Slashdot Log In
SpaceX Launch Failure Due To Timing Problem
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Aug 07, 2008 07:37 AM
from the ironically-he's-an-atheist dept.
from the ironically-he's-an-atheist dept.
FleaPlus writes "Private orbital spaceflight company SpaceX recently announced that last weekend's Falcon 1 rocket launch failure was caused by a collision between the first and second stage of their rocket. This was due to a timing problem, when their brand-new engine design produced residual thrust for 1.5 seconds longer than expected; they're currently working to fix the problem and launch again, perhaps as early as next month. In a recent interview with Wired, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk remarked on their efforts: "Optimism, pessimism, f-ck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work.""
Related Stories
[+]
SpaceX Gets Operational License For Cape Canaveral 133 comments
FiggyOO writes "For those of you who witnessed the launch of SpaceX's Falcon 1 rocket, launch 3, you will be glad to hear that SpaceX has received a license to launch from space complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on the Florida coast. This Launch complex is just south of launch pads 39A and 39B which have been used to launch the space shuttles, and will continue in that role for a few more years. This launch complex will enable SpaceX to launch the much-anticipated Falcon 9 rocket, which will eventually carry the Dragon capsule. In doing so, SpaceX hopes to fill the void between the end of the shuttle program and the coming of the Constellation. They have already begun moving into the launch complex, including moving a 125,000 gallon liquid oxygen tank on the back of a semi." We've been following Elon Musk's SpaceX for years.
[+]
SpaceX's Fourth Launch Attempt RSN 71 comments
jcgam69 writes "SpaceX's Falcon 1 is on the pad in the South Pacific Kwajalein Atoll ready for its fourth launch attempt, according to a blog post over the weekend from SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. The countdown is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 23, between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. PDT, though the launch window will extend through Thursday if need be."
[+]
On Fourth Launch Attempt, SpaceX Falcon 1 Reaches Orbit 518 comments
xp65 writes with the just-announced success of Elon Musk's SpaceX's long efforts to reach orbit with a privately-developed launching craft: "T+0:08:21 Falcon 1 reached orbital velocity, 5200 m/s Nominal Second stage cut off (SECO) — Falcon 1 has made history as the first privately developed liquid fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit!"
dbullard adds "This was a completely new vehicle — it's not using any previously developed hardware. All developed from scratch. No government supplied hardware, Russian engines, or old ICBM motors. My hat's off to the employees of Space X — all 550 of them. (Note — no 'cast of thousands,' just 550).
They've got video of the entire launch."
[+]
SpaceX Successfully Tests Nine-Engine Cluster 182 comments
the_other_chewey writes "At their test facility in Texas, SpaceX, the privately funded space-flight company, have successfully tested their nine-engine cluster which is planned to provide the heavy lifting capability for their Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy rockets.
The firing lasted three minutes (a full 'mission duty cycle,' i.e. a simulated launch) under full power, delivering 3.8MN (or 855,000 lbs.) of thrust. SpaceX have made a video of the test available. The Waco Tribune has a short report about it, with comments by locals."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
ooohhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ooohhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Well, there was the blowing up problem, followed by the gravity problem. Then, I suppose the crashing problem might have come into play at some point.
Parent
Re:ooohhhh (Score:5, Funny)
"Neither stage exploded," Musk said. "They just got a little bit cooked."
Sorry - didn't rtfm. It was a cooking problem.
Parent
Re:ooohhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps they need a new Chef Engineer.
That's what they get for launching in the dessert.
I could go on... but it's probably best if I don't.
Parent
Re:ooohhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I think we can all agree that your jokes were pretty tasteless.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, I can't stomach that guy!
Re:ooohhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I think we can all agree that your jokes were pretty tasteless.
The odds that anyone would find that funny are gastronomical...
Parent
Re:ooohhhh (Score:5, Funny)
race conditions often can lead to crashes
Parent
Hell-bent (Score:5, Funny)
As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work.
Something tells me that perhaps he doesn't genuinely, really believe that God is his witness... :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hell-bent (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hell-bent (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hell-bent (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't your average widget company. People don't invest in companies like SpaceX just because of the profit potential, they do it because they desperately and fervently want to see us get our bald monkey asses off this rock. Having a CEO that unabashedly shares this passion is heartening to investors like those. If anything, I expect this "outburst" will help SpaceX more than harm them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
The problem being that the sets 'folks who share that passion' and 'folks who have significant money to invest' have essentially zero overlap. Serious investors invest to make a profit, not to scratch some philosophical itch. Those
Re:Hell-bent (Score:5, Informative)
The problem being that the sets 'folks who share that passion' and 'folks who have significant money to invest' have essentially zero overlap.
