This is their first mission failure. Landings were never a mission!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
SpaceX Attempting 1st Stage Landing After Rocket Launch (AKA Crazy Space Stuff)
- Thread starter DrForester
- Start date
- Status
This is their first mission failure. Landings were never a mission!
There are air launch systems - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)
They have a number of advantages, but they're no less complicated, and only used for small payloads
Parachutes don't work well for landing something that's this big and fragile
Elfforkusu
Member
One failure and private space flight is doomed. Chill out, geez.
This is a set back, no doubt. But "welp, only nasa can do this" is a flawed conclusion. Everybody blows up a rocket from time to time, it's part of the process.
This is a set back, no doubt. But "welp, only nasa can do this" is a flawed conclusion. Everybody blows up a rocket from time to time, it's part of the process.
Never even heard of Pegasus. Doesn't seem so bad,just need to go bigger!! Parachutes do suck,but if can save a good amount to reuse,might just be better off than having a whole ship explode every 5 trips.
How do you go bigger? The thing rides on a giant converted airliner already.
More engines and refueling midair?
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Talking about SpaceX's useless endeavours in their failed mission thread seems very appropriate.
But I'll end the discussion and wait for the next thread relating to this space issues.
We're not making baby steps. We're making the wrong steps.
Our priority should be solving Climate Change, and chemical propelled space launches aren't helping.
To make broad generalizations like "we should do x instead of y" is foolish. The goal is to make human life multi-planetary. It's a contingency plan in case there is an extinction level event on Earth.
Musk is already tackling changing the perception of sustainable transport, which makes your statement even more foolish since that relates directly to climate change. To go to Mars and to establish a colony, you have to launch something like a rocket a day for years. All of this work is going towards launching more reliably and establishing a greater human presence in space. Failure is inevitable in spaceflight. Giving up is not an option, however.
So to gain 35000 ft we have:
The invention of a plane with twice the carrying capacity of our current heaviest cargo planes
Due to the great mass of carrying this thing, a large need for additional fuel and the inefficient expenditure of fuel
Even more expenses for the refueling plane
All while burdened by gravity drag. Instead of a flight profile designed around enduring the inefficiency of gravity drag for maybe 2 minutes (30 sec straight up then roll to a down range angle) with a much lighter payload, now:
A 10-20 minute ascent to cruising altitude, (let's assume refueling and deployment adds no time) then the deployment of the rocket. These ten minutes of energy expenditure solely go to gravity drag and add only around 200 m/s to its horizontal speed. And you're carrying more than twice the original mission mass. Because of the added height the rocket needs less of a vertical boost, and can get going faster due to lack of max Q problems, but it still needs to elevate as it takes time to accelerate all the way to 7000 m/s (human g-load constraints) before sinking back into the atmosphere.
Is all of that extra (expensive) energy expenditure worth 35000 ft and some 200m/s velocity?
I've seen the video now. Amazing, in all the wrong ways. Like, there is so little left after they fired the self destruct charges inside the "fuel" cloud.
Shame that it happened, but at least it only happened with cargo, however valuable it may have been. Better iron out any design issues now.
I will not lie, this makes me excited about the eventual report about the cause for mission abort. Sure, I'd have preferred a success, but getting a predigested information dump from people digging through the vast interconnected systems of the missile is entertaining as well.
Also, I now want to play KSP.
Shame that it happened, but at least it only happened with cargo, however valuable it may have been. Better iron out any design issues now.
I will not lie, this makes me excited about the eventual report about the cause for mission abort. Sure, I'd have preferred a success, but getting a predigested information dump from people digging through the vast interconnected systems of the missile is entertaining as well.
Also, I now want to play KSP.
cheezcake
Member
lol?
Quick everyone, tell all the scientists and engineers at spacex to get off their useless space loving asses and FIX CLIMATE CHANGE.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
While Climate Change can destroy us, we've landed on Mars a few times already. You really need to start making more cohesive arguments in this thread.
What's so dangerous about deep space compared to, say, a star corona?
