Smoke 'Seen For Miles' as SpaceX Crew Dragon Suffers Anomaly at Cape Canaveral (msn.com) 107
An anonymous reader quotes Florida Today:
A SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule suffered an anomaly during a routine test fire at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Saturday afternoon, the 45th Space Wing confirmed today. "On April 20, 2019, an anomaly occurred at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station during the Dragon 2 static test fire," Wing Spokesman Jim Williams told FLORIDA TODAY. "The anomaly was contained and there were no injuries."
SpaceX's Crew Dragon, also referred to as Dragon 2, is designed to take humans to the International Space Station and successfully flew for the first time in March. The company was planning to launch a crewed version of the spacecraft no earlier than July, but was also planning an in-flight abort test, or a demonstration of its life-saving abort capabilities, sometime before then.
That reporter has now also tweeted an official statement from SpaceX. "Earlier today, SpaceX conducted a series of engine tests on a Crew Dragon test vehicle on our test stand at Landing Zone 1 in Cape Canaveral. The initial tests completed successfully but the final test resulted in an anomaly on the test stand.
"Ensuring that our systems meet rigorous safety standards and detecting anomalies like this prior to flight are the main reasons why we test. Our teams are investigating and working closely with our NASA partners."
SpaceX's Crew Dragon, also referred to as Dragon 2, is designed to take humans to the International Space Station and successfully flew for the first time in March. The company was planning to launch a crewed version of the spacecraft no earlier than July, but was also planning an in-flight abort test, or a demonstration of its life-saving abort capabilities, sometime before then.
That reporter has now also tweeted an official statement from SpaceX. "Earlier today, SpaceX conducted a series of engine tests on a Crew Dragon test vehicle on our test stand at Landing Zone 1 in Cape Canaveral. The initial tests completed successfully but the final test resulted in an anomaly on the test stand.
"Ensuring that our systems meet rigorous safety standards and detecting anomalies like this prior to flight are the main reasons why we test. Our teams are investigating and working closely with our NASA partners."
Direct link (Score:5, Informative)
Direct link to story (without going via msn): https://www.floridatoday.com/s... [floridatoday.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you browse without NoScript and Adblock? (Score:2)
It's not like they're hard to use...
Re: Direct link (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Direct link (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Except when they want to expand or purchase something that they don't currently have enough money in the bank for and they take out a loan.
You will find that most household names have a beefy chunk of debt under their belt. It's just a normal part of operating a business.
https://www.stock-analysis-on.... [stock-analysis-on.net]
Generally a big part of remaining competitive is making sure you break into new markets before any competition has a chance to get a foothold. In order to do this a business will often borrow money to grow t
Re: (Score:1)
Just because you keep saying they don't doesn't make it true.
https://www.touchfinancial.co.... [touchfinancial.co.uk]
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-l... [quora.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Direct link (Score:2)
Nothing to worry about (Score:4, Funny)
Sadly, it's no anomaly... (Score:2, Insightful)
... to see summaries repeating the same thing over and over again, adding nothing at all to the headline, making reading them an exercise in futility. I blame the current crop of idiot millennial "editors" with a solid edumacation in bowling but no actual editing skills. The only "Editor" about EditorDavid is the first part of the username, and absolutely nothing else.
Re: Sadly, it's no anomaly... (Score:1)
Oh look it's a baby boomer who thinks they're entitled to quality content without paying for it. How completely unexpected and unprecedented. I'll never recover from the shock.
Re: Sadly, it's no anomaly... (Score:2)
Color me amused.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing hard things will have its set backs! (Score:3)
This article made me recall the Apollo I fire. I was 11 and thought NASA was the coolest thing there was. And the fire was such a set back. NASA was not perfect!
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:3)
The question is how does one respond? This article made me recall the Apollo I fire. I was 11 and thought NASA was the coolest thing there was. And the fire was such a set back. NASA was not perfect! Just my 2 cents ;)
Yes! If you give it any thought at all, perfecting something like travel off the planet is bound to be fraught with peril, experimentation, and not that uncommon episodes of failure.
Maybe privatization of the endeavor eventually pans out because each inevitable failure doesn't need to be scrutinized by committee and then punished with a diminishing budget.
