Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Falcon 9 Launch Aborted At Last Minute

Posted by Unknown on from the timothy-camping-on-launchpad dept.

ClockEndGooner writes "Sadly, SpaceX had to abort its launch of the Falcon 9 to the International Space Station this morning due to higher than expected pressure levels in one of its engine chambers. NASA and SpaceX have another launch window scheduled for early next week." Probably better than an engine failing during launch; hopefully everything is worked out for Tuesday.

6 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. fuck CBS. by StormyWeather · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "It's a setback for NASA's plan to have private companies take over much of what's been an exclusively government enterprise. "

    Not really, the thing intelligently averted a possible problem. Look at the reams of government rockets that blew up on the pad or feet off the ground. Are folks set back? Maybe a little, but if it had blown up it would have been more of a learning experience than a setback. Rocketry is almost nothing but constant failure. The fact that they didn't lose the hardware is an amazing success in my book. Typical CBS trying to paint private enterprises as being unable to compete with the government. Sure private companies can't force citizens to pay for their goods, so are forced to maintain costs to a greater degree, but an amazing set of engineers working anywhere can do amazing things, and are only limited by the bureaucracies they work inside of corporate or government.

    1. Re:fuck CBS. by Teancum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the press conference after the launch abort, SpaceX said this was essentially a similar failure to one they had on the initial Falcon 9 flight.

      The #1 difference between this flight and the previous flight is that the launch window was so tight that they need to wait a couple of days to get the same launch opportunity again rather than doing a quick recycle and trying a minor fix like they did with the initial Falcon 9 launch. If all SpaceX had to do was to get this vehicle into orbit, it likely would already be there right now instead of being delayed by a couple more days.

      BTW, this same situation also happened several times with the Space Shuttle, and you are correct that this is pretty par for the course of any space launch. Rocket science is hard stuff and very unforgiving if you try to apply public relations and political correctness into the Rocket Equation. I guess the next launch opportunity is going to be Tuesday, as the engineers involved want to inspect the #5 rocket engine and find out what went wrong. They are going to be very busy over the next couple of days, likely pulling substantial overtime hours as well.

    2. Re:fuck CBS. by AJWM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The SpaceX spokeswoman compared it to a pilot doing an engine run-up and checking the gauges before take-off. They ran up the engines, didn't like what they saw on one of them, and shut it down.

      Shuttle did something similar at least once, possibly twice: ignited the main engines, saw something out of spec, and shut them down before lighting the solids. (Once you light solids, you're going somewhere whether you like it or not.)

      For that matter Gemini 6 (manned) did something similar with the engines lighting and the launch aborting before actual lift-off. In that case an electrical plug which was supposed to disconnect as the vehicle lifted off fell out when engines started. The computer saw that the plug was out but the vehicle hadn't moved and killed the engines. The astronauts should have ejected (if the Titan booster had lifted even a little it could have exploded when it fell back) but decided not to since they'd felt no motion (Schirra had experienced a Mercury launch). It launched successfully three days later.

      --
      -- Alastair
  2. Caution is good by gagol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am glad to see this private enterprise is going with caution as opposed to rushing their launch no matter what. Microsoft and many other software companies can start to take notes. Looking forward to see a Falcon 9 servicing the ISS safely when ready.

    --
    Tomorrow is another day...
  3. good call by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An aborted launch may not be a successful launch, but it also isn't a failed launch. Good call.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  4. Re:Agreed...mostly... by quacking+duck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Adding insult to injury, the reason why the Columbia was destroyed upon re-entry is in part because the Environmental Protection Agency got into a feud with NASA over the foam being used for the cryogenic tank connectors. The original foam being used would have broken up and was much, much lighter where it wouldn't have caused any problem like what caused damage to the leading edge tiles that ultimately caused the problems for the Columbia. The problem was that the original foam had chlorofluorocarbon compounds that were perceived as "hazardous to the environment". I don't know how many lives were spared by the switch to the new foam due to slightly reduced skin cancer rates worldwide, but I know of at least seven astronauts who are dead because of that change. I sure hope that EPA bureaucrat feels nice warm fuzzies over all of the lives he saved because of that move.

    The EPA bureaucrat has nothing on his conscience over the Columbia tragedy. The "EPA killed the Columbia astronauts!" hysteria that you wasted half your comment on, was Rush Limbaugh bullshit.

    As noted in this comment, the Columbia Accident Investigation Report states that the external tank used on that mission, and therefore the foam that broke off and doomed the shuttle, was an older tank and therefore still used the old CFC foam.

    (Link in that comment that refutes the Linbaugh bullshit: http://mediamatters.org/research/200508090007)