6 ms·
Is it normal the the report would not be public? I'm not often an FAA report enjoyer, but I would quite like to read this one!
by cmsj 3y ago
Is it normal the the report would not be public? I'm not often an FAA report enjoyer, but I would quite like to read this one!
- psunavy03 3y agoThe same technology that lets you put a payload in space can let you put a nuclear (or conventional) warhead over a city. The first space launchers were repurposed ICBMs, and so space tech falls under ITAR and other export controls. Between that and the fact that the details of the failures and fixes would probably reveal a lot of SpaceX proprietary design info, it's totally unsurprising the full report is not publicly releasable.
- falcolas 3y agoThe same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> same could be said for NTSB reports, yet those are made public Trucks aren’t dual use in the same way rockets are.
- npsomaratna 3y agoNTSB investigates/provides advice on civil aviation and commercial space accidents as well—not just land stuff.
- sidewndr46 3y agoHave you never heard of a technical?
- NegativeK 3y ago> in the same way
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoJust imagine what would happen if our enemies learned how to strap a gun to a truck!
- jacquesm 3y agoMore people die from Truck Attacks than from rockets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attac...
- dredmorbius 3y agoOn a per-incident basis? WMD are called WMD because those weapons are capable of mass destruction. At the scale of cities or entire urban regions (tens of millions of individuals) for a single weapon deployment. Possible more for chemical, radiological, or biological weapons. The most egregious attack you list saw 86 fatalities. A large number, yes, but fewer than might be caused by, say, a train derailment or collision particularly where riderships are high. (The worst rail accident in Indian history killed up to 800 at Bihar in 1981 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_train_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_train_derailment>, as many as 1,700 or more in Sri Lanka following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Sri_Lanka_tsunami_train_wreck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Sri_Lanka_tsunami_train_w...>; and Europe's worst rail incident at Ciurea in 1917 killed 800--1,000 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciurea_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciurea_rail_disaster>.) Even allowing that, say, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 had been successful, casualties would likely have been on the order of thousands of deaths, and that's a fairly maximal potential (the original twin-towers WTC saw daily occupancy of about 50k people maximum, though the capacity was as much as six times higher). The 1993 Oklahoma City Bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, a far more typical urban structure, killed 168. Compare with the loss of life from what are now considered small nuclear weapons, air-dropped rather than missile-delivered, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a combined death toll of from 129 to 226 thousand. Attacks from modern ICBMs could kill many millions. Vehicle attacks can be mitigated by reasonably simple countermeasures including spike strips, webbing, barricades, blast walls, and bollards. Intercontinental-range missiles pose a somewhat greater challenge. <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=yGeOvLgB9U4 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=yGeOvLgB9U4> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=N_OhTL8TYpk https://yewtu.be/watch?v=N_OhTL8TYpk> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XOBvB2ZUuP4 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XOBvB2ZUuP4> <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4JBgnhnMOtY https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4JBgnhnMOtY> (Warning: loud soundtrack) <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Zp85-dBwslE https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Zp85-dBwslE> Soft targets are of course always vulnerable (by definition). But countermeasures, rapid responses, and surveillance against planned attacks can help minimise total risk.
- _ea1k 3y agoI don't think I've ever seen an NTSB report that looked like it would come close to revealing non-public design information or things that would violate ITAR.
- psunavy03 3y agoNTSB reports do not reveal detailed investigation info, only a mishap summary and assessed proximate causes.
- histriosum 3y agoThis isn't exactly accurate in my experience... I'm an aviation guy, so I've only ever looked at aviation related NTSB reports, but whenever a final report is issued, the full investigation docket is also released which includes a ton of raw evidence and investigatory information.
- dotancohen 3y agoI don't know if there were NTSB reports for e.g. the crashed B-2, but I'm sure they would not include information that could compromise either B-2 or air force operations, or assist an adversary to develop such a craft.
- psunavy03 3y agoThe NTSB does not investigate DOD mishaps; the DOD does. Every unit has a standing Aircraft Mishap Board nominated by the unit commander which includes the Safety Officer and other senior aviators. There are formal Aviation Safety Schools which you have to graduate from in order to hold the position of Safety Officer which train you on how to conduct an aircraft mishap investigation. Every time there is a mishap, two investigations run concurrently. The Aircraft Mishap Board conducts a safety investigation, and another officer conducts a legal investigation to ascertain criminal culpability. The safety investigation takes priority for resources, access to evidence, etc. The legal investigation is FOIA-able. The safety investigation is privileged and confidential under Federal law, cannot be released to the public, and individuals who testify for it are granted immunity. The goal is to ensure that everyone's cards are on the table and to have complete transparency in private, so that the proper corrective actions can occur. The investigation reports go up the chop chain to a general officer or flag officer who is authorized to approve them, and each commander along the way can offer their comments or propose alternative interpretations of the evidence. The approving commander then orders the proper changes in procedures or rules to be applied, or orders discipline or administrative sanctions if warranted. And yes, if classified information was deemed germane to an investigation because it related to one of the assessed causal factors, the investigation would be classified appropriately. Or perhaps there might be a classified annex attached to an otherwise unclassified report to simplify handling, with notes saying "see reference (a)." when appropriate. Or if Controlled Unclassified Information was involved, that information would be blocked from release if there was ever a FOIA.
- dotancohen 3y agoThank you.
- WalterBright 3y ago> SpaceX proprietary design info I thought SpaceX made their IP freely available.
- hef19898 3y agoOnly the part not falling under ITAR restrictions or are otherwise secret.
- reportingsjr 3y agoAre you thinking of Tesla? Musk has stated in the past that they are explicitly not patenting things or providing IP details freely to prevent other nations from using said IP.
- slenk 3y agoMusk says a lot that has no basis in fact. He said he would open-source a "hyperloop patent" but that's dumb, as he didn't come up with it.
- xNeil 3y agoYes, but he most definitely has the money to buy the patent and then open source it. Sort of like he did with Tesla.
- serf 3y agoTesla isn't open-source in any traditional sense of the word. They phrase it as having 'an open-source philosophy', but what it really boils down to is that they continue to file patents[0], but choose not to use those patents in an anti-competitive manner, only 'defensively' (on their word). Now this isn't attempting to conflate patents with 'open-source', but that ship sailed after Elon's memo regarding the concept in 2014.[1] [0]: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.html https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.ht... [1]: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
- light_hue_1 3y agoThere's no report better the FAA did not do the investigation. They asked SpaceX to self investigate and report what they found.
- chasd00 3y agoi haven't heard FAA asked them to self investigate. I hope that's true because that would mean the 63 corrective actions found are likely already applied. Maybe we'll get a launch by Halloween.
- dotnet00 3y agoThe investigation was led by SpaceX with the FAA acting as oversight. That seems reasonable since obviously it isn't the FAA's job to dictate how specific fixes should be done, their role is just to ensure that the safety issues from last time have been addressed satisfactorily.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoIf you file the FOIA request, I'll cover the Muckrock request fee ($5). Muckrock is useful because it creates a public trail of the request as well as government responses and responsive docs (if any), and the request link can be posted online for public consumption. https://www.muckrock.com/ https://www.muckrock.com/