What does this have to do with space travel? Are you suggesting we should never attempt space travel because Earth is a unique planet?
legacyzero
Banned
WhyNotBoth.GIF
LOL The climate debate is clearly a separate one from the space debate, aside from the launches. Doesn't mean we should stop looking to the stars.
Also this LOL
We did five moon landings after the first one, actually.
Page all the scientists curing cancer to form a super team.
I'm sorry to bring this up a day late. I'm an astrophysics student, so a lot of what you are saying is really rubbing me the wrong way.
Err... what are you talking about. Maybe a few years ago, sure, but not today. It's incredibly common. We haven't even been looking that long, and we already have around thirty potentially habitable planets.
http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog
Flight would be possible with or without looking at birds. Sure, they might have been an inspiration, but modern (and the original) aircraft act nothing like birds, and instead rely on knowledge of physics and engineering, just as spaceflight is. It's a technical/fudning issue, not a physical one.
You're half right. We do need to be spending more money and research on non chemical propulsion, it will be the future. But it is possible, and even very feasible to go to mars with "ordinary" rockets, again we're talking about a very difficult engineering problem here, not something that would require us to defy the laws of physics. You're seeing so many failures mostly because deep space spaceflight has very little funding. NASA gets .5% of the tax dollar, and it has to spend that between research, management, and improving rocket launches.
I don't know your source, but I'm pretty sure the Curiosity Rover data reveled that the radiation dose was manageable, but would increase cancer risk than what NASA deemed acceptable. Where did you get that it was lethal?
http://www.space.com/23875-mars-radiation-life-manned-mission.html
Err... what are you talking about. Maybe a few years ago, sure, but not today. It's incredibly common. We haven't even been looking that long, and we already have around thirty potentially habitable planets.
http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog
Flight would be possible with or without looking at birds. Sure, they might have been an inspiration, but modern (and the original) aircraft act nothing like birds, and instead rely on knowledge of physics and engineering, just as spaceflight is. It's a technical/fudning issue, not a physical one.
You're half right. We do need to be spending more money and research on non chemical propulsion, it will be the future. But it is possible, and even very feasible to go to mars with "ordinary" rockets, again we're talking about a very difficult engineering problem here, not something that would require us to defy the laws of physics. You're seeing so many failures mostly because deep space spaceflight has very little funding. NASA gets .5% of the tax dollar, and it has to spend that between research, management, and improving rocket launches.
I don't know your source, but I'm pretty sure the Curiosity Rover data reveled that the radiation dose was manageable, but would increase cancer risk than what NASA deemed acceptable. Where did you get that it was lethal?
http://www.space.com/23875-mars-radiation-life-manned-mission.html
ScepticMatt
Member
Via SpaceX reddit:
Failure cause
Preliminary conclusion is that a COPV (helium container) strut in the CRS-7 second stage failed at 3.2Gs.
We analysed a lot of data, took 0.893 seconds before first sign of trouble and end of data. Preliminary failure arose from a strut in the second stage liquid oxygen tanks that was holding down one composite helium bottle used to pressurize the stage. High pressure helium bottles are pressurized at 5500 psi, stored inside in LOX tank. At ~3.2 g, one of those struts snapped and broke free inside the tank. Released lots of He into LOX tank. buoyancy increases in accordance w/ G-load. Data shows a drop in the helium pressure, then a rise in the helium pressure system. Quite confusing. As helium bottle broke free and pinched off manifold, restored the pressure but released enough helium to cause the tank to fail. it was a really odd failure mode. Investigation still 'speculative' at this point.
The investigation is not showing any other issues. But looking at everything to see if there were any near misses. no sign of any other issues with the launch, looking still for any misses. May have become complacent over last few years. Musk stressed that this is an initial assessment, the only thing that makes sense at this point. Continuing to investigate.
