Falcon 9 Launch Aborted At Last Minute

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.

Comments

Last minute pullout

[arcite]

I guess it's better than blowing up!

fuck CBS.

[StormyWeather]

"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.

Re:fuck CBS.

[Teancum]

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.

Re:fuck CBS.

[Kjella]

Tell me, How much of the 1960's Saturn V payload of 256,000 LBS to orbit can this shining new example of "private" technology the Falcon lift? If and when it works?

Well, the heaviest rocket the US can launch today after the shuttle program ended is the Delta IV-H, which at 29 kLBS is not that much bigger than a Falcon 9 at 23 kLBS. The Saturn Vs were an amazing piece of engineering, but they retired almost 40 years ago because they had no other market or purpose than to go to the moon. The Falcon 9 will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Delta IV, Atlas V etc. in their most common medium configuration and the planned Falcon Heavy would exceed any rocket operational today but it'll still only be half a Saturn V. I'm sure SpaceX would love to build a rocket bigger and more badass than the Saturn V, but unless the endless budgets of the Apollo era come back I don't think that's going to happen. Not for NASA, not for SpaceX.

Re:fuck CBS.

[AJWM]

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.

Caution is good

[gagol]

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.

good call

[tverbeek]

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

Re:technical problems != technicalities

[Anonymous Coward]

Liquid rockets can usually be shut down. Many can be throttled and even be restarted too.

Agreed...mostly...

[neoshroom]

I'd have to agree with you entirely, minus the misdirected political assumptions.

The journalist is looking at it from the standpoint that SpaceX was supposed to launch today and something went wrong, so it's a setback. In reality, what happened today was somewhat impressive in-and-of itself. The Falcon rocket auto-detected a problem with software and half a second before liftoff shut itself down without any damage.

Would NASA have ever been able to do that? No. NASA would have sent the rocket into space with the problem because it had no such software. This already seems way better and safer.

However, the journalist probably just didn't think about it that in-depth and so sees the failure to launch as a small failure (which it is, albiet not a serious one and a strong success at the same time). His talk of government is just boilerplate background not a biased pro-government agenda.

Re:Agreed...mostly...

[Gripp]

you honestly think NASA used zero fault detection?? they had triple redundancy of nearly every system for god's sake! I for one see a pressure sensor/valve as nothing impressive. I can't imagine that such technology hasn't been employed in the space program since day one.

As for TFA - the media makes me bitter. Something that was intended for the good of the public has become vastly more of a harm. While I am of the opinion that the transition from public to private space programs should have been accomplished more organically, privatizing it overall is a good thing. And smear campaigns by the media is only helping to setback our nation - as funding and public opinion are often closely related.

Re:Agreed...mostly...

[dpilot]

For onething, at least one launch was aborted after the SSMEs fired, 6 seconds before the SRBs were set to fire. Did you never listen to the radio control patter, especially during the early shuttle launches. They were careful to say what "window options" were open during each phase of the flight. There was "abort to launch site", "abort tranatlantic", (to Spain, I believe.) and "abort to orbit:". Beyond that, there were points where various abort or even mission completion options could be accomplished with a one-engine fail, or later on even with a two-engine fail.

Much as it may be fun to bash NASA, they've probably forgotten more about such mission control aspects than private industry has had the chance to learn yet. While we're still bashing NASA, they've probably forgotten many of their own lessons.

Re:Agreed...mostly...

[quacking duck]

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)

Delta II blew up in 1997

[C0L0PH0N]

The technology to abort a takeoff in the last 1/2 second is truly amazing, and because of high combustion pressure in an engine is a perfect catch. If the Boeing Delta II in 1997 had had the same type of status checking, it might have discovered the 17 foot crack in the booster, and aborted also, instead of blowing up on launch: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9701/17/rocket.explosion/index.html. And a Delta III had a rocket engine failure in 1999, which ruined the mission: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990626&slug=2968601. So the ability to detect an engine problem and shutdown before liftoff is again an amazing feat, and shows advancing technology. SpaceX is doing this right!