SpaceX Launch Not So Perfect After All 272
First time accepted submitter drichan writes "Those of us who watched the live feed of last night's Falcon 9 launch could be forgiven for assuming that everything went according to plan. All the reports that came through over the audio were heavy on the word "nominal," and the craft successfully entered an orbit that has it on schedule to dock with the International Space Station on Wednesday. But over night, SpaceX released a slow-motion video of what they're calling an 'anomaly.'"
An (Score:5, Funny)
An anomaly? That's strange.
Re:An (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarians rode the back of this and shouted about how much better it would be to privatise space. But in fact we're just right (*) here again, with SpaceX substituted for Boeing.
I think you'll find it's not just libertarians cheering for this - after all, privatizing the launch infrastructure has been a key element of Obama's space plans. The difference from the previous situation, where NASA relied on bloated defense contractors, is that SpaceX and its competitors will have to enter fixed-price bids, instead of the old cost-plus contracts which gave the contractors zero incentive for efficiency. Whether this will actually work in the long run remains to be seen, but it's hard to see how this is worse than the old system, and putting the federal government into the launch vehicle business sounds like a spectacularly awful idea.
Re:An (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think you know how these so-called fixed-price bids work for governments. They're not fixed at all as the contract or language implies. They are just starting points for negotiations on more contracts as the scopes and costs change on both ends of the contract.
Basically a government fixed-price request is a very vague description of an idea. The fixed-price bid is a very vague description of a project and associated budget. Whether or not the budget then balloons to eclipse the specified price is irrelevant to the bureaucracy on either side.
Re:An (Score:4, Informative)
That's not consistent with what I've read about this subject. For instance: [nss.org]
Or this: [www.good.is]
To reiterate, this is no guarantee that it will actually work better (and not just more cheaply) than the old system. For it to really be a success there needs to be a competitive market, a sustainable business model, and a lack of heavily subsidized competition from the Chinese. But I really hope it does succeed.
Re:An (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason why you can have a fixed price contract in this situation is that NASA isn't really defining any requirements; also not changing them midstream; but also that there is little development risk. The rocket from SpaceX isn't really anything innovative, which is actually a good thing, not a bad thing.
Where fixed price contracts don't work is when you have a significant amount of development risk, and you end up having to build that into the cost of the contract, meaning that you often don't end up with low price bids. Europe's ESA for example pretty much only works from Fixed Price contracts, which builds in the cost of that risk into the project, inflating the bid cost, and you end up with Europe overall, not really committing to many projects, because they get sticker shock.
Who can say which method is better overall.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically a government fixed-price request is a very vague description of an idea. The fixed-price bid is a very vague description of a project and associated budget. Whether or not the budget then balloons to eclipse the specified price is irrelevant to the bureaucracy on either side.
The more profit the private side gets, then the more money for bureaucracies on either side either directly through profit or indirectly through bribes and the revolving door. Such things are illegal only if you get caught. This is a built in incentive to balloon costs of projects.
Ever wonder why Congress keeps coming up with cost plus schemes for funding big rockets which use ATK solid rocket motors? Because ATK kno
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are exaggerating.
First of all, US government solicitations can be vague or specific. When they are vague, it is intentional in order to encourage a wide variety of proposals. Have a look at: http://www.sbir.gov/solicitations [sbir.gov]
Now here is where you are very wrong. Bids and proposals are anything but "a very vague description of a project and associated budget". Maybe years ago, in some areas of the US Government this was true. Maybe its still true in a handful of areas. But right the majority of DoD propos
Re:An (Score:4, Insightful)
What I don't like is the fact that space is becoming increasingly privatised.
Well, why shouldn't it be? Most endeavors in the US are handled privately.
Then Musk came along and said, "Hey, I've got rich from founding the world's worst consumer bank, how about I give you the first few hits for free?" and hired a few experienced people.
Libertarians rode the back of this and shouted about how much better it would be to privatise space. But in fact we're just right (*) here again, with SpaceX substituted for Boeing.