Re: Doing hard things will have its set backs! (Score:1)
Travel implies going somewhere. Going up into some offworld place where you are confined to a Winnebago sized can until you get back to earth is not really 'going somewhere' in any normal sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Travel implies going somewhere. Going up into some offworld place where you are confined to a Winnebago sized can until you get back to earth is not really 'going somewhere' in any normal sense.
Millions of earthlings are confined to similar environmental constraints, or worse, under edict of the courts or some career decision to opt for submariner as a job choice. Suck it up, Buttercup.
Re: Doing hard things will have its set backs! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Failure is always an option, just make sure they happen early and often and we can fix them.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a relatively recent development, because PR has become so important to an engineering products success. And the people they are trying to spin are investors who know nothing about engineering. (Or maybe we actually can blame this disingenuous phraseology on overly sensitive millennials).
The proper term is test failure. Its not an anomaly, its a failure; an undesirable deviation from expected results. Test failures are an expected occurrence in the development of explosive devices. They incur a
Re: (Score:2)
Test failures are an expected occurrence in the development of explosive devices
Right, but you would expect them early in the development, not when it's part of a fully functional and finished machine that has already completed its first real mission. This is a huge setback for SpaceX.
Lots of orange "smoke" (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be nitrogen tetroxide, a large plume from a small spacecraft suggest a large fraction or all of it was released - meaning tank ruptured, or something like it. Could be the capsule or the service equipment.
Yeah. (Score:3)
Overpressurize an N2O4 tank and it leaves for points unknown.
Stuff occurs; if it was easy, they'd be selling beach front property on Mars already.
Nice to see there are people here besides SpaceX's competitors trying to bash them again. :)
Rapid unscheduled disassembly (Score:2)
Rapid unscheduled disassembly looks to be the "anomaly". Not ready to fly yet, I'm afraid.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that RUD confirmed anywhere? And how Disassembled?
Re: Rapid unscheduled disassembly (Score:2)
Unconfirmed rumors that it blew to "a million pieces" and that it happened prior to visible ignition of the SuperDraco engines as it was preparing for an engine test
At least half of that appears to be wrong since SpaceX has stated that several engine tests were performed prior to the anomaly.
Which means they need to build an additional Crew Dragon capsule, which probably means instant 6+ month delay as a minimum.
Not sure where you're getting that timeline from. SpaceX currently owns 3 Dragon 2 capsules with 2 more under construction. If C203 was actually destroyed, they might be able to use C202 for their abort test. If C202 is unsuitable for whatever reason then C204 could be slotted in for the abort test as soon as it is completed, which should be pretty damn soon given that it is sch
Re: (Score:2)
The tests of the Draco engines, used in orbit, were successful. SuperDraco engines are different engines, used only for in-flight abort, and that's where the failure was.
Pretty much every spacecraft/rocket anomaly in history has caused a 6+ month delay, so it's pretty safe to expect that on a craft intended for NASA astronauts. It'll probably take 6 months just to fill out all the
Re: Rapid unscheduled disassembly (Score:2)
Pretty much every spacecraft/rocket anomaly in history has caused a 6+ month delay, so it's pretty safe to expect that on a craft intended for NASA astronauts. It'll probably take 6 months just to fill out all the new paperwork NASA will throw at them.
That's a fair point, but I was commenting on his suggestion that the delay would be due to the need to build a new capsule.
This does seem likely to delay the scheduled manned mission by a few months at least, for sure, given that they'll need to investigate and fix whatever caused the anomaly.
Re: (Score:2)
Rapid unscheduled disassembly looks to be the "anomaly". Not ready to fly yet, I'm afraid.
Technically, this one already flew. It was the recovered capsule from the Crew Dragon test last month.
Re: (Score:2)
Not ready to fly yet, I'm afraid.
Actually, it already flew (which might be one of the possible causes, seeing as it didn't do this thing before).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SPACE FORCE!
video of capsule exploding (Score:4, Informative)
https://twitter.com/Astronut09... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also note it happened during the countdown, not during actual fire, and that the center of the fireball seems to be the plumbing, not the actual engine chamber/nozzle.
