Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

On Hand for the SpaceX Launch That Almost Was (Video)

Posted by timothy on from the simulated-only-do-not-attempt-keep-hands-in-cart dept.

This morning's nixed launch of SpaceX's Dragon capsule to the ISS with the company's Falcon booster was an exciting thing to be on hand for, despite the (literally) last-second halt. Shuttle launches used to cause miles of traffic backups extending well outside the gates of NASA's Cape Canaveral launch facilities; for all the buzz around the first private launch to the ISS, today's launch attempt was much more sparsely attended. In a small set of bleachers set up near the massive countdown clock, there were a few dozen enthusiasts and reporters aiming their cameras and binoculars at the launch site on the horizon. They counted down in time with the clock, and — just like NASA's own announcer — reached all the way to "liftoff." There was a brief flash as the engines ignited, but it died as fast as it appeared. It took only a few seconds for the crowd to realize that it was all over for today's shot. While the company's representatives remain upbeat, pointing out that the software worked as intended to stop a launch before anomalies turn into catastrophes, most of those on hand to see what they'd hoped to be a historic launch were a bit glum as they walked back to the parking lot and the press area — especially the ones who can't stay until the next try. I'm sticking around the area until the next scheduled launch window; hopefully next time the fates (and engines) will align.

24 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Cue The Applause by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As frustrating as it is, this is a good example of the System Works and Learning From Past Mistakes.

    Now if only we could secure sufficient funding for NASA and space exploration in general, because no matter whether we had a shutdown or a catastrophe every failed launch is an expensive exercise.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:Cue The Applause by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2

      Are we taking bets on which Next Generation Launch Technology will be the first to reach deployment?

      (1) Space Elevator
      (2) ElectroMagnetic Launcher
      (3) Anti-Gravity
      (4) ?

      NB I expect that "Nuclear rockets" will never be deployed as a surface-launch technology due to radiation hazard issues.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    2. Re:Cue The Applause by jamesh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have any ideas at the likely to be possible in the next fifty years level?

      Either that, or better buttstrap bombs. This is the problem with progress... it might be safer and (maybe) cost less with tomorrows technology, but that will still be true tomorrow too, and if you keep waiting for tomorrow you'll never get anywhere.

      So if we want to go beyond the earth's atmosphere now we'll just have to keep strapping bombs to our butts.

    3. Re:Cue The Applause by khallow · · Score: 5, Informative

      Now if only we could secure sufficient funding for NASA and space exploration in general, because no matter whether we had a shutdown or a catastrophe every failed launch is an expensive exercise.

      We already have sufficient funding. NASA could pay for hundreds of Falcon 9 launches per year right now, if that were the goal.

    4. Re:Cue The Applause by bbn · · Score: 2

      it seemed to me the biggest danger was something severing the wire and having it fall back to earth

      Yes it will be like dropping 100 tons of paper from orbit. Very dangerous. It will never reach the surface before burning up though... And if it did, it would drop like leaves, slow, harmless and spread over a huge area of sea.

      People seem to forget the whole point of using this still non-existing super strong material for the wire, is to have the strength even when it is stretched mind boggling long. It will have a huge surface to weight ratio. More than anything man or nature ever made before.

    5. Re:Cue The Applause by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      Dear Americans:

      Please consider losing weight and reading a book or two, preferably about logic.

      Why do you want to torture the Americans?

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    6. Re:Cue The Applause by Teancum · · Score: 2

      I wasn't aware that fiber optic ethernet communications systems using IPv6 and radiation hardened FPGAs using multi-core processors was 1960's technology. I could be mistaken on that notion however. That is just the guidance computer and the internal communications systems in the Falcon 9, much less the Niobium nozzles and the friction stir welded tanks that are used in the Falcon 9.

      If all of that is 1960's tech, I'd hate to see what real 21st century technology would be like.

    7. Re:Cue The Applause by Bucc5062 · · Score: 2

      I agree with almost everything you said.

      "Just as the world went through a biplane phase, we have to go through a rocket phase."

      During the "bi-plane phase" there were numerous builders, some even home built, that pushed the technology along. Before the war was the commerce and thrill seekers that funded these efforts and out of them we got some amazing innovations, and some deaths (it was prize money that sent folks across the Atlantic, not national pride).