Fixing the problem
Strut about 2 feet long, an inch at its thickest point. Strut failed at 1/5th rated force, no evidence of damage to it in close-out photos before launch. Will not use these particular struts and will no longer trust strut certify. Dont think we need to add more struts. Will test the future struts individually. Some additional cost as a result, but wont be passed along in the price. Strut issue is fairly straightforward, switching to something with higher level of performance. part that failed was from a supplier, not made in house. did not name the supplier, was relying on certification from the supplier. Not going to move strut work in-house, but will move to a different design likely from a different supplier. There are 100s of suppliers of minor components for us. We can't make everything.
Strut failed at 5x below its rated strength. This strut was designed to handle 10,000 lbs of load, failed at 2,000 lbs. A failure at the bolt head most likely. Able to replicate by taking 1000s of these struts and testing; a few failed well below rated level. found a few that did not meet specifications. But this is early.
Return to flight
Musk wont give a precise return to flight date until gone over all data. Could be back flying in a few months. He wasn't very specific. Move to strong strut alone means 'a few months' delay. But we'll look harder, get customer (NASA/USAF/FAA) input. Musk non-committal on when F9 will return to flight. First double-check other areas, then get customer input, then decide. No sooner than September for next F9 launch, not clear who customer would be. Could be some changes in manifest. This will not affect commercial crew timeline; this is not on the critical path.
TL;DR:
A Strut holding the helium container snapped at 5x below its rated strength. Helium released caused overpressure in oxygen tank. Will switch to different strut supplier and test each strut individually.
Failure cause
Preliminary conclusion is that a COPV (helium container) strut in the CRS-7 second stage failed at 3.2Gs.
We analysed a lot of data, took 0.893 seconds before first sign of trouble and end of data. Preliminary failure arose from a strut in the second stage liquid oxygen tanks that was holding down one composite helium bottle used to pressurize the stage. High pressure helium bottles are pressurized at 5500 psi, stored inside in LOX tank. At ~3.2 g, one of those struts snapped and broke free inside the tank. Released lots of He into LOX tank. buoyancy increases in accordance w/ G-load. Data shows a drop in the helium pressure, then a rise in the helium pressure system. Quite confusing. As helium bottle broke free and pinched off manifold, restored the pressure but released enough helium to cause the tank to fail. it was a really odd failure mode. Investigation still 'speculative' at this point.
The investigation is not showing any other issues. But looking at everything to see if there were any near misses. no sign of any other issues with the launch, looking still for any misses. May have become complacent over last few years. Musk stressed that this is an initial assessment, the only thing that makes sense at this point. Continuing to investigate.
Fixing the problem
Strut about 2 feet long, an inch at its thickest point. Strut failed at 1/5th rated force, no evidence of damage to it in close-out photos before launch. Will not use these particular struts and will no longer trust strut certify. Dont think we need to add more struts. Will test the future struts individually. Some additional cost as a result, but wont be passed along in the price. Strut issue is fairly straightforward, switching to something with higher level of performance. part that failed was from a supplier, not made in house. did not name the supplier, was relying on certification from the supplier. Not going to move strut work in-house, but will move to a different design likely from a different supplier. There are 100s of suppliers of minor components for us. We can't make everything.
Strut failed at 5x below its rated strength. This strut was designed to handle 10,000 lbs of load, failed at 2,000 lbs. A failure at the bolt head most likely. Able to replicate by taking 1000s of these struts and testing; a few failed well below rated level. found a few that did not meet specifications. But this is early.
Return to flight
Musk wont give a precise return to flight date until gone over all data. Could be back flying in a few months. He wasn't very specific. Move to strong strut alone means 'a few months' delay. But we'll look harder, get customer (NASA/USAF/FAA) input. Musk non-committal on when F9 will return to flight. First double-check other areas, then get customer input, then decide. No sooner than September for next F9 launch, not clear who customer would be. Could be some changes in manifest. This will not affect commercial crew timeline; this is not on the critical path.
TL;DR:
A Strut holding the helium container snapped at 5x below its rated strength. Helium released caused overpressure in oxygen tank. Will switch to different strut supplier and test each strut individually.