And a considerably cheaper launch vehicle compared to the Delta IV (which Boeing put in the United Launch Alliance rather than continue to fly it themselves). I can't argue with results.
Re: (Score:3)
Weren't all rockets built by private companies? So why not let private companies compete against NASA (which is now mostly just a wealth-transfer entity - subsidizing US corporations)
Now that it's been demonstrated that space can be cheaper then what NASA is used to doing, other companies can get in on the game. So NASA will be able to have some options in the selection of their manufacturers.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? All it really means is that launch costs are getting low enough that it no longer requires the resources of a nation-state to do them. Historically, that has marked the tipping point where money starts pouring in and advancements accelerate. So why not let SpaceX's investors pay for further research into the matter? It's not like it excludes anyone else from doing likewise.
Whats the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like it did exactly what it was supposed to do.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a good launch (Score:5, Insightful)
In space, any launch that accomplishes its goals is a good launch. If good costs 10% of perfect, go for good.
Re:It was a good launch (Score:5, Insightful)
Bearing in mind, of course, the deaths of Chaffee, Grissom, and White in the Apollo 1 accident, the launch-time engine failure and later unrelated catastrophic failure for Apollo 13, the Challenger disaster, and the Columbia disaster, it's difficult to call SpaceX's anomaly as being any worse than those. If SpaceX manages a series of cargo deliveries without any loss of the capsule or with complete success on delivery then even with this anomaly they're arguably no worse off than any of the previous space programs were, as far as reliability and safety goes.
Re:It was a good launch (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously SpaceX wants to achieve man-rating so that they can launch and return personnel in addition to the cargo runs they're currently beginning. I'm curious as to how this moderate malfunction will impact the rest of the program.
Bearing in mind, of course, the deaths of Chaffee, Grissom, and White in the Apollo 1 accident, the launch-time engine failure and later unrelated catastrophic failure for Apollo 13, the Challenger disaster, and the Columbia disaster, it's difficult to call SpaceX's anomaly as being any worse than those. If SpaceX manages a series of cargo deliveries without any loss of the capsule or with complete success on delivery then even with this anomaly they're arguably no worse off than any of the previous space programs were, as far as reliability and safety goes.
The important thing is whether they can successfully determine what actually happened, and why it happened (i.e. replicate the malfunction on a test bed engine). This was the thing Feynman was most critical of NASA for post-Challenger - that the whole disaster was caused by this faulty assumption about engineering risks on the O-Ring seals (i.e. the seals were getting eroded by exhaust during launch, but the question posed was "is this dangerous" not "why is this happening" - the former being foolish since the system was not designed to cope with this, and it's true cause was unknown).
It's a triumph that the launch still succeeded, but having averted an unforeseen consequence the only safe thing to do is make sure it's both forseen and mitigated in the future.
Re:It was a good launch (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll have to ask my wife about it- she actually is a rocket scientist, albeit one that deals with solid rockets, not liquid, but I'd expect that the post-failure analysis would follow the same kinds of procedures.
Re: (Score:3)
No it was a known glass transition temperature problem - the o-rings were not safe to use below a known temperature. It's the sort of problem where you can soak a squeaky rubber toy in liquid nitrogen for a while, then pull it out and shatter it with a hammer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Surprisingly, if failure is measured in terms of human deaths, fairly high failure rates are tolerable in many branches of engineering. It was assumed that about 5 people would die in the construction of a tall sky scraper. Now, with massive changes in safety, it is possible to build a sky scraper with no deaths. However, injuries still happen.
Similarly, mining regularly kills people. They have reduced their deaths per year from several thousand (1907) to averaging 6/year (2001-2005). See government re [msha.gov]
Re:It was a good launch (Score:4, Insightful)
Space travel is relatively safe compared to some of the shit jobs out there, particularly in places with lax safety records, like China.