      This is the topic We get trouble by these days and I don't get it. Lindbergh was the first to cross the Atlantic (solo), but we don't talk about the many who died trying. Those that died in the early BeeGee racers were test pilots like the Yeagers to come later in military life. Bottom line, there was a lot of dying going on as the aviation technology grew, in part because the cost of entry was less expensive, and our society did not wring our hands over each death.

      Along comes NASA, Government funding, cold wars and soon our position changes from low cost to unaffordable. Never was there a prize for commercial or individual achievements in space flight for the world wrapped "War" around the purpose and that is the most fleeting of reasons for growth. We also get the sense that even one life is too costly, because we've tied it to national pride, national image and By God if those boys die then it reflects badly on our country. Bullshit! The people who died in Columbia were not heros, they were astronauts doing their job. Had they even survived they still would not be heros for they used training to figure out how to survive (or equipment). I respect human life, but we got to stop this direction that space and those who attempt to go are gods, protected at all costs. No, I would not put my ass in some home grown experiment and get launched into space (I prefer my technology use more mature). but I will applaud anyone who takes the chance, weighs the options, and goes. Even that failure would teach us more then we learn at the glacial pace taken today.

      My hats off to SpaceX, I wish them success, but I also wish more people tried or were encouraged for out of 100 or 1000, there might be one that finds a working model for the next step in space.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  2. It was actually pretty exciting to watch by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've never seen a launch aborted this late before. The announcer had already said "Liftoff," and you could see the flames building up rapidly as usual. The rocket was only one second from moving off the pad when the shutdown command was triggered.

    Gwynne Shotwell's quote in another article was a good one -- paraphrasing, she told the reporter that the launch wasn't really seen as a "failure," because that's what happens when you fail to catch a fault condition in time.

    Just as any landing you can walk away from is a good landing, any launch that doesn't end with the rocket in a million flaming pieces is a good launch. They can try again in 3 days.

    1. Re:It was actually pretty exciting to watch by AJWM · · Score: 4, Funny

      any launch that doesn't end with the rocket in a million flaming pieces is a good launch.

      Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to steal that. It's too good not to.

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:It was actually pretty exciting to watch by BagOBones · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was reading a on this earlier, (not sure if it is in the link) but SpaceX is actually using a new launch system that intentionally holds the rocket on the pad after ignition just so that additional telemetry can be gathered about the operating state of all the engines at power...

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    3. Re:It was actually pretty exciting to watch by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Not a bad idea. You waste only the tiniest it of fuel, while giving you just enough time to locate most failure scenarios (not all, by any means, but a lot of them). If you didn't hold it on the pad, even the relatively short distance it would rise would require you to continue liftoff (aborting later on, which is very dangerous), since even a tiny fall will destroy the rocket.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:It was actually pretty exciting to watch by AJWM · · Score: 4, Informative

      The implementation may be new (I don't know), but the idea isn't. Hold-down clamps have been around for a while, probably since at least the V-2 (A-4). The idea is to hold the thing down long enough for the engine(s) to build up enough thrust to lift properly, rather than just knock the rocket over.

      The Shuttle had explosive bolts holding the SRBs down so the thing wouldn't blow over, either in a strong wind or when the SSME's lit. I'm not sure that they were strong enough to hold it down once the solids ignited, though (not that additional telemetry is going to do you any good at that point.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    5. Re:It was actually pretty exciting to watch by caseih · · Score: 3, Interesting

      These hold downs are pretty amazing. If you've ever watched recent shuttle launch videos you can see the top of the shuttle lurch a couple of feet laterally when the SSME's light up. It's pretty spectacular. I believe that the SRBS light a couple of seconds before liftoff, so the entire thing is held down for a second or two, even after SRBs lit.

      The main difference between the Shuttle and the Falcon 9 as far as launch abort goes is that the SRBs cannot be shut down. As soon as they light, the launch has to happen. The SSMEs of course could shut down after ignition, and in fact did so on an occasion or two. Normally this would happen about T-6 seconds or so, unlike the T-0 shutdown of the falcon 9.

