Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-09-12 12:01, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Also, since I believe technically USAF still OWNS the pad, I'd be surprised
if they don't have some sort of jurisdiction.


I think they lease the land, and SpaceX builds/owns the pad hardware,
tanks etc. And from what I read, the launch room is SpaceX, not
AirForce. (on land leased from Airforce).


It doesn't matter who owns the pad. It matters who owns the rocket.


But whether they are the lead investigator or a participant, I don't know.


I do know. They aren't.


Doesn't FAA have to grant approval for each flight since rocket affects
commercial airspace)? Is this just paperwork to close off airspace, or
do they have a say in safety of the rocket before allowing flight ?


FAA regulations say that launch providers are responsible for the
investigation of all accidents that do not involve deaths, injuries,
or damage outside the range. I'd think that means they're sort of
constrained to accept SpaceX's judgment.


While strictly true, there was some grumbling from the government
contributors to the accident investigation about SpaceX's singular
conclusion from the last accident. Blaming everything on the weak strut
ignored several possible contributing factors including material choice,
workers standing on parts of the vehicle during assembly, and etc.


I just don't see a 180 pound worker standing on heavy structure as
'contributing'. Material choice is sort of irrelevant, since the
parts failed at 25% of the load they were supposed to be capable of.
Yes, GOVERNMENT is interested in more regulation, so no doubt they
want causes that 'rules' can fix.

Those causes just weren't there.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden