Lunar Lander Challenge Ends in Fire, Disappoinment

mikesd81 writes "The rocketeers at Armadillo Aerospace, thwarted by engine problems and other mechanical failures, left this year's X Prize Cup empty-handed after their spacecraft burst into flames on liftoff Sunday. An attempt on Sunday to hop from launch and landing pads ended with the MOD craft bursting in flames shortly after engine ignition. This is the team's second attempt at the challenge in New Mexico, they were the only entrant in last year's event, which they also lost. Brett Alexander, Executive Director of Space Prizes and the X Prize Cup relayed a comment from John Carmack, leader of the Armadillo team: "Today is officially a bad day when it comes to our vehicle." The last attempt to win the $350,000 Level 1 prize on Sunday ended when the MOD vehicle had an engine fire, with pieces coming off, including disconnected cabling. Clearly, there was a fire on the pad that burned for a while — but then went out. The Armadillo team called a safety emergency, requesting fire truck assistance, Alexander said."

Comments

It really is rocket science...

[ZonkerWilliam]

Shows just how tough it really is. Should get bonus money just for launching.

Re:It really is rocket science...

[ScentCone]

Shows just how tough it really is.

Just caught a show the other day explaining how much harder the Soviets had it then they let on at the time. They had some really ugly launchpad accidents even as they were being characterized (by themselves, and the rest of the world) as being beyond that sort of thing. Other than the accidents - which aren't really surprising, especially with the 40+ engines they were trying to use on the N1! - the thing about their program that was the biggest surprise to me was their first manned flight. I had no idea that the way they got Yuri Gagarin back down from his first trip was to eject him from the spacecraft at 20,000 feet for a solo parachute ride down. His vehicle took its OWN ride down, but they didn't trust their ability to keep him alive all the way back down while in the vehicle. But they covered the event in terms of him "landing" the craft so that they could lay claim to a new record for manned flight that included consideration of whether or not the "pilot" survived and stayed with the craft all the way back to the ground. I had also forgotten about their three cosmonauts that died on re-entry when they opened their cabin's ventilation up to the atmosphere many thousands of feet too high (cabin air went out instead of fresh air coming in). Interesting show.

Re:It really is rocket science...

[iamlucky13]

FYI, the Soyuz flight where the three cosmonauts died on re-entry was due to a mechanical malfunction of a valve that connected the re-entry capsule to the rest of the Soyuz spacecraft. It was not an error on the crew's part. In fact, one of the crewmen actually had just enough time to unbuckle, crawl beneath the seat and close the valve halfway before passing out. Rather tragic.

The Soviet space program is as full of accidents or more so than our own. It really is tough business:

Yuri Gagarin's Vostok 1 capsule remained inadvertantly connected to it's service module during re-entry due to a bundle of wires (I assume a pyro failed to fire). It caused the spacecraft to wobble marginally out-of-control until the wires burned through.

After a series of problems in-flight led to a decision to delay the Soyuz 2 launch (probably fortuitiously, since 2 would've had the same issues), the Soyuz 1 main chute didn't deploy and the backup chute tangled. The cosmonaut died when the capsule hit the ground. Interestingly, it launched under political pressure, and Gagarin had tried to get himself scheduled for the flight, believing the politburo would then listen to the engineer's concerns rather than risk losing a national hero.

All four N-1's (the Soviet's planned moon rocket) exploded during launch (unmanned).

A Cosmos rocket exploded on the pad in 1973, killing 9 engineers.

In 1975, Soyuz 18a went out of control 5 minutes into launch, causing the launch escape system to activate. This saved the crew, but barely. They experienced accellerations up to 21 g's, and the capsule landed in the mountains in NW China. One article claims the capsule would've tumbled off a cliff if the chute hadn't snagged on a tree, but I haven't seen that verified.

Soyuz 23 in 1976 crashed through a frozen lake and sank with the crew inside. Remarkably, the crew was saved after considerable effort when a diver attached a cable that allowed a helicopter to lift the capsule out.

A 1980 explosion of an unmanned Vostok rocket on the pad killed 48 people on the ground.

In 1983, Soyuz T-10 caught fire on the pad. Ground control triggered the launch escape system, pulling the two men and their capsule clear. The rocket exploded two seconds later, but the cosmonauts survived.

There was a fire aboard the Mir in 1997. The same year, a Progress cargo ship collided with the station and punctured one of the modules. The crew had to rush to close the hatch to the module.

In 2002, an unmanned Soyuz rocket exploded, killing a Russian soldier.

One thing few people realize is there have been nearly as many close-calls in the US space program. Everyone knows about Apollo 13, but the first shuttle launch had a near burn-through due to tiles that fell off during launch. Another shuttle flight had an engine shutdown due to a short circuit that left it in a low orbit. Apollo 12 was hit by lightning. One of the Gemini flights went out of control and tumbled violently, nearly killing Neil Armstrong and David Scott. The Mercury 4 capsule had a hatch blow prematurely on splash down and sank as Gus Grissom scrambled to escape.