One of the most dangerous jobs is President of the USA. About 10% have died due to job-related issues. And it does not appear that the job has become much safer over the years.
Re:It was a good launch (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It was a good launch (Score:5, Funny)
A landing you can walk away from is a good landing... A landing when you can re-use the airplane is a great landing.
Re:It was a good launch (Score:4, Insightful)
If you took a team with an average age of 23 to the World Series or World Cup finals, you wouldn't complain if they only won 3-2.
Re: (Score:3)
The first outage was during an earlier Apollo with a dummy payload - they actually failed to achieve their planned orbit and had it been a moon launch, they would have had to scrub. But since it was just a test, and since they thought they knew the solution - they called it a success and did not delay the program.
The second outage was, ominously, on Apollo 13.
Re: (Score:2)
Rockets EXPLODE!
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
No, the engine did not explode. The fairing around the nozzle was crush by the sudden loss of interior pressure when the engine shut down -- the external pressure was then much higher than the nozzle's interior pressure (no more rocket exhaust) and it got crushed and fell away, harming nothing. The engine is still there, intact, and it did, in fact, just turn off.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's accurate, then SpaceX is looking into a shutdown event, a LOT different than a destructive failure. The fairing imploding will either be the anticipated result, or a new issue to understand and resolve/document.
Shutdown may be accompanied by data, and there is a fix. Valves, pumps, all kinds of fairly well understood stuff to analyze and resolve. Destructive catastrophic failure would be much more disturbing.
So far, they seem to be doing at least as well as NASA did in the early days. Mercury was a real crap shoot, and early Saturn development was exciting to say the least. I filled a few scrapbooks with notes on those faiures. Fun times...
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
.. can we please have those scrapbooks scanned and placed online? pretty please?
Re: (Score:3)
No. Mine.
Re:Learning from the past (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe he doesn't really have them and is bullshitting. People do that a lot.
Re: (Score:3)
So much can get forgotten from one generation of engineers to another -- especially all the things that did not work. Even assuming all the information is publicly available, the effort spent collecting it, organizing it, and filtering it from a vast amount of other information at the time is potentially valuable.
Re: (Score:3)
I was 15 when Armstrong stepped off the LEM. I scrapbooked some of Mercury, all of Gemini, and Apollo. News clippings, magazine articles, notes.
IANARS. Sheesh, I'm not holding the keys to interplanetary glory, you sad miserable geese.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re-read their reply. It didn't explode (they still received telemetry from the engine).
The debris seemed to be something else, maybe a small part being the engine, but the engine as a whole is more or less fine.
Re: (Score:2)
When the Saturn V lost an engine, that engine just turned off. This engine exploded.
1. As far as is known, this engine did not explode.
2. Apollo 13 pogo was within a few seconds of causing structural breakup of the Saturn V when the affected engine shut down.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
From TFA: "We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that the rocket had enough redundancy built in doesn't mean that the cause of the failure should not be investigated.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can recover the engines, the unburned parts tell you where they're too heavy, and the burnt through parts tell you where you need more strength.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, and they just laid off all their engineers!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's the fact that there was a failure, or the fact that the system proved resilient, it's the manner in which the failure manifested itself - an engine cutout, a fuel pump failure, or a vibration issue would be cause for a post launch investigation and a pat on the back, while a wholesale engine disintegration will trigger quite a significant inquiry and a heck of a lot of furrowed brows.
It's the difference in magnitude of failure which is the thing to note here.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As the update to the article from SpaceX points out - the engine didn't blow.
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night’s launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued immediately. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.
As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.
Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do. Like the Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, there was no way to recompute a Saturn 5 flight profile on the fly. Remember, kids, that was back in the days when we hunted dinosaurs from the backs of our '57 Chevys. Kudos to SpaceX for having enough out of the box thinking to have the needed software routines in the can already and ready to go. Falcon 9 is more than just another Big Dumb Booster, AAMOF, from everything I'm reading and seeing of its operation, it's pretty goddamned smart. Remember the test flight to the ISS? The first launch attempt, the onboard computers detected a glitch that might have taken out the bird and shut down and aborted the launch right at T -0, even after the humans tapped the buttons authorising the computers to do the launch. Like I say, some serious onboard smarts programmed by some seriously smart people.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
For further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Launch_Vehicle_Digital_Computer [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V_Instrument_Unit
Re: (Score:3)
The Saturn V used a pitch and roll program early in the launch, then switched to closed-loop guidance. If I remember correctly, the digital computer calculated the ideal orientation to reach the desired orbit and an analogue computer tried to move the operational engines to achieve that. So the capability was limited, but it was there.
Re: (Score:3)
The astronauts could fly the Saturn V to orbit manually, though it was never done. They would probably get to a usable orbit, but I'd guess it was unlikely to be good enough to get to the Moon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Clearly, they need to build the next engine entirely out of sensors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
From what can be read between the lines, the engine didn't explode but rather imploded. It shut off at "maximum dynamic pressure", sometimes called simply "Max-Q", when the atmospheric pressure pushing against the vehicle due to its velocity is at the highest it can be at that point in the flight. Between the pressure from outside of the spacecraft and from the nearby engines, the nozzle apparently collapsed in on itself and tore loose, hence the debris.
The engine itself was still there, just missing the nozzle. That is why data was continuing to be sent from the engine and respond to system queries about its status. Had it exploded, those sensors and microcontrollers running the engine would not be in place.
Technically you are correct that all that could be said from the telemetry is that the sensors were still in place, but those sensors would not be registering if it was an outright explosion.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't an engine explosion, the protective fairing around the engine shattered when the engine cutoff caused a major change in pressure. SpaceX said that they continued to receive telemetry data from the engine which means it did not explode, and in fact was physically intact though not functioning correctly.
A statistical analysis: (Score:5, Insightful)
They've launched 4 Falcon 9 rockets. One engine has failed, so that's an observed failure rate of 1/36 or about 3%. The means the odds of 0 or 1 engine failing (a successful launch) is 97.6% and the odds of more than one failing is 2.4% assuming the currently observed rate is representative of the actual rate. 2.4% would be an excellent failure rate for any rocket launch system. In fact, no one has achieved a failure rate that low. And bear in mind this rate includes 3 experimental launches and only one production launch. Of course, a launch failure can be brought about by more than just engine failures, so 2.4% is really a minimum and other factors which haven't yet manifested themselves would add to it.
Space X is saying that this is probably a failure in the aerodynamic structure of the rocket, not the rocket engine itself. If that's the case, the above statistical analysis is invalid because it assumes no interdependency in engine failures. A structural failure could lead to more than one engine failing. It would also be problematic in assessing the future failure rate because the engine configuration is going to change in their 1.1 version. The outer engines will be circularly arranged in future versions while in current versions they're arranged in a square.
Re: (Score:3)
...The means the odds of 0 or 1 engine failing (a successful launch) is 97.6% and the odds of more than one failing is 2.4% assuming the currently observed rate is representative of the actual rate. 2.4% would be an excellent failure rate for any rocket launch system. In fact, no one has achieved a failure rate that low....
There are vehicles that have matched or beaten this rate. The Delta 2 (retired) achieved 149 out of 151 (99%). The currently active Soyuz-U has achieved a failure rate indistinguishable from this (741 successes out of 761, 97.4%). There are other vehicles that claim 100%, but have launched too few to be able to claim this rate. One factor to consider is that launch systems often mature and have a long series on unbroken successes after having some failures early on: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/log2012. [spacelaunchreport.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No, this is not a correct analysis. You have to break it up into all 512 possible outcomes and then calculate the probability for each. So one of the possibilities is that all engines will work, that has a probability of (35/36)^9 or 77.6%. There are 9 possible ways that one engine could fail. Each possibility has a probability of (1/36)^1*(35/36)^8 or 2.2%. If you multiply that by the 9 single engine failure possibilities you get a probability of 20.0% that exactly one engine will fail. So if a successful
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Shooting yourself in the foot is, none the less, not exactly what you're supposed to do.
