrective action, is in my opinion smart. There is no perfect set of rules, no perfect process. If there was we'd have one button and could sit back and watch the magic without scrutinizing dozens of computer screens constantly throughout the mission.

Let it go... you're not going to change his mind... even if he's wrong he's right.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37818
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22048
  • Likes Given: 430

So from what I'm hearing you say, SpaceX should have by now designed a "perfect" process/rules. How many other organizations thought they had a perfect process, followed rules, and still experienced failures?

Realizing that your process can have weak areas and taking action, and permanent corrective action, is in my opinion smart. There is no perfect set of rules, no perfect process. If there was we'd have one button and could sit back and watch the magic without scrutinizing dozens of computer screens constantly throughout the mission.

Again, what changed from the time they discovered the issue until T-13 seconds?  If it wasn't good at T-13, why was it good earlier and they continued the count?

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
The rules today indicated green to launch.

The rules were flawed, if they stopped the launch

So from what I'm hearing you say, SpaceX should have by now designed a "perfect" process/rules. How many other organizations thought they had a perfect process, followed rules, and still experienced failures?

Realizing that your process can have weak areas and taking action, and permanent corrective action, is in my opinion smart. There is no perfect set of rules, no perfect process. If there was we'd have one button and could sit back and watch the magic without scrutinizing dozens of computer screens constantly throughout the mission.

It's obviously not a perfect set of rules as they apparently don't even indicate any sort of clear chain of command in mission control. Or at least that the flight director is either untrusted or a toothless position.

Offline ATPTourFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 4520
Quote
Again, what changed from the time they discovered the issue until T-13 seconds?  If it wasn't good at T-13, why was it good earlier and they continued the count?

I thought you told us. It was "good" earlier because the process indicated "green". However, smart people were likely throughout the count looking deeper into potential fault trees and relationship between the issues they had experienced with this vehicle and determined they'd prefer to look at it rather than bet their process was perfect.

Elon (and likely his senior group) hadn't satisfactorily convinced themselves that this issue was worth risking the mission, even if the computer said it was good enough.

Because the process and people who designed it aren't perfect, you build into the process a means for someone to say "HOLD HOLD HOLD" because they don't feel something is right.

Your options are:
1) build a perfect process and install the big GO button
2) recognize your process will never, and can never be perfect and build into it the ability to hold/abort

Action taken today to HOLD (and thus abort the instantaneous window) wasn't taken lightly. Do you think it was?

Also, just because Elon tweeted he "called the hold" doesn't mean that that Flight didn't concur and stop the clock. We don't know that. You are assuming no chain of command.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2017 09:05 pm by ATPTourFan »

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 946
The rules today indicated green to launch.

The rules were flawed then, if they stopped the launch without following them.
Also, launch rules are not just computer code.  There are many that required human action and intervention.
I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that the TVC was a known issue, but one that could have had at least some probability of being corrected before T-0. Therefore the launch countdown was allowed to proceed as normal. When it was determined at T-13 seconds that the TVC data was still out of the acceptable window the launch was scrubbed.

This doesn't sound like a flawed protocol, rather this sounds like a prudent path. I'm not sure as to why this is even a point of contention?
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline ATPTourFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 4520
Johnny, I've just tapped you into the ring. I'm out.

Goodnight everyone. Let's hope for a successful, safe launch tomorrow.

Offline rsdavis9

If I were them(elon and people). It would come down to something that is okay for the computer but seems a little off and I don't understand completely why it is a little off then I would call it off until I do understand it. I am a programmer and I don't feel comfortable until I understand the reason my code fix fixed the problem.
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13469
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11869
  • Likes Given: 11115
lets not do Jim vs the world.

If someone experienced calls a manual hold that is an opportunity for process improvement. Leave it at that.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1542
  • Likes Given: 2060
The rules today indicated green to launch.

The rules were flawed then, if they stopped the launch without following them.
Also, launch rules are not just computer code.  There are many that required human action and intervention.

Of course the rules were flawed.  That's why Elon stopped the launch.  If the rules covered all relevant contingencies, then the board would not have been green.  Calling a manual halt to this is an acknowledgement that there are still some details to work out in the process, and that's exactly what they'll spend this time doing.

All rules, all processes are flawed in some way.  There's no shame in admitting that and acting on that fact when things don't look right otherwise.  I don' know why Jim is making this into an attack.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238

Also, just because Elon tweeted he "called the hold" doesn't mean that that Flight didn't concur and stop the clock. We don't know that. You are assuming no chain of command.
Then flight director should have "called the hold."

Musk doesn't take part in each flight, and he doesn't take part in each training evolution with mission control so when he suddenly steps in and usurps control it sends some real mixed messages. When a split second decision matters now who does the person at the console turn to?

The decision making process has to be clear and consistent for safe operations. This may not have been a critical operation but what lesson does the flight team take in the future when a crew capsule is reentering and a split second decision has to be made and you hear the CEO in one ear telling you one thing and the director in your other ear telling you another?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I have insufficient data to have an opinion one way or another, so in the absence of facts I'll just hold fire at this point...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8625
  • Liked: 3702
  • Likes Given: 334

So from what I'm hearing you say, SpaceX should have by now designed a "perfect" process/rules. How many other organizations thought they had a perfect process, followed rules, and still experienced failures?

Realizing that your process can have weak areas and taking action, and permanent corrective action, is in my opinion smart. There is no perfect set of rules, no perfect process. If there was we'd have one button and could sit back and watch the magic without scrutinizing dozens of computer screens constantly throughout the mission.

Again, what changed from the time they discovered the issue until T-13 seconds?  If it wasn't good at T-13, why was it good earlier and they continued the count?

When ULA finds an anomaly, and goes to the anomaly net to discuss it, isn't that because there isn't a "hard and fast" rule that a scrub must be called?  I'm remembering them adding a timer, or something, and continuing the count, and I'm remembering them saying something like "they got comfortable" with the anomaly and proceeded to launch.

I don't know what goes on when they get onto the anomaly net, but it sure sounds like there are humans making decisions rather than just following a flight rule and either scrubbing or not.

No?
« Last Edit: 02/18/2017 09:40 pm by Lee Jay »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1