Analyzing the Unusual Failure of Astra's Small, Frugal Rocket Launch Vehicle (hackaday.com) 15
Slashdot reader XXongo writes:
Astra is trying to make some of the smallest launch vehicles in history. But their most recent launch of their Rocket 3 vehicle had an unusual failure, where the second stage seemed to get stuck inside the booster stage. Hackaday analyzes the failure.
From Hackaday's article: The structure, engines, avionics, and useful payload of a rocket only make up a tiny portion of its liftoff mass, while the rest is dedicated to the propellant it must expend to reach orbital velocity. That's why a Falcon 9 tipping the scales at 549,054 kilograms (1,207,920 pounds) can only loft a payload of 22,800 kg (50,265 lb) — roughly 4% of its takeoff weight. As you might imagine, there's a lower limit where there simply isn't enough mass in the equation for the hardware necessary to build a fully functional rocket. But where is that limit? That's precisely what aerospace newcomer Astra is trying to find out. Their Rocket 3 is among the smallest orbital boosters to ever fly, closer in size and mass to the German V2 of World War II than the towering vehicles being built by SpaceX or Blue Origin. Even the Rocket Lab Electron, itself an exceptionally svelte rocket, is considerably larger.
The reason they're trying to build such a small rocket is of course very simple: smaller means cheaper.... Such a low ticket price would have been unfathomable a decade ago, and promises to shake up an already highly competitive commercial launch market. But naturally, Astra has to get the thing flying reliably before we can celebrate this new spaceflight milestone....
[R]ather than placing just the payload into a protective aerodynamic fairing, the entire second stage needs to be enclosed. The lower portion of the second stage is tucked into the hollow interstage, and an elongated fairing makes sure the payload and its ride to space aren't exposed to supersonic airflow in the early phases of flight.... Looking at the live video from the February 11th launch, we can clearly see the chain of events that led to the upper stage losing control and ultimately failing to enter orbit. At almost exactly three minutes into the flight the payload fairing visibly shudders, but fails to open. Four seconds later the second stage, propelled forward by a spring-loaded mechanism, slams into the fairing but fails to knock it lose. Finally, at three minutes and eleven seconds into the mission, the second stage's engine ignites while still inside the interstage. This build up of pressure blows off the fairing, but unfortunately also destabilizes the second stage and sends it tumbling.
One of Astra's earlier low-cost rockets actually began its launch by travelling sideways. And Hackaday now notes that this month's mission "ended in a total loss of the vehicle and payload when the upper stage tumbled out of control roughly three minutes after an otherwise perfect liftoff from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida." But they also add an encouraging note.
"Such issues aren't uncommon for a new orbital booster, and few rockets in history have entered regular service without a lost payload or two on the books."
From Hackaday's article: The structure, engines, avionics, and useful payload of a rocket only make up a tiny portion of its liftoff mass, while the rest is dedicated to the propellant it must expend to reach orbital velocity. That's why a Falcon 9 tipping the scales at 549,054 kilograms (1,207,920 pounds) can only loft a payload of 22,800 kg (50,265 lb) — roughly 4% of its takeoff weight. As you might imagine, there's a lower limit where there simply isn't enough mass in the equation for the hardware necessary to build a fully functional rocket. But where is that limit? That's precisely what aerospace newcomer Astra is trying to find out. Their Rocket 3 is among the smallest orbital boosters to ever fly, closer in size and mass to the German V2 of World War II than the towering vehicles being built by SpaceX or Blue Origin. Even the Rocket Lab Electron, itself an exceptionally svelte rocket, is considerably larger.
The reason they're trying to build such a small rocket is of course very simple: smaller means cheaper.... Such a low ticket price would have been unfathomable a decade ago, and promises to shake up an already highly competitive commercial launch market. But naturally, Astra has to get the thing flying reliably before we can celebrate this new spaceflight milestone....