    6. Re:It was actually pretty exciting to watch by trout007 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have lots of experience with the Shuttle hold down studs. The way they work is there are 4 conical hold down posts at the base of each SRB that are attached to the pad. A 3 ft long 4 inch diameter inconnel bolt goes through the SRB skirt and hold down post. A nut goes on the top and bottom. The preload in the bolt is over a million pounds. You would need a big torque wrench to get that but instead we use a hydraulic puller that stretched the stud and then you slightly tighten the nut and when you let go of the hydraulics the stud is nice and tight.

      The stud doesn't explode. The top nut has two explosive charges in it. If either one goes the nut is split and the stud shoots out since its under such a high preload. There is a blast container that is supposed to prevent FOD. Each charge is handled by a seperate circuit. We did have a few cases where the studs didn't come out. It turns out there was a unknown failure mode. If the two charges went off with just the right delay you had a situation where the nut halves would bounce off their blast container and come back and hit the stud and the threads could catch just right slowing the stud down.

      It was cool. We did about 30 tests shooting high speed footage with different skew delays in firing the charges.

      But to answer your question. The studs are stronger than the aluminum aft skirt which would probrably be torn if more than one bolt failed to release. This would have been catastrophic.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    7. Re:It was actually pretty exciting to watch by quacking+duck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are right about the lateral movement, but the shuttle stack doesn't just move laterally one way--it actually reverses (since the stack is still bolted to the pad) and the timing is such that when the SRBs fire, the stack is pointed true vertical again.

      The SRBs are not held down once they fire though. Check out this incredible series of slow-motion video from a lot of cameras you might never have seen footage from--it's like porn for space tech junkies. Jump to 6m28s for the first camera on the SRBs, which record the explosive bolts that hold the SRBs down. You'll actually see the bolts fire and release the SRBs a fraction of a second *before* we see the flames come out from the SRBs.

      I posted earlier today about STS-68, which aborted the launch sequence at T-1.9 seconds, the closest to T-0 the shuttle ever got in an on-pad abort. There's a video of that launch attempt on Youtube too, but there's a second video (not on Youtube, unfortunately) showing the engines firing up and then shutting down. They actually flame out one by one, presumably to lessen the magnitude of the lateral motion that now lasts for several back-and-forth swings.

    8. Re:It was actually pretty exciting to watch by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      I've never seen a launch aborted this late before. The announcer had already said "Liftoff," and you could see the flames building up rapidly as usual. The rocket was only one second from moving off the pad when the shutdown command was triggered.

      The earliest I can recall this happening was on Gemini 6's first launch attempt in Dec 1965.

    9. Re:It was actually pretty exciting to watch by Animats · · Score: 2

      I've never seen a launch aborted this late before.

      Space shuttle abort after main engine start, 1984.

      Mercury-Redstone launch abort after main engine start, 1960. (This is the famous "launched the escape tower launch.)

      Most liquid-fueled launchers have had this capability. It's important for any multi-engine launcher, in case not all the engines start. It's usually considered a requirement for man-rating a launch system.

    10. Re:It was actually pretty exciting to watch by Teancum · · Score: 2

      I forget which flight where this happened, but it seems like there was a very early NASA flight which did lift off the pad and land back down, only going just a fraction of an inch (or a few millimeters) before coming back down, then the engines shut off.

      I also remember seeing several early flights where the rocket did lift off more than a few feet then came crashing back down... in some cases taking the launch tower out with the rocket. This particular procedure of holding the rocket down at launch has some very expensive and spectacular launches as the reason why this is done. A couple of these launches even made network television broadcasts before astronauts started to ride the very same rockets (I think they were Redstone and Atlas rockets that had problems in the early days of the Mercury program).

    11. Re:It was actually pretty exciting to watch by david.given · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's the difference between a bomb and a rocket?

      Bombs blow things up. Rockets blow things up.

  3. Faulty valve located by mikesimaska · · Score: 5, Informative

    From SpaceX on twitter:

    Inspections found a faulty check valve on engine #5. We are replacing tonight. Next attempt Tuesday, 5/22 at 3:44 AM ET.

    IMO this whole ordeal has been nothing but a positive for SpaceX.

