SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD (2)

[envy887]

  If the COPV is autofrettaged, the liner will already be under compression at zero pressure,

Not sure what you mean here. Guessing is not within my comfort zone but in your context is "autoclaved" a good term?

Autofrettage is a manufacturing technique that leaves parts of the pressure vessel under permanent compression loads, increasing the tensile performance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofrettage

[pippin]

Well since nobody knows what "business process" she's talking about, what's the point second guessing her, and then attacking the very speculation you just made as if it were fact?

Which speculation? She said things point to business processes, that's not speculation.

[Rocket Rancher]

Full quote from Jeff Foust's summary article on SpaceNews (Shotwell says SpaceX “homing in” on cause of Falcon 9 pad explosion):

“We’re homing in on what happened,” she said. “I think it’s going to point not to a vehicle issue or an engineering design issue but more of a business process issue.”

Note: emphasis mine.

Am I the only one thinking that's actually worse news for SpaceX than a vehicle issue?
I mean: a vehicle issue is something you find and then fix. Happens.

But business processes is where SpaceX see their competitive advantage. They claim due to their leaner business processes they can be more cost effective than OldSpace.

If these leaner business processes now turn out to cause mission or payload losses it means they will have to change them, probably for something more expensive.
That may gradually move their cost structure towards OldSpace's and might simply mean there's sometimes a reason others are doing things they way they are doing them...

It seems a lot of folks on this site seem to think OldSpace - Very Bad, SpaceX/New Space  - Very Good!

As an aerospace professional; if doing my job in a methodical, organized and disciplined fashion, using proven techniques and processes and always being encouraged by my employer and peers to look for better ways to do my job safely with mission success, well then call me OldSpace. And I am darn proud of it.

And yes, SpaceX is growing into a big space corporation; 5000+ employees, large and numerous facilities. They have quickly grown and now have all (and more of) the liabilities and fixed costs of their competition. It will be interesting to see if it sustainable in the current market conditions.

[Navier–Stokes]

Meaning what? Trying to save a little time in the countdown to shorten the launch campaign?  Doing something to save some time/money?  Who is in charge of making such decisions.  And what was the risk vs reward?  As for not being a vehicle or an design issue, it is something worse, it is a cultural issue.  What other "short cuts" are being done without rigorous engineering review.

She used some bad words there

To be fair, all companies have some kind of cultural issues. It is how management responds to these issues that separate a good company from a bad one.

"Business process issue" is a very broad term. For me, an oversight in te change control process for GSE or in personnel training is the first thing that springs to mind. Regardless, I would suggest reserving judgment until more details are known.

[meekGee]

Well since nobody knows what "business process" she's talking about, what's the point second guessing her, and then attacking the very speculation you just made as if it were fact?

Ok, then spin it another way to make it a positive thing that she said

how's about we find out what business process she's talking about?

If you're only complaining that they're making changes, I'll remind you that you were complaining when they moved away from F1.0.

[envy887]

...
If these leaner business processes now turn out to cause mission or payload losses it means they will have to change them, probably for something more expensive.
That may gradually move their cost structure towards OldSpace's and might simply mean there's sometimes a reason others are doing things they way they are doing them...

Rapid improvement requires rapid iteration which requires failing fast. Failing fast is great, it's served SpaceX well up to this point, allowing fast growth and extensive market disruption.

But failing isn't an option once a customer payload is mounted. There has to be a hard stop to any unproven changes at some point prior to risking a payload. Test AS you fly is great, test WHILE you fly is not.

So if the root cause is shown to be a inadequately tested procedural change during countdown, which it sounds like at this point, they do need to fundamentally change the way they approach integration and launch ops.

That doesn't necessarily mean they need to fundamentally change they way they do R&D, development, testing, manufacturing, etc, which is where most of the cost is IMHO.

[pippin]

Full quote from Jeff Foust's summary article on SpaceNews (Shotwell says SpaceX “homing in” on cause of Falcon 9 pad explosion):

“We’re homing in on what happened,” she said. “I think it’s going to point not to a vehicle issue or an engineering design issue but more of a business process issue.”

Note: emphasis mine.

Am I the only one thinking that's actually worse news for SpaceX than a vehicle issue?
I mean: a vehicle issue is something you find and then fix. Happens.