I'm a C++ developer, you insensitive clod!
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, what's the value in being able to send up smaller missions, akin to a commuter flight versus a jumbo jet?
Third, what's the redundancy of having multiple functional launch systems worth?
Fourth, what's the value in the US having a launch system of its own without depending on other countries?
Fifth, what's the likelihood that having this launch system prove to be successful will result in the developer working on heavier-lift systems?
When the United States has no launch system we are completely dependent on the Russians for access to a very expensive machine built with enormous cost to us and to all of the other participating countries. Should the Russians decide that they don't want to play anymore, they could simply deny our astronauts access, making the station de facto Russian property. Since the Russians have significantly more station experience than we do, I'm sure that they'd be able to operate it without us.
Our having a launch system, ultimately intended to be man-rated, essentially prohibits that possibility. Same with the Europeans, if they ever have a man-rated rocket. I'm all for that.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Care to update the wiki page? At least according to that....
ATV capable of 7,667kg to orbit.
Dragon capable of 3,310 kg pressurized ( + another 3,310 non pressurized)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_space_station_cargo_vehicles
Who knows... maybe just maybe NASA is paying for token payloads until SpaceX gets their flight rate up (and thus some notion of improved reliability).
not really a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The engine failure of the falcon 9 engine #1 is not really a bad thing. It served to prove the reliability of the shutoff system, and flight control hardware.
Considering the horrendous failure rate of NASA's early engines, (the kind that explode spectacularly), this managed failure situation is very promising.
Rest assured, there will likely be a strong inquiry concerning the manufacture and design of the engine fairing that failed, causing the pressure drop, and engine shutdown.
Managed failures like this one don't speak poorly of spacex. On the contrary. They show spacex planned ahead, and the failsafes they built actually work.
Re:not really a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just Early Engines..
Let's see, there was the Titan IV which took out a facility at Edwards AFB on April Fools Day in 1991. [nytimes.com] Now that was an Air Force engine, but fairly modern. There was another Titan IV which exploded in more spectacular fashion. [nytimes.com]
Recently, we have the NASA Morpheus Lander Explosion. [csmonitor.com]
Then there's the Delta II, which is a newer launch system which has exploded at least twice that I'm aware of. Once in 1995 [youtube.com] and another in 1997 [nasa.gov].
The point is that NASA and the Air Force and their various subcontractors, SpaceX not included, don't have a perfect record on launch vehicle malfunctions. You can't have lots of propellant with oxidizer burning without some sort of malfunction. While still rare, these events can and do happen and it's good to see SpaceX plan for these kinds of things unlike the Soviets did when their Moon Rocket went "boom" when they were testing in the 60s [youtube.com] In Fact, all four launches of the N-1 were failures. [starbase1.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
The interesting thing is what may be a failure of the orbital insertion of the Orbcom satellite that was supposed to use the 2nd stage of the Falcon 9 for an additional burn after separation of the Dragon. Apparently either due to this engine loss of the 1st stage or some other problem, that satellite didn't get to the desired orbit.
It will be interesting to see if SpaceX will refund Orbcom their money or do something extra to help them out.
Re: (Score:2)
If the ascent vector isn't correct, (which it wasn't, due to the failure), then the entry vector for the capsule will be different from the one planned. This is the likely cause of the orbcom deployment snafu.
It's basic geometry. The angle changed, so the insertion point changed. (The tangent intersection of the satelite orbit relative to the ascent vector) That's why the sat isn't in the proper place.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:not really a bad thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that highly depends on whether there's any more engine failures on the next flights. If it seems like an odd case and SpaceX can say that "and even such a thing were to happen again, we'd catch it" then all is well. If another one fails and it smells more like "our engines aren't exactly 100% reliable, but we're betting on statistics that two of them won't fail on the same flight" then that's not good.
