A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Accident at Cape



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 12th 16, 11:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Accident at Cape

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...
Question: obviously, SpaceX will analyse its logs, photos, videos. But
for such an accident at the Cape, is there also a formal government
investigation ? I believe it is the FAA that does them ? or would it be
air force because it was on air force property or NASA because Nasa is
in charge for space flight ?


No. SpaceX owns the investigation. The vehicle wasn't in flight so
the Feds have no jurisdiction.


While that may be technically true, considering USAF and NASA are both
customers of SpaceX, it does not hurt to keep them both "in the loop" so
to speak.


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


Be surprised. Under FAA regulations the launch provider is the only
one with 'jurisdiction' over the investigation in cases with no
deaths, injuries, and no damage off the range.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #12  
Old September 12th 16, 11:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Accident at Cape

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-09-12 02:49, Fred J. McCall wrote:

But we do know, if you were paying attention. “We are currently in
the early process of reviewing approximately 3,000 channels of
telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55
milliseconds,” SpaceX spokesman Phil Larson said in a statement.


Uh, you seem to be under the impression that TM only reports
anomalies. It doesn't. It constantly reports thousands of items on
the state of the vehicle.


Would you agree that telemetry tranmsmission from stage II stopped at
one point ? Would you agree that telemetry fron stage I stopped at some
point (likely some seconds after stage II).


Sure, for some value of "some seconds"


Not sure how much telemetry comes from the payload section, but from
what I read, it is routed through stage II so would be cut off at same time.

They may have data from 3000 sensors. But we don't know frequency of
each sensor reporting, and we don't know what that data shows and when
it stops relative to explosion.


But the investigation panel does and it's apparently as expected else
they'd have something to look at.


We also don't know if sensors on stage 2 and likely payload reported any
anomaly prior to explosion. If sensor data continued during the
explosion, it may provide some clue on origin/progression of explosion
but not the cause.


If they had, once again they'd have something to look at.


Also, if a sensor is programmed to provide readings every second, and
these guys are investigating 35-55ms time frame, then the lack of sensor
data during that 20ms timeframe is not indicative of failure.


And if it only provides data once a week we might not see anything at
all.

Hint: 100ms sampling rates is SLOW TM RATE for these types of
systems. What the actual rate on any given item is will depend on how
often the state of that item can change. Sampling rate will generally
be 4x-6x the item frequency.


And this is the difference with this accident. Whereas in the past,
SpaceX and Musk provided details, this time, they are doing a "NASA" by
making statements that are designed to prevent anyone from drawing
conclusions.


Or there is nothing anomalous to point to, which is what I suspect
given that they're asking for external video.


In the case of NTSB for commercial aviation, such obfuscation is
sometimes needed because of ambulance chasers wanting to sue airlines
before cause of accident has been proven, using preliminary statements
from NTSB as "proof".

The vagueness by SpaceX may be justified, but it still represents a
change from previous openness about what went wrong. (or really
indicative that they have no clue what happened).


Or else there's nothing to say yet. Just how frequently do they need
to say "We still have no clues as to what the **** happened" in order
to satisfy you?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #13  
Old September 13th 16, 12:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Accident at Cape

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.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #14  
Old September 13th 16, 09:13 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Accident at Cape

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-09-12 17:38, Fred J. McCall wrote:

As to the board (of approximately 20 people) involved in the
investigation, there is ONE NASA seat, ONE USAF seat, and virtually
all the voting seats are SpaceX people. So they're 'in the loop' but
have no say.


But that board is required by FAA and reports to FAA?


No. The investigation is required. It issues a report. FAA has
nothing to do with the decision.


If USAF and NASA have a seat, they may also have ability to have
dissenting opinions. So they may not "have no say".


They can dissent all they want. They don't have a VOTE on the
outcome, so they have no say and their 'dissents' don't have to be
reported out.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #15  
Old September 14th 16, 11:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Accident at Cape

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.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #16  
Old September 14th 16, 03:47 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Accident at Cape

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
  #17  
Old September 15th 16, 11:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Accident at Cape

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
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


The struts are submerged in the LOX tank, so the material chosen really
ought to be LOX compatible. I largely agree with you, but at the same
time, SpaceX reportedly changed the material that the strut was made
from, no doubt in part due to the government's input. So this seems to
indicate that even SpaceX is not immune from making changes at the
request of the government.

No doubt those government employees making suggestions are doing so with
good intentions. In this case it could very well be that every tweak
SpaceX makes at the direction of the government increases costs.
Whether or not the same changes actually increase safety and reliability
is questionable.

But at the same time, I agree that the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Accident at Cape Vaughn Simon Policy 10 September 5th 16 08:33 PM
Accident at Cape David Spain Policy 22 September 5th 16 10:24 AM
Accident at Cape Dr J R Stockton[_196_] Policy 2 September 4th 16 04:35 AM
Fun At The Cape Andre Lieven History 11 February 11th 04 12:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.