This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

ULA Congressional Delegation Criticizes SpaceX For A Totally Legal Mishap Investigation

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 29, 2016
Filed under , ,
ULA Congressional Delegation Criticizes SpaceX For A Totally Legal Mishap Investigation

Congress members question whether SpaceX should conduct its own investigation, LA Times
“The letter, dated Thursday, also cited SpaceX’s prior explosion in June 2015 while carrying cargo for NASA to the International Space Station. The Hawthorne space company led its own investigation for that launch failure. Under federal law, SpaceX is allowed to conduct its own investigation. SpaceX … and other companies lobbied successfully to extend the law last year. The FAA oversees such investigations. The Congress members said the investigation responses raised “serious concerns about the authority provided to commercial providers and the protection of national space assets.”
“Ten Republican Congress members led by Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) have sent a letter to the heads of the Air Force, NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration questioning whether SpaceX should be allowed to lead its own investigation … Coffman’s congressional district includes United Launch Alliance’s headquarters. Many of the congressmen represent states where ULA has operations.”

Keith’s note: But wait. ULA did their own internal review when the first stage of the Atlas V delivering OA-6 Cygnus shut down early. Oops. H/t to Tim B.
United Launch Alliance Provides Update to OA-6 Cygnus Launch
“Per standard processes when a flight data item such as this has been identified, the ULA engineering team, along with our engine supplier and several government customers, forms a robust review team. The review team assessed all flight and operational data to determine direct and root causes and implemented the appropriate corrective actions for future flights. .. “We would like to thank our customers and supplier partners for their outstanding collaboration in the detailed review of this anomaly.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

22 responses to “ULA Congressional Delegation Criticizes SpaceX For A Totally Legal Mishap Investigation”

  1. Tim Blaxland says:
    0
    0

    Yeah, ok. ULA did their own investigation into the Atlas V/Cygnus OA-6 near-miss. No difference, nothing to see.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Eagle eye.

    • Charlie X Murphy says:
      0
      0

      Big difference. Atlas V/Cygnus OA-6 was not a failure or mishap, only a “flight data item”

  2. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    What, we expected consistency? Dream on.

  3. ProfSWhiplash says:
    0
    0

    “ULA did their own internal review when the first stage of the Atlas V delivering OA-6 Cygnus shut down early”

    And…Orbital did its own internal review for its Orb-3 “Oops”, plus some earlier Pegasus “Ouchies”;
    and Sea Launch did its own internal review for its couple of “rapid-combustion events”,
    and Lockheed Martin (ULA’s Daddy) led the internal reviews for Titan IV’s occasional RUD’s;
    and Boeing (ULA’s “Mom”) did internal reviews for Delta II & III mishaps.
    Oh, speaking of Delta .. while technically just a “partial-failure”, I recall the investigation’s internal review for the first Delta IV Heavy booster problem was led by…. *Taa-Daa!*… ULA.

    Oh, btw, whenever there was a “Bad Day” at Vandenberg with ICBM launches involving Minuteman or Peacekeeper…, did Boeing or Martin Marietta (ULA’s “Paternal-Grandpa”) get locked out and only the AF (aka,The Gov) lead the investigations?…. HE77 NO!!

    • Charlie X Murphy says:
      0
      0

      Orb-3 “Oops”, plus some earlier Pegasus “Ouchies” – There also was NASA reviews

      Sea Launch – Doesn’t matter, there were no US Govt missions involved.

      Lockheed Martin (ULA’s Daddy) led the internal reviews for Titan IV’s occasional RUD’s; and Boeing (ULA’s “Mom”) did internal reviews for Delta II & III mishaps. – No, if it were a gov’t payload, the gov’t led the review.

      Delta .. while technically just a “partial-failure”, I recall the investigation’s internal review for the first Delta IV Heavy booster – There was a USAF review.

      • ProfSWhiplash says:
        0
        0

        Let’s put this letter into proper perspective: ULA….
        … excuse me… some Honorable Congressmen question the right of SpaceX to conduct its own internal review over a failure that occurred before a pad test could even start (not a launch, albeit loss of vehicle) and wants the US Gov to take over the investigation for what was a COMMERCIAL (No US Gov payload) mission (AMOS-6 was an Israeli sat). And being a licensed mission, the FAA is involved anyway.