Re: (Score:2)
Rest assured, there will likely be a strong inquiry concerning the manufacture and design of the engine fairing that failed, causing the pressure drop, and engine shutdown.
You've got the chain of events backwards.
A loss of fuel(?) pressure forced an engine shutdown, which caused a pressure drop at the engine's nozzle, which caused the engine fairing to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense...
I'd hold off on speculation until after forensic evaluation of the failed component (if it doesn't burn up in re-entry), and failure data sent from the vehicle. All we know for sure is that the safety kicked in, and the engine shut down.
I would expect a full inquiry as to why this happened. That's all.
*shrug*
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have access to the falcon 9's engineering data, so I can't comment definitively; take with copious salt.
A rocket engine is basically a fuel supply line coming from some fuel tanks, being injected under pressure into the reaction chamber, nestled inside the burn cone.
A failsafe system would clamp down fuel and oxidizer supplies at multiple points along the supply to ensure that neither reaches the reaction vessel in the event of a flow, pressure, or reaction anomaly. Such systems would need to be ver
Re: (Score:3)
Some engines, like turboshaft engines, have an intentional narrow point in the driveshaft designed to fail under the right circumstances. If something's got to give, make it something that fails without either destroying the machine outright or else killing the occupants.
A rocket design that manages to avoid destroying the vehicle when an engine explodes definitely qualifies as fail-safe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to take anything away from SpaceX, but to the extent that you mean to suggest "SpaceX did a better job than NASA did early on" (which may be none at all), it's of course not really fair to compare considering that SpaceX didn't exactly throw out the knowledge that NASA and others built up because of those failures.
Re:not really a bad thing (Score:5, Informative)
This is very true, but if you've ever worked in aerospace, you surely know about "tribal knowledge."
SpaceX would have started with a clean slate in that department, and without NASA's tribal knowledge... let's just say that I am very pleased with their performance.
Re: (Score:3)
I was under the impression that SpaceX had poached a ton of former NASA or support company people?
Not all the info (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well apparently the SpaceX update in TFA says otherwise:
there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dragon is fine, but...
Did you miss that part of my post? The telecom satellite is separate from the resupply mission.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently the second stage didn't hit the required orbit for NASA to allow them to restart it without risk of collision with ISS if something went wrong. So it looks like SpaceX could have restarted the stage but NASA didn't let them; it was a consequence of the first stage engine failure, not a second failure.
Re: (Score:3)
Failure to reach the orbit that SpaceX claimed that they were going to put the satellite into is to me massive egg on the face of SpaceX and will make it harder to sell future flights unless they can provide some assurance that even the secondary payloads will be able to meet mission objectives.
Except it appears that the only reason for the 'failure to reach orbit' was that NASA said they couldn't restart the engine due to the possibility of hitting ISS if something went wrong. That only applies to flights to ISS, not to satellite launches.
The importtant things (Score:5, Interesting)
– The entire engine didn't actually explode, as some sources have reported; the onboard computers were still sending data from it (SpaceX believes it was just the aerodynamic casing (fairing) that exploded, due to the pressure release of the engine)
– This doesn't mean the Falcon 9 system is necessarily less safe than NASA systems; on two occasions, Saturn V rockets experienced a similar loss, with similar (i.e., nil) impact to the mission's success
So, y'know. Rejoice nerdily about the fact that the failsafes worked, rather than worrying about commercial technology being inferior.
Re: (Score:2)
Both Saturn V and the shuttle launch system were designed to handle failure of at least one engine...
The shuttle can get to orbit with just two of the liquid fueled engines, but was designed to return with just one. Turns out, you can deorbit a shuttle with just the maneuvering jets.
Unfortunately, a failure of the solid fueled boosters, is mostly fatal.
Re: (Score:2)
The shuttle can get to orbit with just two of the liquid fueled engines, but was designed to return with just one. Turns out, you can deorbit a shuttle with just the maneuvering jets.