Re: (Score:1)
Removed? :(
Boom... (Score:1)
Setbacks (Score:2)
So much for launching astronauts in Dragon 2 this year. NASA is going to insist on one helluva review before they even resume testing, never mind certify for launch with people on board.
The video was entertaining in a macabre sort of way. It included audio of some guy saying "Oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck" over and over. Whoever posted it probably got fired by now, so two kinds of "oh fuck".
Re: (Score:3)
Greetings from the space nutters to the ULA trolls. Let's get those costs up a bit more, boys, won't 'ya?
Re: (Score:1)
"I saw some smoke. That's all I got."
Someone didn't get their SpaceX t-shirt.
Re: (Score:3)
Large plumes of orange smoke visible miles away. Not 'some smoke'.
Re:Anomaly? Anomaly? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe SpaceX elected a new Pope.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe SpaceX elected a new Pope.
It's SpaceX, so it would be a new Space Pope.
Re: (Score:2)
“Is the Space Pope reptilian?”
Re: (Score:1)
Well, Mars will need a pope, and orange smoke seems appropriate.
Re:Anomaly? Anomaly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes - something outside expected tolerances occurred. That is the definition of an anomaly.
Once they've done some investigation they will be able to release more details. Currently I'm sure they're digging through all the sensor data they've got. Depending on what actually happened they may not be able to physically approach the capsule yet.
SpaceX has to date been quite upfront about their public failures, root causes and what they've done to rectify them. It does no one any good for them to publish speculation.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes - something outside expected tolerances occurred. That is the definition of an anomaly.
Just because they're using it correct doesn't mean SpaceX have their own jargon. I've heard the word "nominally" used more times in SpaceX webcasts than in the rest of my life combined. Outside of Star Trek I've not heard many people who casually use the word anomaly. Like they could just had easily said they had a problem during testing. But of course, nobody has problems anymore just challenges and whatnot.
Re: Anomaly? Anomaly? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've heard the word "nominally" used more times in SpaceX webcasts than in the rest of my life combined. Outside of Star Trek I've not heard many people who casually use the word anomaly.
Probably because you weren't paying much attention to space stuff before SpaceX started making the news. The words "nominal" and "anomaly" are standard fare in the space industry. Here's an article where NASA talks about an anomaly with a Soyuz spacecraft:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/a... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Anomaly is absolutely standard description for unplanned or out-of-spec operation in the space industry since the beginning in 1956.
Re: (Score:2)
The capsule exploded completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The explosion is not the anomaly - it's the result of the anomaly.
This is one reason why it's important to use a neutral term like "anomaly". It helps to reduce the distraction of the (in this case) flashy consequences and instead focus on finding the root cause.
Re: Anomaly? Anomaly? (Score:2)
It does no one any good for them to publish speculation.
ULA might have cause to disagree.
Then again, they're clearly headed for "nobody" status so technically you might be right. ;)
Re:Failure. Double plus ungood. (Score:5, Informative)
Just to explain that to people unfamiliar with the terminology, a rocket suffering an anomaly is like a reactor undergoing a power excursion.
That's the actual technical term for it, I'm not making that up.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging from the video [twitter.com], it was a rapid unscheduled disassembly.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this:
Slightly engine-rich exhaust led to an anomaly involving an uncontrolled thermal event, unplanned loss of containment, and an unscheduled disassembly. The impromptu seismic experiment involved a premature payload release (entered into a negative-periapsis altitude orbit and conducted a lithobraking maneuver). The propellant was successfully purged through spontaneously-improvised vent ports. Unscheduled emergency response drills were held."
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed inappropriately hard at this.
⦠engine-rich exhaust. :)
Re: (Score:2)
The proper term is a testing failure. And the proper attitude for an engineer is to look at this as an opportunity.
The real problem is that the general public is fucking clueless, and the mainstream media slants their stories for clicks, rather than educating the public as to the event's actual significance. Not just this is a non-story for any product in development, it didn't even match the real definition of failure, which is Boeing's 737MAX (even though Boeing may be able to rescue the product line).
Says the guy from Boeing, lol. (Score:1)
lol.