There's pretty much a whole class of dotcom-wealthy geeks in Silicon Valley who are a living contradiction to that statement. Let me tell you, for the most part, it's not movie stars who are plopping $100k down for Tesla Roadsters.
Investments as far out on the bell curve as SpaceX have always had a hard time finding capital.
SpaceX's third failure in a row just occurred and they just got a brand new influx of investment capital.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe it's just God's time of month, ever think of that?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't even WANT to think about that. I mean, if it were true that God is Satan... all my worshiping, all of my praying, all of my sacrifice to the Dark Lord would be in vain! My last sacrifice was a whole sack of puppies! Did they die for no reason?
Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Optimism, pessimism, f-ck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work
Now that sounds like a man who gets things done.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This was the thing I liked the most in the article...
Wired.com: Your whole mantra is "cheaper and more reliable." But so far you're zero for three, which is anything but cheap and reliable, and guys like GlobalSecurity.org's John Pike say the reason it has taken billions of dollars and tens of thousands of people to successfully launch rockets is physics, not some new design or economic model.
Musk: Guys like John Pike have existed since the dawn of time, and if you listen to people like that then things wil
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
And what the fuck is wrong with profanity?
They are trying to shoot people into space for God's sake and that takes passion. This sometimes manifests itself in profanity.
Personally I like this attitude much more than the life-less suit who can't relate to the passionate. I prefer Larry Ellison's "I'm gonna kick the fucking door down and take that shit!" to Bill Gates "well, we better see if we can sneak in the back and steal everything". It's much more honest. Both have the same goal, but one isn't delusional about it.
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, I'll even settle for Gates' "sneak in the back and steal everything". Even that would be honest.
But back to the matter at hand. I'll take a "Fuck that. We're going to make it work" in a press release any day, over the mealy-mouthed "We have faith that our current challenge can be overcome" corporatespeak that currently plagues press releases.
The second stage didn't encounter a challenge, it encountered the first stage, and then blew the fuck up. That's not a surmountable challenge, or even an issue, it's a fixable bug or solvable problem.
If people said what they meant, and meant what they said, there'd be a lot less failure in the business world.
Management needs someone who can do for businesspeak what Edward Tufte did for the visual presentation of information. It's not just the PowerPoint that kills astronauts, it's the use of phrases like "the stresses imposed by the frozen deposit upon the RCC were in excess of design parameters" as opposed to "Are you fucking nuts? We never tested for that shit, so none of us has any fucking clue how bad the damage is until someone gets the fuck out there and actually looks at it!" (Challenger), and "The performance of the O-ring under this thermal profile is not guaranteed, but is likely to be adequate" over "Well, I'd bet $50 that nobody dies this time, but I sure as fuck wouldn't want to be flying on it. If you really wanna get the teacher in space in time for the State of the Union speech, it's your call, boss. Don't fuckin' blame me if you kill 7 people." (Columbia).
Parent
It's called passion. (Score:3, Informative)
General Patton would have disagreed. He understood the problems faced by his "team" and inspired them to overcome incredible odds. Sometimes a little profanity can be inspiring, if not used gratuitously.
>>Would you like to work for such a man?
Yes, actually I would. Because that sort of man, and the people who work for him, are going to do great things! That's real passion, which is sadly lacking from most corporations. He's not just your average CEO coasting toward a golden parachute and a retirement
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
What you need are fanatics investing all their energy in the project and leading the team. Like him. And then it could be a success IMHO. Cold blood/rationnal manager would have left this project already.
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not that there's not the potential for big returns. Quite to the contrary, if they actually get the bugs ironed out and hit their price target, they're going to make an utter mint. The problem is the risk. The private rocketry landscape is littered with the graves of equally ambitious companies. What makes SpaceX interesting is how much capital they have behind them and how far along they are. They actually stand a chance of pulling it off, and I think that's what makes them so interesting. But it's still a very risky investment, because rocketry is a very tough business in comparison to other investments people might throw their money into.
Parent
Rockets falling to earth? (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I blame Newton.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You cannae break the laws of Physics
SpaceX is a pretty serious outfit (Score:5, Insightful)
And I fully expect them to be a major player in the future of commercial space travel.
They've done some absolutely amazing things in the last couple of years on a budget that makes all the governments combined look pretty silly. They remind me of Reid Malenfant and his outfit (only a bit more realistic), and I don't think any issues that crop up during this test stage are going to slow them down for long.
Maybe the 21st century will see some serious space exploration after all, instead of all those 'feel good' missions. $/kg to orbit is the only significant number for the next two decades or so, once there is enough construction capability up there to start hauling stuff inbound it should get interesting indeed.
Re:SpaceX is a pretty serious outfit (Score:5, Funny)
While I share your enthusiasm, maybe we should wait until they have at least one successful launch before holding them up as the template for success and the future of space flight. So far they're just a really, really expensive fireworks company.