Good news for SpaceX, although it does illuminate their lack of inspection of each part from external suppliers. It means that the failed component didn't originate in SpaceX's internal production and the strengthening/change of manufacturer for the struts in future launches that is already underway should help restore confidence. Although this was a terrible LOM for them, I think it will ultimately lead to a more rigorous component testing regime across the board and in turn, lead to a significantly more robust design in the future.
Some would tell you that the lack of this sort of QA is part of what lets them get their prices so low.
You don't normally re-do certification on every piece of incoming material during acceptance testing. You pay the company you're buying from to certify it and maybe do spot checks. I mean, if you did test every piece you certainly shouldn't be paying for the part as if the supplier is doing it.
True, although there is some expectation on SpaceX's part to have processes in place to ensure the reliability of the supplier and their parts, including audits, sample inspections, reviews of the supplier's procedures, etc. This is common in any regulated field.
I work in the process piping industry, and it is the same for us. We rely on testing reports and certification from the component manufacturer.
Tweets from a credible source say that the return-to-flight launch will be on the 15th December (in the middle of the night, local time). But get this - they want to make a landing attempt *back on the mainland*
The pad is all ready, the payload is light so there's plenty of reserve fuel. Hey why not?
The pad is all ready, the payload is light so there's plenty of reserve fuel. Hey why not?
ZeezbruhTV
Member
Tweets from a credible source say that the return-to-flight launch will be on the 15th December (in the middle of the night, local time). But get this - they want to make a landing attempt *back on the mainland*
The pad is all ready, the payload is light so there's plenty of reserve fuel. Hey why not?
Hype, they landed the last one on a moving platform but the leg snapped. It's going to happen. 2016 will be a huge year for Musk.
Good news is the Air Froce have approved the landing attempt. Just need FAA approval now, which they're optimistic about.
It's a much easier target to hit. Barge in red, landing pad in grey.
Hitting the target hasn't been a challenge so far, hitting the target at a speed slow enough not to face plant the ground has been.
Speed hasn't been the issue either, it's been the angle of the dangle.
I thought the problem was the small size and that the barge had an unstable position.
It's not the size of the rocket. It's how you thrust that matters.
That's what they want you to believe. Follow the money.
Jezbollah
Member
The angle of the dangle. lol. So true though.
CyclopsRock
Member
Nope - on the last attempt* there was a problem with implementing the corrective instructions which lead to over-compensating in trying to get the right angle, leading them to land wonky. It wasn't really even too quick. See:
They had another before where one of the legs didn't come out properly. As you can see though, they nailed the location very well (when you consider the vastness of both space and the ocean). That said, a larger landing area means they won't need to perform as strong corrective manouvres.
Jezbollah
Member
Evening all. Just a bumpage for our next attempt.
Return To Flight is set for tomorrow! Orbcomm OG2 is due to launch from Cape Canaveral on an instantaneous launch window tomorrow at 20:29 EST.
There are a number of firsts that SpaceX aim to achieve this time.
- It's the first launch since July's loss of CRS-7
- It's the first launch of the Falcon 1.2 (aka Falcon Full Thrust)
- It's the first first stage landing attempt at night
- It's the first first stage landing attempt on land
- It's the first first stage landing attempt at Cape Canaveral Landing Complex 1
What is Falcon 9 1.2?
It's a redesigned first and second stage version of Falcon 9. The rocket propellant tanks have been redesigned and have added 1.2m of height to the vehicle. "Why?" you may ask? Well, our brainy friends are going to supercool the daylights out of the fuel. The Liquid Oxygen (LOX) will be supercooled to -340f (-206.7c, 66.5k), the Rocket Propellent (RP-1) will be cooled to 20c. The net result is that they can put more fuel into the newly designed tanks, resulting in a 30% increase of thrust. This means that boost-back (and reusability in general) can be used in a wider range of missions. The Falcon 9 1.2 will also have a new second stage engine called the Merlin Vacuum 1D that will improve performance and improved attitude control.
