Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Morpheus Lander Test Ends In Explosion

Posted by timothy on from the faw-down-go-boom dept.

First time accepted submitter DishpanMan writes "For every success story from NASA like Curiosity, there is a failure story, like today's Morpheus project test flight at Kennedy Space Center. The project is trying to build a low cost Moon and Asteroid lander using clean fuels on a shoestring budget. While tethered flight test were successful, today's actual flight test ended in a crash and a ball of fire followed by a spectacular explosion. Initial feedback points to hardware failure, but the investigation is still ongoing."

12 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. All I can say is... by Lord+Lode · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Waaaw, nice video of the crash! And immediately the action in the first 10 seconds of it. Well done!

    Too bad for the money and work that went into it. But then again, this is what tests are for, this result helps progress forward as well.

    1. Re:All I can say is... by jordanjay29 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if they did, the craft was untethered and they'd have no way to safely land it after killing the engine. So you'd wind up with a damaged vehicle, anyways, and there's a good chance that it would have exploded anyways. The craft only caught on fire after it crashed, not during the test firing itself, and the explosion was due to the fire reaching the fuel tanks.

      I really don't see how a kill switch would help them save money, and would probably just cost them more for useless expenditures.

    2. Re:All I can say is... by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ?

      You can put in a kill switch to the fuel pump to not pump more fuel into the rocket motor, and they no doubt have such devices installed. But the tanks are already full of all the fuel the vehicle will ever carry. And you can't put in a kill switch for the existence of the fuel. Once the thing is burning, any fuel remaining in the tanks is going to get out one way or another, regardless of any switches or valves.

      --
      John
    3. Re:All I can say is... by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      wrong, your gimbal would consider "down" to be the opposite direction of acceleration, rocket engines applying many times that of gravity. could put a gimbal mounted gyroscope to overcome that problem, but then you'd only be making a bigger explosion when the rocket hit the ground by stopping fuel usage.

  2. Not sure I would categorize this as a "Failure" by mykepredko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A "Failure" means loss of the mission. This is an unsuccessful test and is part of the process to ensure the hardware will work with a high degree of confidence so that the mission won't "fail" in its actual landing on the moon.

    Something to learn from and move forwards on.

    myke

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:Not sure I would categorize this as a "Failure" by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The video was very nostalgic. Reminded me of early NASA - things blew up all the time.

      All you whiners are just jealous. You're just upset because you don't get paid to build things and blow them up.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. Failure is the norm by pubwvj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "For every success story from NASA like Curiosity, there is a failure story"

    Yes, and if you never try you'll never fail. Bravo for you.

    Those of us who explore and push the boundaries do have failures, learn (if we live) and try again. Failure is the norm. Success is the wonderful exception.

  4. Who knew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I didn't know something so small could be *that* on fire.

  5. Re:"We have to expect this sort of thing"... by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would anyone want to approach a burning spacecraft? Let the fuel burn out, then extinguish the flames of what's left for disposal.

  6. Re:"We have to expect this sort of thing"... by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well if they'd shown up immediately, then after 2:00 the second team would have been scraping firefighter parts off the scenery. And so, after 6:21, would the third team.

    There's just no way to get a burning rocket fuel tank under control. Also no point; the craft is a loss anyway, and there's nothing else close enough to be in danger.

  7. Sometime in the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People will wonder why a moon lander has extra code in the control software allowing it to compensate for wind gusts.

    WHOOSh...

  8. Hardware failure or just wind? by lomedhi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Judging by the smoke flow, there was a pretty stiff breeze, and the lander crashed in the direction of the wind. Presumably the lander is not designed for these conditions, since there is no wind on the Moon or an asteroid. Could it be that they simply chose a bad day or location for the test?

    --
    Did you say "insightful" or "inciteful"?