    1. Problem occurs.
    2. Successfully respond.
    3. PROFIT!!

    --
    ---- mike simaska
  4. Transcript by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Informative

    *tap tap* is this thing on?

    -----

    Title: Scheduled SpaceX Launch Scrubbed at the Last Minute
    Description: The kids whose experiment was scheduled to go into space were disappointed but not crushed by the delay

    00:00) TITLE
    A SlashdotTV title animation appears.

    00:05) TITLE
    The view fades to that of Timothy Lord on the grounds at Cape Canaveral.

    00:05) Timothy
    This is not what anyone saw today on Cape Canaveral.

    00:08) TITLE
    An animation sequence of what was to be the SpaceX Falcon+Dragon launch is shown with "- animated simulation - do not try at home" repeatedly scrolling past in the bottom. Hereafter referred to as "SpaceX animated simulation".

    00:19) Timothy
    Instead it was pretty darn disappointing when today's launch of SpaceX's Dragon capsule was nixed with just seconds on the clock.

    00:25) Timothy
    An early announcement said the abort was based on a high pressure reading in engine number 5.

    00:29) TITLE
    SpaceX animated simulation is shown.

    00:33) Timothy
    Among those disappointed by the launch were some students who were here all the way from Indiana to watch the launch of an experiment they've been working on since last October.

    00:40) TITLE
    A shot of three kids at the Cape Canaveral facilities appears.

    00:40) J.P.
    I am J.P. [last name]

    00:42) Cameron
    And I'm Cameron [last name]

    00:44) Jack
    And I'm Jack [last name]

    00:45) J.P.
    We are from Highland, Indiana.
    We were here to see the Falcon 9 take off, with our experiment, for the International Space Station.

    00:56) J.P.
    Our experiment is: how does microgravity affect the nutritional value of a 92M72 genetically modified soy bean sprout.

    01:08) J.P.
    Astronauts were gonna perform the experiment, and then it was gonna be sent back down to Earth, and we were gonna also perform the experiment on Earth, and compare the results.

    01:21) Jack
    It's an after-school extracurricular club that we have.

    01:25) Jack
    The shirts we got from Pioneer [Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc -- ed.] who gave us a grant to come down here.
    They gave us the seeds, and so they gave us a grant to get some press for the shirts and stuff, and they gave us a grant to come down here - they paid for everything, so..

    01:39) Jack
    I'm not too disappointed because.. it's a space program and things happen, and we have Tuesday to look forward to - whether on TV or we get to come here - and we'll see what happens.

    01:50) TITLE
    SpaceX animated simulation is shown.

    01:55) TITLE
    The view fades back to Timothy on the grounds at Cape Canaveral.

    01:56) Timothy
    The next launch window is Tuesday, about 72 hours from now.
    Hopefully the fourth time's the charm, and we'll actually see both Falcon and Dragon take off.

    02:03) TITLE
    SpaceX animated simulation is shown.

    02:18) TITLE
    A SlashdotTV credits animation sequence is shown. The credits depicted are:
    Camera and narration: Timothy Lord
    Edited by Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
    Opening title by Danielle Attinella
    Animated footage supplied by SpaceX

    -----

    And why does the antenna no longer break out of the header bar?

  5. wrong rocket in the animation by Skylax · · Score: 3, Informative

    The rocket launch animation in the video does not show the Falcon 9 rocket+Dragon but the not yet fully developed Falcon 9 Heavy (SpaceX) which according to the SpaceX launch manifest will have a first test launch later this year (but I guess late 2013 seems more likely judging from SpaceX's previous track record of delays).

           

  6. "SpaceX is old tech" by goodmanj · · Score: 4

    Lot of comments here saying that the SpaceX rockets are pretty much the same old technology as the 1950s, and why aren't we focusing on carbon fiber scramjet single-stage spaceplanes or flying saucers powered by dark energy?

    Because two-stage kerosene-and-oxygen rockets *work*. It's proven technology, you *know* it's going to work, and you don't have to spend billions on aerodynamics research to figure out if it's going to outfly its own skin. From there, you can add in high-tech electronics, advanced manufacturing, etc., as SpaceX has done.

    This sort of practical solution to real-world problems using tried-and-true technology is something every engineer should appreciate. Including an engineer you all know and love..