Return To Flight is set for tomorrow! Orbcomm OG2 is due to launch from Cape Canaveral on an instantaneous launch window tomorrow at 20:29 EST.
There are a number of firsts that SpaceX aim to achieve this time.
- It's the first launch since July's loss of CRS-7
- It's the first launch of the Falcon 1.2 (aka Falcon Full Thrust)
- It's the first first stage landing attempt at night
- It's the first first stage landing attempt on land
- It's the first first stage landing attempt at Cape Canaveral Landing Complex 1
What is Falcon 9 1.2?
It's a redesigned first and second stage version of Falcon 9. The rocket propellant tanks have been redesigned and have added 1.2m of height to the vehicle. "Why?" you may ask? Well, our brainy friends are going to supercool the daylights out of the fuel. The Liquid Oxygen (LOX) will be supercooled to -340f (-206.7c, 66.5k), the Rocket Propellent (RP-1) will be cooled to 20c. The net result is that they can put more fuel into the newly designed tanks, resulting in a 30% increase of thrust. This means that boost-back (and reusability in general) can be used in a wider range of missions. The Falcon 9 1.2 will also have a new second stage engine called the Merlin Vacuum 1D that will improve performance and improved attitude control.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Fingers crossed.
Have they actually said what the cost saving of reusable booster stages is, other than "a lot"?
Have they actually said what the cost saving of reusable booster stages is, other than "a lot"?
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Thanks for the update, Dan! Man, they must be very, very sure that this is going to work if they're going to do it on mainland. Best of luck to SpaceX!
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
Awesome. Best of luck to everyone.
sono
Gold Member
That's because it's a controlled explosion
Upper stage oxygen tank burst for some reason (the reason for the white cloud/dust you see from T+2:19)
Following that range initiates flight termination system at T:2:27 ish (i.e. self-destruct)
Did they figure out why the upper stage oxygen tank burst ?
e.g failure at altitude due pressure differential etc ?
Arent these components tested on the ground prior to flight by the way ?
Sincere best wishes for the next attempt
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
I think it was because of one part of the structure (which was done by a third party) not resisting the pressure or something. Because of that SpaceX now carefully tests every component in the rockets, and I think they make them themselves, rather than a third party.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
The struts? I think they just changed manufacturers and are now testing everything in advance rather than relying on specifications. IIRC they found that many of the struts from the original manufacturer failed well below what they were rated for.
Yeah, during the landing, they're trying to zero-out a big list of things
- x position
- y position
- z position
- x velocity
- y velocity
- z velocity
- x rotation
- z rotation
- y rotation
With a bigger pad, they can at least turn two of the position variables into don't-cares once it gets into the acceptable area
Jezbollah
Member
Yep they changed manufacturers and basically dont trust any vendor certification for such parts anymore. They do their own testing of parts prior to integration. The annoying thing about this is that it was a tank in the second stage that failed - the first stage was fine and working perfectly. Even more so, the Dragon was working fine after the detonation - now they have put into place contingency that if the rocket detonates, they can trigger the capsule parachutes and save it in the future.
I found this diagram to show the launch profile for tomorrow.
As much as I appreciate Elon Musk's approach to, well, life, it sometimes pays to take things one step at a time. This seems like a lot of things to bite off on your return to flight from a very expensive/explosive failure.
That said, I couldn't be hoping more that everything goes perfectly.
There isn't much new with the primary mission other than the improved rocket
The landing stuff is all gravy
Jezbollah
Member
Hey guys. So tonight's launch attempt has been scrubbed for 24hrs - tomorrows looks to have a better forecast for the landing site. Same time.
EDIT: From Elon Musk: "Launch & landing can be seen on the http://SpaceX.com webcast or in person from Cape Canaveral public causeway at 8:33pm local tmrw"
EDIT: From Elon Musk: "Launch & landing can be seen on the http://SpaceX.com webcast or in person from Cape Canaveral public causeway at 8:33pm local tmrw"
- Status