All of these guys, US, Russian, and Chinese alike have a lot of guts.

Sad story.

[JK_the_Slacker]

I for one welcome our new flaming deathtrap overlords.

But in all seriousness, I'm glad we found this out BEFORE trying it on the moon. I wish them better luck, and better engineering, in the next go-round.

Re:Sorry to hear this

[XenoPhage]

I think these guys deserve all the credit they get. John and company spend a lot of time refining their approach and are kind enough to share that data with the rest of the rocketry community. They're helping push commercial rocketry into the mainstream and I wish them all the best. Can't wait to see how they do next year!

History if full of these stories....

[StressGuy]

It's a difficult challenge...initial failures are to be expected. Often times, breaking this kind of ground is more about tenacity than anything else.

They'll get it eventually, and when they do (given that they are ID), I hope the headline reads "EXCELLENT!....IMPRESSIVE!"

Congrats anyway.

[Rob T Firefly]

A fire on the launch pad is still a hell of a lot further than most of us have gone.

Re:Congrats anyway.

[lpangelrob]

I agree, and give them a good amount of respect and props for getting as far as they did. This is serious science, after all.

But it's a little like NASCAR and ice skating — you're wondering when the crashes will start. And when people will have fun with the YouTube footage.

Re:Congrats anyway.

[OneSmartFellow]

except NASCAR is pointless, trivial, and intellectually vapid. I might consider NASCAR worthy of something other than scorn if the course was something other than an oval, the automobiles were technologically sophisticated (who wants to drive a Monte Carlo?), and the drivers didn't all talk like Cletus Spuckler.

Brandine: "Dang, Cletus! Why'd you have to park so close to my parents?"
Cletus: "Now honey, they's mah parents too!"

Re:Congrats anyway.

[Zak3056]

I don't watch NASCAR, but the automobiles are technologically sophisticated. They cost $125,000 to build, and because there's so much money in it, are the result of the most expensive, top-notch engineering you can find in racing.

While I think that the idea that the GP post was modded "insightful" is downright sad, I have to disagree with the above as well. While the race teams strive to get the cars as fast as possible, NASCAR's engineering (at the circuit level) appears to be dedicated to "making the race more competitive." That means SLOWER cars (see "restrictor plate," "aero package,") and rigid specifications on how the cars can be engineered and set-up.

Contrast this with something like F1 where it really is all about the technology, and it's downright silly to describe NASCAR as the apex of automotive engineering.

Again?

[sm62704]

Again?? Damn.

OTOH, at least George Broussard isn't on the team, or we'd have "The rocketeers at Armadillo Aerospace 4ever"

It seems Armadillo is DOOMed. OW! OW! STOP HITTING ME!!

-mcgrew

Overly negative

[peacefinder]

That writeup is a bit misleading. It's not like they just showed up and their vehicle burst into flames. In a previous attempt this weekend they completed a 90+ second flight, then about 88 seconds of the second, potentially prizewinning flight before engine trouble brought them down.

It wasn't enough to win the prize, but they still had some impressive flights.

Re:Overly negative

[Reality Master 101]

then about 88 seconds of the second, potentially prizewinning flight before engine trouble brought them down

I think it was 83 seconds (7 seconds short!), but it's also worth noting that they did the return flight with a fist-sized hole in the graphite engine. John decided to try the return flight by flying it over really fast, then hovering above the ground a few meters so if the engine finally quit, it would only fall a short distance. Flying with that much damage is amazing enough, but I also find it interesting how easily the rocket is programmed to do whatever Carmack wants, with such control.

Re:Overly negative

[peacefinder]

They've actually had several flights on that vehicle. Aside from ignition problems, they seem to have an engine design that can reliably run for several minutes at very decent thrust, and they obviously have a solid handle on flight stability. But yeah, the contest conditions exposed some troubles for them.

I'm not quite sure of my sources on this, but they seem to have had fuel (oxidizer? igniter?) contamination issues, leading to a flaky igniter, leading on the second flight to a hard start that caused engine damage. This damage was clear to them, so they chose to sit in a low hover at the end of their second flight to mitigate a half-expected crash. It appears that as the engine progressively got worse the vehicle started oscillating, and eventually the legs contacted the ground causing a tipover and automatic engine shutdown.

They're doing really well, but they will have to clear up their ignition issues. I'm pretty sure their suborbital flight profile will demand that they be able to do reliable in-flight restarts, so I think ignition is going to be a big issue for the over the next year.