But business processes is where SpaceX see their competitive advantage. They claim due to their leaner business processes they can be more cost effective than OldSpace.

If these leaner business processes now turn out to cause mission or payload losses it means they will have to change them, probably for something more expensive.
That may gradually move their cost structure towards OldSpace's and might simply mean there's sometimes a reason others are doing things they way they are doing them...

It seems a lot of folks on this site seem to think OldSpace - Very Bad, SpaceX/New Space  - Very Good!

Not at all.
But SpaceX have been publicly bragging about how their leaner business processes are what makes them competitive compared to OldSpace. Hence it's fair to conclude that if they are having an issue with them now this will cause cost increases.

Of course it could also be that it was a bloated, way too complex or not well-thought-through process that caused issues here but SpaceX's own claims point to the opposite.

[meekGee]

Well since nobody knows what "business process" she's talking about, what's the point second guessing her, and then attacking the very speculation you just made as if it were fact?

Which speculation? She said things point to business processes, that's not speculation.

She sure did, but nobody here has any clue what the hell she's talking about.  What business process causes a rocket to explode?

Tweaking the operational procedure is not a business process.  Everyone does that, and everyone is aware they have to walk on the right side of the line.

She specifically said "not vehicle, not operations, but business".  It just left me scratching my head since I can't make any sense from that statement.

So maybe we find out what it is before we jump on the"culture" bandwagon?

[pippin]

That doesn't necessarily mean they need to fundamentally change they way they do R&D, development, testing, manufacturing, etc, which is where most of the cost is IMHO.

I think that's the point where we disagree.
Manufacturing and testing: yes, to a certain degree. R&D (which includes development) is overrated except for extreme low volume applications like SLS.
And that's not just what I think, that's also what SpaceX have publicly stated they think.

[pippin]

She sure did, but nobody here has any clue what the hell she's talking about.  What business process causes a rocket to explode?

That's why this is the discussion thread.
Nobody had any clue about all the other speculative causes that have been discussed here, too, beyond (sometimes educated) guessing.
Still some of that speculation turned out close to reality (COPV giving way), most of it didn't.
That's what these threads are about.

Tweaking the operational procedure is not a business process.  Everyone does that, and everyone is aware they have to walk on the right side of the line.

Huh, how's that not a business process.
Might want to read up on what we are talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process

She specifically said "not vehicle, not operations, but business".  It just left me scratching my head since I can't make any sense from that statement.

All operations processes on an operational vehicle that is part of your business are also business processes.

[spacekid]

She specifically said "not vehicle, not operations, but business".  It just left me scratching my head since I can't make any sense from that statement.

Blaming the accident on a business process almost sounds like cutting tests or procedures to save money. I suspect there's a better description of what she meant but it sure seems like a poor choice of words.

[DOCinCT]

Full quote from Jeff Foust's summary article on SpaceNews (Shotwell says SpaceX “homing in” on cause of Falcon 9 pad explosion):

“We’re homing in on what happened,” she said. “I think it’s going to point not to a vehicle issue or an engineering design issue but more of a business process issue.”

Note: emphasis mine.

The same article had:
Speaking Oct. 5 at the Asia-Pacific Satellite Communications Council 2016 conference in Malaysia, Shotwell said it was unlikely there was a design flaw in the bottles used to store helium in the tank, but rather an “operations” issue. 
Guess that is a business process issue.  So not a design flaw, could be manufacturing or fueling or.....

[meekGee]

She specifically said "not vehicle, not operations, but business".  It just left me scratching my head since I can't make any sense from that statement.

Blaming the accident on a business process almost sounds like cutting tests or procedures to save money. I suspect there's a better description of what she meant but it sure seems like a poor choice of words.

I know... "almost sounds"...  but unless she's said those words, I think anyone would categorize "cutting tests or procedures" as "an operational issue".  Like "yeah, we tried to streamline the operations too much".  Costs goes without saying.

And I don't see what she'd gain by calling something like that "a business process" issue.

So I'm waiting to see what it was...  If it was just a change in procedures, then it'll really depend on the details. 

Normally "business process" is more like "how do you book a customer".  Not "how fast you fill a Helium bottle", even if the driver is cost.

[pippin]

Normally "business process" is more like "how do you book a customer".  Not "how fast you fill a Helium bottle", even if the driver is cost.