Parent
Re:SpaceX is a pretty serious outfit (Score:5, Insightful)
In spaceflight you're on a very long trajectory (pun intended) where lots of stuff has to be tested, alone and in combination. The only way to be 100% sure that everything works is to do an all-or-nothing launch, which due to its very nature is a public event. Trouble is to be expected when you combine that large a number of components. ALL space programs have had their failures, there is absolutely no reason to expect commercial space flight to be an exception.
What you can expect is a slow decrease of these failures as more and more of the failure modes of the equipment are revealing themselves under different circumstances. This is even true for regular commercial aircraft today, and it is one of the major reasons for accident investigations.
SpaceX has just had a mishap that would have been hard to test for on the pad (I'm not knowledgeable enough in the field to comment on the exact differences between testing on the pad and a launch, but I suspect there are still numerous differences, caused by atmospheric pressure, the effects of acceleration etc). This failure, when dealt with is not going to cause another launch to go bad, the real question is how many more such issues are lurking under the grass. It would be nice to know if this failure would have been preventable, 1.5 seconds doesn't sound like much but during the critical period of separation it's like an eternity.
Parent
Re:SpaceX is a pretty serious outfit (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite the pessimistic attitude you are showing here.
SpaceX is building real hardware and "getting it up there". I would call that a bit better than a typical fireworks company.
Besides, the problem with this last launch was more of things bumping into each other when they shouldn't have. It is also a situation where they made several changes to their rocket and were testing them all out at the same time. While the $10 million or so that it costs for them to send up a Falcon 1 rocket is expensive enough to not want to do repeated testing, it does make it more complicated to call something like this an "operational flight" when not all components have been tested in actual flight conditions.
If they can get another rocket shipped to Kwajalein and launched in less than a month, that will speak far more about SpaceX's capabilities than can possibly be said about snarky remarks like being a fireworks company.
They are certainly a whole lot closer to bringing down the cost of rocketry than companies like Rocketplane Kistler who haven't even really launched any hardware or even tested it in things like wind tunnels or a launch stand.
All this said, SpaceX does need to deliver something to orbit real soon. It looks like the Malasyian government is getting quite nervous about being the next customer to send something up, given the track record for SpaceX to put things into orbit. They simply must get this next launch if they are to keep some of their customers.
Parent
Re:SpaceX is a pretty serious outfit (Score:5, Funny)
They've done some absolutely amazing things in the last couple of years on a budget that makes all the governments combined look pretty silly.
I, for one, don't mind not coming back alive as long as the tickets are cheap...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To be blunt, a serious outfit would know how long their damn engine burns for.
The reason they've done everything on such a small budget is because they cut through the red tape that holds government agencies back. Unfortunately, some of that red tape was obviously important for quality control.
In any case, they aren't doing that well at reducing cost - Falcon 9 for instance is 5 million dollars per flight more expensive than Proton (albeit it with a slightly bigger capacity) and Proton has the longest and b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure all your multi-stage rocket designs flew picture perfect the first time out :)
there is a reason why soviet tech is cheap, it's old and it's development has been paid for in the past (no comment on how it was paid for).
So, any new development will be 'more costly' at face than old tech, but over time those costs should come down significantly. What is more surprising is that the difference between the old tech and the new one is as small as it is.
Re:SpaceX is a pretty serious outfit (Score:5, Interesting)
My first multi-stage was a lawn dart (coincidentally, it failed to stage too, but I damn well knew how long the first stage would burn for. It said so on the engine packet...) my second one flew perfectly. Sure, Musks are bigger but he has a lot more money than me.
The launch market won't care for novelty though - 20 tonne satellites are Serious Business and people sending them up are likely to be quite cautious about embracing a potty-mouthed newcomer in favour of the old Russian stalwart. If nobody is buying his launcher how can he bring the price down?
Parent
Oblig. quote: (Score:3, Funny)
"Would you consider that a launch problem or a design problem?"
- Chris Knight
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
:)
Real Genius shows us the kind of ingenuity that this country has all but lost. It's all about first to market, business plans and IPO's now.
Anyway, Elon Musk and Richard Branson remind me of D. D. Harriman in R. A. Heinlein's Future History short stories, especially, "The Man Who Sold the Moon."
More people need to say that. (Score:5, Insightful)
If NASA had that attitude, we never would have had a decade of stagnation after the first Shuttle accident. We'd have a moon colony by now. The problem is that the people at top too often see these kind of events as a signal to stop, where it really should be a sign that they're almost there. Remember when the Delta rocket flew and then fell over and burst into flames because of failed landing gear? LANDING GEAR! Something trivial to engineer (compared to the rest), and the project is shelved because of that failure. They should have kept going.