Re:Overly negative

[brian.stinar]

Hey,

I went to Alamogordo to watch the competition. As a graduate student in Albuquerque, the 3.5 hour drive was worth it. As the previous poster commented, the Saturday flight was ALMOST successful. The first transition from pad to pad did not have any problems at all. The hovering lander was a very interesting sight to see above the desert. Due to safety issues, the viewing area was too far away to get a good look when the lander was close to the ground. However, a large video screen broadcast the images.

When I was standing there, watching, it was unclear what actually caused them to fail to meet the objectives. I thought the lander actually made the time limit on the return trip but did not land successfully. I thought it tipped over, or something broke off when it came down. However, I was unable to clearly see and my experience was based on a what people were saying over a loud speaker and the images of lander in a dusty cloud on a giant screen. It is interesting to read that they actually did not meet the time limit. I wasn't able to see the Sunday launch.

Overall, I will probably continue to support the competitions. Many people in New Mexico are excited about developing a consumer space industry, myself included. The air show had about the same excitement pattern as a baseball game, very exciting for a small portion of the time and a lot of waiting. I hope that the guys at Armadillo Aerospace know that everyone is rooting for them.

When I get ready to graduate, I will bring a STACK of resumes to the XPrize contests, there were a lot of really cool companies with booths set up.

      -Brian-

Hah-Hah! The X-Wing performed better!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously these guys aren't engineers, either!

Said in jest since Slashdot seemed so ready to poo-poo the X-Wing builders, but are soooo sympathetic for these guys.

That said...

Yeah, this stuff is hard to pull off. It's not called rocket science for nothing!

Parts is parts.

[UncHellMatt]

Afterward, Brett Alexander was heard to lament "Perhaps using those parts from my mom's old Pinto wasn't the best idea..."

"robust"?

[SuperBanana]

Pete Worden, a Lunar Lander Challenge judge - and director of NASA's Ames Research Center, told SPACE.com that the engine blew up, with the rocket's engine chamber tossing out pieces onto the pad. "It's over for them for this X Prize Cup," Worden said. But he added: "I do think they are getting there...it's a robust design.

That's one exciting definition of robust :-)

Frankenstein was heard to comment

[CRCulver]

Frankenstein, on hand to witness the event, was heard to comment "Fire...burn!"

Points to make

[Reality Master 101]

Inevitably, some "real" engineers will comment on this story and make snide armchair hindsight comments, with the overall point that it really does take a billion dollars to do rocketry.

Some points:

1) These are R&D vehicles. They are not production vehicles. Don't judge what production reliability will be like based on R&D.

2) They may not have made it over the finish line, but they are the only ones who entered the race among ten or so teams. Many of the teams said they were "close" last year, yet still couldn't make it work a year later.

The real measure of how successful Armadillo is going is the how easy they're making it look in their videos. But it's not easy, and the fact that they're the only one that's flying hoverable rockets on a weekly basis proves it.

One of the things that bugs me the most is when Aerospace engineers tear down what they're doing, implying they could do it better, if they only had Armadillo's money. Lots of people have money, but lots of people are also not making Armadillo's progress -- with volunteers, working two days a week.

Give Carmack the credit for being the genius that he is.

Re:Points to make

[wiredlogic]

Their problem is that they are (mostly) a bunch of software guys that think they can cobble some hardware together and make it work with a complete lack of engineering rigor. You can't deny their persistence and the amount of success they have earned over the years. If you take a look through their weblog, though, you will see tons of shoddy workmanship, even on elementary, low-tech stuff like wiring. They've got the engines themselves to a reasonably advanced stage of development but everything else is crap save for the software.

Re:Points to make

[AJWM]

2) They may not have made it over the finish line, but they are the only ones who entered the race among ten or so teams. Many of the teams said they were "close" last year, yet still couldn't make it work a year later.

There's a local (Colorado) team that has a vehicle and they felt it ready to enter, but (per the newspaper report) couldn't get the requisite FAA flight approval. (Sorry, don't recall whether it was Paragon or Micro-Space).

I would have thought that some kind of contest like this would have a blanket FAA waiver to cover the sight for the time involved. Apparently each vehicle also needs some kind of FAA documentation. Anyone know the details? Were any of the other teams that didn't enter in the same boat?

Re:Points to make

[Teancum]

I consider this comment to be the most well rounded and informed "criticism" of Armadillo Aerospace that I have ever seen posted on either /., or on any other forum for that matter.

I've noticed that SpaceX (and Elon Musk) has decided to push toward the vertical integration concepts that you are talking about here, and it seems to have saved them quite a bit in terms of both cost of operations as well as improving their quality assurance. The Falcon I still isn't a resounding success, but at least they have been able to put something into orbital altitudes and velocities... not bad for only two attempts. And when all is said and done, SpaceX will have spent close to a billion dollars to get everything going, so the suggestion that money is needed is a valid remark to make as well... at least if you want to get a rocket going sometime in a comparatively short period of time.

