Fourteen members of Congress want NASA and the Air Force to explain how SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket will be cleared to fly after a June 28 launch explosion and if the accident could endanger future military satellite launches SpaceX wants. In a letter dated July 30, lawmakers say they “have serious reservations” about letting SpaceX conduct its own investigation subject to (Federal Administration of Aviation) approval. Specifically, the lawmakers say they “are concerned whether the investigation and engineering rigor applied will be sufficient to prevent future military launch mishaps.” SpaceX’s Falcon 9 booster exploded 2 minutes after liftoff from Cape Canaveral on June 28 resulting in the loss of a $100 million NASA supply payload for the International Space Station. Military communications and spy satellites can cost upwards of $1 billion to develop and launch. Military launches have been exclusive to United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint Boeing-Lockheed Martin venture, but the Air Force certified SpaceX as a launch provider in May. The government says SpaceX is responsible for the investigation with FAA oversight because the June 28 launch was conducted under an FAA license. Similarly, Orbital-ATK held an FAA license and led the investigation of its October 2014 launch pad explosion. SpaceX says preliminary findings suggest a strut failed in a second-stage fuel tank setting a smaller helium tank free inside the main tank. SpaceX believes helium released into the main tank caused a pressure spike and the tank to break up, leading to loss of the Dragon capsule. SpaceX hopes to launch again in September. In their letter, the representatives ask NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and Air Force Secretary Deborah James these questions about SpaceX’s return to flight:
1. Will Falcon 9 lose its military certification in light of the crash and, if not, “what external formal reviews, methodologies and requirements will SpaceX have to meet….?”
2. Given Falcon 9’s ongoing evolution and whatever is done to fix the problem that caused the explosion, “will any future changes made to the Falcon 9 rocket require a new certification and licensing? If not, why?”
The Air Force has said before that it certifies “a baseline system” and, because rockets typically evolve, reviews and certifies later upgrades as they are added. ULA has had a similar arrangement with the Air Force. Signing the letter are five members of Alabama’s congressional delegation – Reps. Mo Brooks, Bradley Byrne, Terri Sewell, Robert Aderhold and Martha Robey – and nine other representatives holding seats on House appropriations, armed services and oversight committees. ULA assembles its launch rockets in Alabama. Sewell and signee Rep. Denny Heck of Washington are Democrats. The remaining signees are Republicans. SpaceX declined comment, and NASA issued the following statement late Friday: “NASA has received the letter and looks forward to reviewing it. We remain fully confident in the ability of U.S. industry to continue to support our nation¹s space program and provide launch capabilities from American soil. “Under the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which licensed the launch, and per FAA regulations, SpaceX is leading its mishap investigation, as Orbital ATK is leading the investigation into its October 2014 mishap, both with FAA oversight. NASA is participating in both efforts and is confident both companies will understand the specifics of their respective mishaps, learn from them, and correct the issues so they can return to flight.”