Implication of sabotage adds intrigue to SpaceX investigation

[groundloop]

I just found this, too old for latest breaking news:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/implication-of-sabotage-adds-intrigue-to-spacex-investigation/2016/09/30/5bb60514-874c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html


The long-running feud between Elon Musk’s space company and its fierce competitor United Launch Alliance took a bizarre twist this month when a SpaceX employee visited its facilities at Cape Canaveral, Fla., and asked for access to the roof of one of ULA’s buildings.

About two weeks earlier, one of SpaceX’s rockets blew up on a launchpad while it was awaiting an engine test. As part of the investigation, SpaceX officials had come across something suspicious they wanted to check out, according to three industry officials with knowledge of the episode. SpaceX had still images from video that appeared to show an odd shadow, then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building belonging to ULA, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

Elon Musk, SpaceX’s founder and chief executive, has called the failure “the most difficult and complex” the company has ever had. About a week after the explosion, he pleaded with the public to turn in video or audio of the blast and said the company has not ruled out sabotage as a factor.

“Particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off,” he wrote on Twitter. “May come from rocket or something else.”

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. The Plot Thickens

Controversy

With the introduction of competition from lower-cost launch providers and the increasing costs of ULA launches year-over-year, increased attention has been paid to the amounts ULA has received for US government launch contracts, and for its annual government funding of $1 billion for launch capability and readiness. In particular, an uncontested US Air Force block-buy of 36 rocket cores for up to 28 launches, valued at $11 billion, drew protest from competitor SpaceX. SpaceX has claimed the cost of ULA's launches are approximately $460 million each, and has proposed a price of $90 million to provide similar launches.[34] In response, former ULA CEO Michael Gass claimed an average launch price of $225 million, with future launches as low as $100 million.[35] ULA released contract values to the public and CEO Tory Bruno testified before Congress in March 2015 that whilst ULA receives government subsidies "to conduct national security launches" the same is true of SpaceX who receive funding "to develop new capabilities and the use of low- or no-cost leases of previously developed launch infrastructure".[36]

A political controversy arose in March 2016 following public remarks by ULA VP of Engineering, Brett Tobey, that included comments that were "resentful of SpaceX" and dismissive of one of the two competitors (Aerojet Rocketdyne) for the new engine that will power the Vulcan launch vehicle currently under development.[37] Tobey resigned on March 16,[38] while ULA CEO Tory Bruno disavowed the remarks.[39] Senator John McCain has asked the Defense Department to investigate the comments that implied the DoD may have shown "favoritism to a major defense contractor or that efforts have been made to silence members of Congress."[40] and the Secretary of Defense has asked the Inspector General to look into the situation. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance#Controversy[41]

[NightWatcher]

2. Sounds like an expensive sniper shot

[groundloop]

3. Gotta' love a good conspiracy theory.

But you have to admit, that's weird timing... a small bang heard seconds before the explosion, a shadow or movement followed by 'an unexplained white spot on the photo' from the the roof of the ULA facility. Damned strange.

[NightWatcher]

11. I've worked both corporate espionage and counter espionage and they can get nuts.

Companies do extreme things to steal from or handicap competitors.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. It occurred to me, too. I mean, too many people have big $$$ reasons to have it in for SpaceX

Not just Orbital technologies, but unsavory entities like the Russians.

[Islandurp]

4. that's so cyberpunk.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Nothing like that. Think Roger Stone / G. Gordon Liddy old-fashioned dirty tricks and violence. nt

[Initech]

5. We're all going to die tonight!!! Aaaaaaaah!!!!!

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Would this have happened if the space program was in federal control?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. It IS in Federal control.

United Launch Alliance is a cash cow for their partners.

Even Space X gets Federal money. But Space X is reaching escape velocity.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Oh FFS.

[Baitball Blogger]

12. My understanding of SpaceX is that it relies on private funding.

Just assumed it was a private corporation.

SpaceX is a California-based rocket and spacecraft manufacturer founded by Elon Musk in 2002. SpaceX, also known as Space Exploration Technologies, is unique in that it operates via private funding rather than through government resources. The company's immediate goal is to develop reusable rockets, and its loftier goal is a mission to Mars

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/121515/will-elon-musks-spacex-go-public.asp.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Just for informational purposes, as a space enthusiast, I will run down the list, here.

One, space is an industry, as well as a project of nation-based space programs. Facebook, for instance, was paying spacex a pretty penny to launch the satellite that was on top of that rocket. As you note, spacex has private funding, too.

Two, even in the "old days" before all this supposedly bad privatization, NASA used corporate contractors. North American Aviation built the Apollo Command Module, Northrum Grumman built the Lunar Module, etc.

Three, there is actually a good deal of logic behind the rationale of farming out the job of LEO crew transport to private entities, despite all the flak Obama took for it. NASA achieved sending humans into orbit in 1962. Reinventing the wheel for NASA is a waste of time, when NASA's mandate and mission should be pushing the bounds of knowledge and exploration, at the frontier. Yes, right now we are dependent upon the Russians to get humans into orbit, and that is clearly not ideal. But that's not the fault of Obama, SpaceX, or anyone else alive today. It's really the fault of Richard Nixon, who decimated NASA's budget after Apollo and forced a ton of corner-cutting around the development of the Space Shuttle, which, despite being an engineering marvel, had several insurmountable design flaws built into the system which rendered it, ultimately, too lethal to continue to use.

Four, beyond the oversimplified logic of "privatization=bad" "government=good", how long does it actually take NASA to build a new rocket? The SLS is way behind schedule. Spacex as a private entity managed to get to orbital capability from scratch in under a decade, progress unheard of for even a major nation, much less a company. If they stay on track they will have the largest operational heavy lift rocket on the planet well before the SLS even flies. I don't know, I kind of respect that sort of tenacity and achievement.


If spacex goes public, you bet your bippy I will invest in them if I have any cash on hand. I think the future is always a good investment.

[CK_John]

10. IMO, a possible drone hit the rocket.