Again: disagree. "Business process" is not the same thing as "business process optimization". She didn't say anything about the latter.
And no, business processes are NOT the same thing as administrative processes.

As I said before: all operational processes are business processes plus testing (of the operational vehicle) and manufacturing. Strictly speaking also all development processes but that looks a bit far-fetched to me.

Maybe they are not sure which of these three areas influenced the problem most, my money would be that she just used "business processes" instead of "operating processes" and that's what she meant. But that, yes, is speculation.

[meekGee]

Normally "business process" is more like "how do you book a customer".  Not "how fast you fill a Helium bottle", even if the driver is cost.

Again: disagree. "Business process" is not the same thing as "business process optimization". She didn't say anything about the latter.
And no, business processes are NOT the same thing as administrative processes.

As I said before: all operational processes are business processes plus testing (of the operational vehicle) and manufacturing. Strictly speaking also all development processes but that looks a bit far-fetched to me.

Maybe they are not sure which of these three areas influenced the problem most, my money would be that she just used "business processes" instead of "operating processes" and that's what she meant. But that, yes, is speculation.

According to that, every manufacturing process is a business process too.  So it's an empty statement.

Consider her entire statement, not just an out of context snippet.

“I think it’s going to point not to a vehicle issue or an engineering design issue but more of a business process issue.”

So in short - I think it's a poor choice of words.

IMO it'll end up being an operational issue, indicative of nothing but the fact that SpaceX is evolving very fast, and there's some inherent risk in that.

Losing 1 rocket/yr is unacceptable, but I don't have enough data to know whether this is indicative of something larger or was bad luck.

And neither do you, not unless you know what went wrong.

For example - the strut acceptance testing was no different than practices employed by other aerospace companies.  So it wasn't indicative of a cultural issue.  Maybe it was indicative of a supply chain that's still relatively young.

[pippin]

According to that, every manufacturing process is a business process too.  So it's an empty statement.

Yes and no.

So in short - I think it's a poor choice of words.

IMO it'll end up being an operational issue, indicative of nothing but the fact that SpaceX is evolving very fast, and there's some inherent risk in that.

Umm... that was exactly my point, wasn't it?

Losing 1 rocket/yr is unacceptable, but I don't have enough data to know whether this is indicative of something larger or was bad luck.

And neither do you, not unless you know what went wrong.

... So it wasn't indicative of a cultural issue.

I never said it was. Jim did.

My point was: since SpaceX claims that their processes are tweaked to the max and that's what gives them their competitive advantage, any change to these processes they will have to do will likely make that advantage smaller.
There's very little speculation in that, it's all stuff Elon said...

[M.E.T.]

Was it Elon or Shotwell who previously referred to the extent to which parts provided by sub-contractors had to be quality checked?

I can't recall which of the many recent articles contained this reference, and I believe it may have referred to the previous failure rather than the latest one, but the question related to whether a certificate of quality was sufficient when the product was delivered by the sub-contractor, or whether each product had to be tested by SpaceX themselves again.

In the end the quote seemed to conclude that they would accept the certificate, but do their best to check as much as possible on their side again (but still end some way short of retesting every single delivered product).

I wonder if the above could not be seen as a business process in the context that Shotwell was using the term yesterday.

[Jim]

For example - the strut acceptance testing was no different than practices employed by other aerospace companies.  So it wasn't indicative of a cultural issue.  Maybe it was indicative of a supply chain that's still relatively young.

Wrong, there was no "strut acceptance testing ".  Their practices were different.

[Jim]

how's about we find out what business process she's talking about?

If you're only complaining that they're making changes, I'll remind you that you were complaining when they moved away from F1.0.

Don't need to wait.  Have enough to go on .  They are pointing at the business aspect vs design/engineering.

And what "complaining"?  The issue has been how and not what as far as changes. 

And I might point out that V1.0 had no total mission failures, but both V1.1 and V1.2 have. 

[ccicchitelli]

I recall reading about fuel quality being in question. Could contamination due to choosing a lower cost supplier be considered a "business process issue"?

Edited to clarify: I'm using the term "fuel" here in its loose sense, could be the RP-1, LOX, or He. For that matter, it could even be a lubricant used or something else.