(FAILURE) SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 launch - CRS-7

[Grendal]

NASA just released their findings on the failure. This article does a good job of explaining the differences between NASA findings and SpaceX findings. I expect they released this because of upcoming Crew launches under NASA's name.

NASA investigation linked 2015 Falcon 9 failure to design error - SpaceNews.com

 

[ecarfan]

Thanks for posting that link. From the article, quote:
———————-
NASA didn’t disclose why it was releasing the report summary, completed in late 2015, more than two and a half years after the accident. In a statement, NASA said it issued the public summary “to maintain historical data of the mishap.”
That accident involved the 1.1 version of the Falcon 9, an older version of the rocket retired after the January 2016 launch of the Jason-3 Earth observation satellite for NASA. In its statement this week, NASA noted that it approved that launch after “all credible causes and technical findings identified by the independent review team were corrected and/or mitigated by SpaceX.”
————————

So one might wonder why NASA would release that “report summary” so long after the launch failure. This paragraph from the article hints at an explanation. Quote:
———————-
Some in Congress had been seeking details about that NASA investigation. Report language accompanying the Senate version of a fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill that funds the Federal Aviation Administration instructed the FAA to “provide a report on the findings regarding a June 2015 catastrophic launch failure by a commercial launch provider,” a reference to the Falcon 9 accident.
———————-

“Some in Congress” are likely senators (I’m looking at you, Richard Shelby of Alabama) who want to make SpaceX look bad.

In fact this report is old news and clearly NASA and SpaceX are in agreement that all the issues identified in the report have been addresses to the satisfaction of both parties.

 

[jdevo2004]

The NASA report seems fair and unbiased. They made some very valid points about using out of spec materials for critical rocket components.

Do you really think we should just let the manufacturer tell us what the problem was when there is a catastrophic failure? Would you really be satisfied if Boeing or Airbus did their own airplane crash investigations instead of the TSB? We should think of NASA as the Transportation Safety Board of rocket crashes.

 

[croman]

The NASA report seems fair and unbiased. They made some very valid points about using out of spec materials for critical rocket components.

Do you really think we should just let the manufacturer tell us what the problem was when there is a catastrophic failure? Would you really be satisfied if Boeing or Airbus did their own airplane crash investigations instead of the TSB? We should think of NASA as the Transportation Safety Board of rocket crashes.

I don't think anyone questions NASA or their analysis, rather its the fact that such a failure is used as a political football when it should simply be about the science and there NASA and SpaceX are in agreement.

 

[Grendal]

The NASA report seems fair and unbiased. They made some very valid points about using out of spec materials for critical rocket components.

Do you really think we should just let the manufacturer tell us what the problem was when there is a catastrophic failure? Would you really be satisfied if Boeing or Airbus did their own airplane crash investigations instead of the TSB? We should think of NASA as the Transportation Safety Board of rocket crashes.

No one has said anything about the report being faulty. I agree it is a fair report. Ecarfan and I called into question the timing of the reports release which is questionable since it came out two and a half years after the report was complete. Since there is no question that certain politicians have a vested interest in SpaceX competitors and have actively attempted to denigrate the company at every opportunity, then it is reasonable to question the timing and those politicians motivations.

NASA is a major customer for SpaceX. SpaceX and Elon love NASA and that is unlikely to change.

 

[e-FTW]

I can see how SpaceX naysayers could use some of the language in there to say that SpaceX was being somehow reckless by using non-aerospace rated parts.
Am sure some at the usual big contractors felt vindicated. When you cost way more, and take way more time to ship your parts and rockets, you probably feel pretty good about some of that wording.

It is all relative to where you are coming form. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Cosmacelf]

I think the NASA report was well written. It was indeed a design error. They used a part that didn’t have the tolerances for their uses. No doubt SpaceX learnt a lot from that review.

The way ULA designs and builds rockets has its own unique problems too. I don’t think you can say their way is better than how SpaceX does it without a LOT of detailed analysis and comparisons.