[R]ather than placing just the payload into a protective aerodynamic fairing, the entire second stage needs to be enclosed. The lower portion of the second stage is tucked into the hollow interstage, and an elongated fairing makes sure the payload and its ride to space aren't exposed to supersonic airflow in the early phases of flight.... Looking at the live video from the February 11th launch, we can clearly see the chain of events that led to the upper stage losing control and ultimately failing to enter orbit. At almost exactly three minutes into the flight the payload fairing visibly shudders, but fails to open. Four seconds later the second stage, propelled forward by a spring-loaded mechanism, slams into the fairing but fails to knock it lose. Finally, at three minutes and eleven seconds into the mission, the second stage's engine ignites while still inside the interstage. This build up of pressure blows off the fairing, but unfortunately also destabilizes the second stage and sends it tumbling.
One of Astra's earlier low-cost rockets actually began its launch by travelling sideways. And Hackaday now notes that this month's mission "ended in a total loss of the vehicle and payload when the upper stage tumbled out of control roughly three minutes after an otherwise perfect liftoff from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida." But they also add an encouraging note.
"Such issues aren't uncommon for a new orbital booster, and few rockets in history have entered regular service without a lost payload or two on the books."
Still impressive I think. (Score:2)
What a different scale. Their launch facility could fit in someone's backyard. Looking at the video I note that post launch some of the traffic cones (!) are still standing.
The specs say that it can get 100kg to orbit or 25kg to a solar orbit. How does that compare to hitching onto a shared-payload launch of a Falcon 9?
Re: (Score:2)
The specs say that it can get 100kg to orbit or 25kg to a solar orbit. How does that compare to hitching onto a shared-payload launch of a Falcon 9?
You lose a lot less payload than you would with a Falcon 9 when you are unable to reach orbit... But the Falcon would likely have gotten it there
Re: (Score:2)
It's apples to oranges though. This particular rocket family has had only six launches -- or rather launch *attempts*. The first three launches of Falcon 1 were all failures too, and they were an order of magnitude more expensive. If that fourth Falcon 1 launch hadn't succeeded, it might well have sunk the company.
Part of doing things way, way cheaper is exploiting the fact that experience is the best teacher. That means not over-engineering things and consequently learning more through failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In expended mode a F9 can get 15.6T into LEO when recovered at sea and 22.8T expended. You can pack a lot on there. Rough, but probably slightly high, cost is $3500/kg, so $350,000 in a rideshare is a decent ballpark.
Much nicer than the $2.5 million an Astra launch runs. There are very valid reasons for Astra to exist though, not everything can rideshare, and As
Yes but only if that yard (Score:2)
I'm actually amazed by their software (Score:5, Insightful)
So... (Score:2)
Astra is trying to make some of the smallest launch vehicles in history. But their most recent launch of their Rocket 3 vehicle had an unusual failure, where the second stage seemed to get stuck inside the booster stage.
Too much duct tape?
Re: (Score:2)
Astra is trying to make some of the smallest launch vehicles in history. But their most recent launch of their Rocket 3 vehicle had an unusual failure, where the second stage seemed to get stuck inside the booster stage.
Too much duct tape?
Or lack of WD40.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the elephant in the room? (Score:2)
I'm sure they'll solve this issue, it seems relatively minor. But what about the bigger issue, the business case. With SpaceX, Blue Origin and even Rocket Lab proceeding into at least the partially reusable phase of their launch programs I'm guessing it's going to be very difficult for companies with expendable launchers, no matter how well they streamline their production, to make economic sense. Even some of the big players, Roscomos and Ariane Space, are at least suggesting they'll be producing some pa
Re: (Score:2)
The DoD wants something that can do what Astra does. They're the last company standing in a competition that was DoD funded.
A launch system small enough to be transported easy, set up quick, and get something into orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Their business case could be launching on short notice. The military is particularly interested in this for immediately replacing damaged or destroyed satellites.