        — NASA did reviews for Pegasus mishaps on NASA missions, but they did not prevent OSC from conducting its own internal reviews, especially for Comm’l missions.
        — SL wasn’t US Gov, true, but it was under an FAA license, with FAA (& DTSA) on board ship. Both kept an eye on the mishap reviews… as could be permitted with non-US Co’s.
        — For Gov’t Titan & Delta missions, the Gov held final say, but LM & Boeing were still allowed to conduct internal reviews, before meeting their biggest customer.
        — Delta IV-H did have a USAF review (they’re the Customer after all), but Boeing continued its internal reviews since the issue affects both comm’l & gov missions

        But, just to recap: The subject of the letter was ULA (sorry, US Reps) on wanting a USG led investigation involving one company (SpaceX) for a mishap that occurred during propellant loading for a pad test (not launch), that sadly resulted in the loss of a Commercial (Not USG) payload.

        • Charlie X Murphy says:
          0
          0

          Just knock it off. The US Reps did this on their own to protect their turf. They didn’t need ULA’s prodding. Your post is just childish.

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      About RUD – since some are talking about language in this thread – now I think this one is actually incorrect terminology and not just sanitized or a nicer spin. I wouldn’t call a “blowup” or “disintegration” any type of disassembly. I think with the word “disassembly”, one would expect that the individual parts disassembled are still intact for the most part.

      It is a pretty funny term for it though.

      Looking closely at the Webster definition, I suppose it’s open to interpretation – “to disconnect the pieces of (something)” and “to come apart into smaller pieces”.

  4. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    Either way, when ever there is some kind of incident that has the potential to cost a person/company more money or lose face, then there should be some form of external, non-biased input/oversight. Unfortunately, and no matter what you “believe” the case, the majority of humans in such situations just can not be trusted to be unbiased or completely honest. Humans are not noble creatures, and history shows, when ego, power and money are on the line.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      “When ever there is some kind of incident” is probably going too far. I can’t see applying that to, for example, every time an airline delays a flight due to a maintenance issue. Let’s stick to major incidents which are big enough for the customers to have major concerns.

      But along those lines, I think we have a very good and very applicable system available. Isn’t this sort of thing the NTSB’s job? We have criteria for when an incident is significant enough for them to get involved, and they’ve done a fine job with air, train and highway incidents. Would the Falcon 9 event have triggered their involvement, if standards similar to civil aviation were applied?

      • Charlie X Murphy says:
        0
        0

        NSTB only gets involved when there is an injury or 3rd party damage. Otherwise, its in the FAA’s court

  5. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    Sounds like they need to get with ULA’s Washington lobbiests and try and upend the current law…and provide the USAF, FAA and NASA with additional administrative funding for taking the lead in all mishap investigations. That’s my response anyway.
    That being said, ULA has some call to be upset. The F9 mishap put a little bit of undeserved risk on the OSIRIS-REX launch.

  6. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    The approach SpaceX has taken, with the company leading the investigation but with FAA and NASA participating is exactly that specified for commercial spacecraft incidents in current federal law.

  7. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Apparently ULA’s money has been well-spent.

    These guys are taking every possible opportunity to nay-say SX. They are planting seeds.

  8. Search says:
    0
    0

    Yawn. When will you realize that spaceflight supporters and enemies come from both aisles. Its all about district and which specific ox is getting gored.

  9. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    The Congress members said the investigation responses raised “serious concerns about the authority provided to commercial providers and the protection of national space assets.”

    What was wrong with the investigation last time? Lack of openness? Is that what they are claiming? But

    it said the investigation was “transparent” and noted that outside observers such as the FAA and Air Force had access to the data and analysis

  10. Eric Reynolds says:
    0
    0

    Although it is doubtful this is sabotage, it is easy to see why SpaceX would be concerned. The levels the other side is willing to take this fight is quite high – given their very existence is being threatened.