Another huge example of how American industry is failing companies like Armadillo Aerospace is the huge PITA efforts that John went through to try and get hydrogen peroxide for his initial mono-propellant engines. He certainly got a very effective peroxide engine built, but ran out of suppliers for the quality and purity that he needed for rocket fuel. Well, that and the Dept. of Homeland Security who treats 95% pure peroxide as a bomb making component with huge regulations over who can purchase the stuff, and companies who make the stuff worried about lawsuits, so they refuse to sell it unless it is a proven customer. This is but another example of where he had a neat idea (the peroxide engines) but was forced to change directions when he couldn't get the stuff that he wanted/needed to make his project work.

Explanation of the LLC rules

[jeti]

There is an excellent article on how the LLC rules were designed:
http://www.xprize.org/blogs/wpomerantz/ng-llc-rules-explained

"Officially a bad day..."

[WED Fan]

I've checked with the league and while there are qualifications to rate this as a bad day, the league still has to check on several rulings.

League spokesman, Heilig Gdankazan, has cautioned members to avoid premature declarations of official calls, "We expect to be able to officially rule this as an official bad day in the near future."

Previous bad days that took league intervention were:

• The sinking of the Titanic
• The burning of the Hindenburg
• Moira Gdankazan being caught in bed with Heilig's brother, Worly
• Richard M. Stallman's 7th year bath, last occuring on October 1st, 2002, over stressing the Municipal Waste station and causing a boil water order for most of the eastern seaboard
• The Courtney Love-Curt Cobain wedding
• Britney Spears showing up without panties

Re:Sorry to hear this

[Mr2cents]

I've been following their news flashes also, and indeed they are very open about what they're doing (and how). The amount of testing they've done is staggering, but the landing has always been the weakest link of the vehicle IMHO. I think landing is at least as difficult as building the rest of the rocket, but most testing went toward engine testing.

Lately, they have been flying reliably, but then they had to change the graphite chambers suddenly because the company they bought them from had received a big order and could not supply them to Armadillo. Is that what caused the problems? In any case, making changes just before the big show is always an omen for troubles (not that they had a choice).

It's really too bad, I thought they had a fair chance. I just hope John will take some time to really focus on the landing, the engine troubles will have to be examined but I don't think it will turn out to be a major issue (again, they've been flying for a while now, the engine is quite stable).

The good thing is that, as a sofware engineer, he surely knows how to handle crashes emotionally.

Re:Sorry to hear this

[XenoPhage]

I've been following their news flashes also, and indeed they are very open about what they're doing (and how). The amount of testing they've done is staggering, but the landing has always been the weakest link of the vehicle IMHO. I think landing is at least as difficult as building the rest of the rocket, but most testing went toward engine testing. Yeah, it looks like landing is definitely a tough one.. My guess is that the upward thrust, combined with the sudden outward forces induced when getting closer to the ground, causes some problems with the vertical landing. Seems that as they approach, the vehicle starts tilting a bit..

Lately, they have been flying reliably, but then they had to change the graphite chambers suddenly because the company they bought them from had received a big order and could not supply them to Armadillo. Is that what caused the problems? In any case, making changes just before the big show is always an omen for troubles (not that they had a choice). That may have been it, though there has been some talk about the fuel mixture as well. I guess there's no "standard" for fuel mixtures, or at least, not the kind they use, and the supplier may have changed the mixture slightly? I'm sure John and the rest of the crew will dissect, diagnose, and post the findings..

It's really too bad, I thought they had a fair chance. I just hope John will take some time to really focus on the landing, the engine troubles will have to be examined but I don't think it will turn out to be a major issue (again, they've been flying for a while now, the engine is quite stable). He sounded pretty disappointed... Went as far as saying that they felt worse than last year.. I think it was just a bad day.. Sure, improvement will definitely help, but there are always those days that nothing goes right.. That said, they did have some decent flights earlier.. And, the AST qualification flight went off without a hitch.. There's video here : http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2007_10_21/modFreeFlight.mpg

The good thing is that, as a software engineer, he surely knows how to handle crashes emotionally. Heh... There was a lot of discussion about how being a software engineer has impacted how he builds rockets.. Incremental improvements.. Build fast, fly often.. And it's worked.

it's not rocket SCIENCE

[Jim Morash]

"Once again, it proves that rocket science is hard."

Gaaah! Rocket science is not hard, you can pretty much sum it up with Newton's Laws.

Rocket engineering is hard. But engineers get no respect.

Can we stop making fun of NASA now?

[Quadraginta]

I mean, now that we know it's difficult to work with high-energy equipment, can we stop thinking NASA is a bunch of dunderheads for having the three very bad days (Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia) across half a century of otherwise amazing success?