Argh. Enough of my ranting, you people get the idea. I just wish the pointy haired bosses did.
Risk. (Score:5, Insightful)
If NASA had that attitude, we never would have had a decade of stagnation after the first Shuttle accident. We'd have a moon colony by now. The problem is that the people at top too often see these kind of events as a signal to stop, where it really should be a sign that they're almost there. Remember when the Delta rocket flew and then fell over and burst into flames because of failed landing gear? LANDING GEAR! Something trivial to engineer (compared to the rest), and the project is shelved because of that failure. They should have kept going.
Argh. Enough of my ranting, you people get the idea. I just wish the pointy haired bosses did.
if Musk et al. has an accident where someone dies, I bet the FAA and others will be introducing some delays in his schedule. And I'm sure they'll some public outcry that he's flying over people and putting them in jeopardy - whether or not it's true.
We've lost our sense of adventure, the acceptance of risk and, well, we've become a society that's so bent on being safe that we're afraid to take any warranted risks: we've become a society of pansies.
Parent
Re:More people need to say that. (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember seeing video of one of the test flights and being absolutely pole-axed. "It just fucking took off vertically, hovered cross-range and LANDED again!?!"
Apparently it wasn't really the crash that ended the program, it had already had funding pulled before that flight. Still, it was a very Buck Rogers kind of vehicle.
Parent
Wrong attitude for rocket science? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to say this, but the CEO has an attitude problem.
He needs to do some reading up on the reviews of NASA after the two shuttle disasters. In both cases overconfidence, and management overruling/ignoring the views of engineers were found to be major factors.
If he keeps running "hell-bent" towards his goal he's never going to reach it.
Re:Wrong attitude for rocket science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also the GP clearly haven't read the interview.
The guy is smart, he listen to his engineers - in fact he refuses to elaborate on the problem until they are absolutely sure its what caused it. He might come off as someone a bit eager to get his product flying (and staying airborne), but comparing him to the fucktards that killed people in NASA launches where they where advised against it is just not right.
From the interview:
Musk: Patience is a virtue, and I'm learning patience. It's a tough lesson.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you confuse "deadline" with "goal".
Father Ted, Is That You? (Score:5, Funny)
I take it he's also going to kick Bishop Brennan up the arse as well for good measure?
Re:did he really say that? (Score:5, Informative)
Musk: Do I sound optimistic?
Wired.com: Yeah, you always do.
Musk: Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also there's plans to make deliveries to ISS once the shuttles are through.
Re:Timing? WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Bottom stage detached, continued burning. Less mass against the thrust, it accelerated and pushed on the top stage (but not perfectly centered as it would when still attached).
I'm sure they do communicate, but after detaching that's gone.
Basically the thruster(s) dieseled - continued running for a moment after fuel/whatever was cut.
Parent
So close... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that's basically what happened. The Kestrel engine on the second stage ignited, and the exhaust from it pushed the first stage away. The problem is that the second stage is designed to have the exhaust expanding into the vacuum of space, and having the first stage right there meant that the exhaust was contained within (or perhaps I should say, was redirected by) the interstage. Normally, the first stage and second stage are pneumatically pushed apart just before the second stage fires.
The exhaust was only in contact with the second stage for a very short period of time, but that was sufficient to "roast" the second stage enough to cause failure, either due to direct thermal effects or the forces created by the expanding exhaust (or to a combination of those factors).
By the way, the nozzle of the Kestrel engine is radiatively cooled. Before the sloshing doomed flight two, it was cool (figuratively only!) to see the bell glowing brightly. Some people watching with me thought it was failing until I explained that it's supposed to look like that. ;)
Parent
Re:Timing? WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
I AM a Rocket Scientist.
Traditionally, no, they wouldn't be timed individually. That's kind of a silly thing if you asked me.
Typically you should wait until the first stage stop accelerating the rocket before dropping it. A sensor typically detects that condition and initiates seperation. To be safe, it may wait a beat or two before taking action to make sure the booster isn't just "chuffing". Or the sensor could have just been faulty, initiating seperation too soon.
If the booster begins accelerating again (as in blows up) or gives a last burst of unexpected glory, that's just bad design or manufacturing issue. If it's a solid-fuel booster, that could happen from time to time, but if the motor is liquid fueled it should just cut off fuel and be done with it.
Now, you could put the stages on their own timers, but there are risks. Usually the problem is a failed booster, and the timer on the upper stage fires with the rocket pointing the wrong way.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- First, even though there have been a lot of airlines accidents, the numbers are pretty low compared to the number of flights per day. Notice also that the first accident was on 1922, 8 years after the first commercial flight. I think that space travel has a much higher accident/flight ratio. (I admit i don't have numbers to prove it : Wikipedia says that about 4% of people who went to space died inflight, but that