Unfortunately, a failure of the solid fueled boosters, is mostly fatal.
I'm thinking that's because the orbiter was bolted onto the side of the launch vehicle. I'm thinking, if it would have been mounted on top like a normal capsule, it probably wouldn't have killed that crew. But hey, IANARS, so my opinion means shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking that's because the orbiter was bolted onto the side of the launch vehicle.
To a large extent it's because it had wings. If you need wings to land and they fall off, you die.
Surviving a launch accident in a winged rocket is very hard, because you have to get from flying vertically to flying horizontally at supersonic speed without anything falling off. Normally the best you can do is fit ejection seats and cross your fingers as you pull the handle.
The X-20 with an escape rocket below the spacecraft was probably the closest to being survivable and the tests for that looked pretty ha
Re: (Score:2)
due to the pressure release of the engine
I read this in the official statement too - I'm guessing it makes perfect sense to rocket scientists.
My best guestimate: because of the sudden lack of exhaust gasses from the engine, the pressure inside the fairing changed extremely significantly and quickly, and the fairing couldn't take the pressure delta, so it ripped apart.
Somebody correct me.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. An explosion - i.e. a detonation - is a very specific type of event with very specific and disasterous consequences. A pressure release is not necessarily a detonation.
I am curious. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the first stage, one at launch, two later on. From a strict physics perspective, you could probably have three or four out in the last few seconds of the burn, but I don't know if their software is that clever. The second stage has only one engine.
9 engines. All together now! (Score:5, Funny)
9 engines of LOX on the rocket, 9 engines of LOX
drop one down, blow it around
8 engines of LOX on the rocket....
"Anomaly?" (Score:2)
I've been playing too much SpaceChem...
Transparency ? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to let go of the white shirt/thin tie/pocket protector/black rimmed glasses look. T-shirts are the new uniform. Hair length is not a factor.
I know, I hate it too, but we are not far from everyone on the launch team Skyping in and being avatars on a plasma screen in front of the media videoconferencing system.
Re: (Score:2)
I missed the launch, and I haven't been able to find a recorded feed: if anyone has a link I'd love to hear the flight loop.
BUT, the mission control chatter you hear on a SpaceX launch is almost entirely people assuring themselves that the rocket is OK. They're not *controlling* much of anything: it's all in the hands of the flight computer, which decides things like "shut down this engine and recompute a launch profile for the remaining 8 engines" on its own, in real time. There's no time for humans to m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The decision to shut down engine #1 and the decision to adjust the other engines' burns to compensate were made automatically by the flight-control computer onboard the rocket. There's no need for the ground team to make the decisions, and no need for the computer to make voice announcements about them.
(Obligatory car analogy: it would be like having your c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care how they dress. I thought the "Mohawk guy" on the Curiosity landing was pretty cool. So do most others I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like we've had our glitch for this mission
We've been "pre-disastered". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084917/ [imdb.com]
Re:Fist Post! (Score:5, Funny)
Shameless plug (Score:2, Funny)
1. The Doctor
Doctor who? [youtube.com]
Re:Saturn V engine loss? (Score:4, Informative)
News to me. Details anyone?
Apollo 6 lost two engines and, AFAIR, suffered partial breakup of the SLA panels covering the lunar module due to pogo.
Apollo 13 lost one engine, which was fortunate because pogo had grown so bad that the Saturn V was on the verge of structural failure. If the engine hadn't failed, they'd have been parachuting back to Earth soon after.
Re: (Score:3)
Parachuting back to earth would have been *a lot* more comfortable than what they ended up doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Apollo 6 (unmanned test, uncontrolled pogo oscillation during first stage, multiple engine failures on 2nd)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_6 [wikipedia.org]
Apollo 13 (manned launch, pogo oscillations again, shutdown of center first-stage engine.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13#Launch_incident [wikipedia.org]