SpaceX Launch Not So Perfect After All

First time accepted submitter drichan writes "Those of us who watched the live feed of last night's Falcon 9 launch could be forgiven for assuming that everything went according to plan. All the reports that came through over the audio were heavy on the word "nominal," and the craft successfully entered an orbit that has it on schedule to dock with the International Space Station on Wednesday. But over night, SpaceX released a slow-motion video of what they're calling an 'anomaly.'"

Comments

An

[JustOK]

An anomaly? That's strange.

Re:An

[the gnat]

Libertarians rode the back of this and shouted about how much better it would be to privatise space. But in fact we're just right (*) here again, with SpaceX substituted for Boeing.

I think you'll find it's not just libertarians cheering for this - after all, privatizing the launch infrastructure has been a key element of Obama's space plans. The difference from the previous situation, where NASA relied on bloated defense contractors, is that SpaceX and its competitors will have to enter fixed-price bids, instead of the old cost-plus contracts which gave the contractors zero incentive for efficiency. Whether this will actually work in the long run remains to be seen, but it's hard to see how this is worse than the old system, and putting the federal government into the launch vehicle business sounds like a spectacularly awful idea.

Re:An

[guruevi]

I don't think you know how these so-called fixed-price bids work for governments. They're not fixed at all as the contract or language implies. They are just starting points for negotiations on more contracts as the scopes and costs change on both ends of the contract.

Basically a government fixed-price request is a very vague description of an idea. The fixed-price bid is a very vague description of a project and associated budget. Whether or not the budget then balloons to eclipse the specified price is irrelevant to the bureaucracy on either side.

Re:An

[the gnat]

That's not consistent with what I've read about this subject. For instance:

...in some quarters outright disbelief remains regarding the launch prices actually posted on the SpaceX website for the Falcon Heavy. No other company has posted fixed launch prices on the Internet — only SpaceX. The actual taxpayer cost of US government launches can only be guessed by calculating from the cost-plus contract costs, which are usually for multiple launches from the same customer. If SpaceX does multiple launches, the posted price would be reduced depending on the number of launches.

Or this:

Rather than the traditional cost-plus model, in which companies are reimbursed the cost of a project plus an additional amount that guarantees them a profit, SpaceX and Orbital are working under newly established Space Act Agreements, in which NASA pays increments of a fixed price once the companies accomplish previously agreed upon milestones.

To reiterate, this is no guarantee that it will actually work better (and not just more cheaply) than the old system. For it to really be a success there needs to be a competitive market, a sustainable business model, and a lack of heavily subsidized competition from the Chinese. But I really hope it does succeed.

Re:An

[khallow]

I like the unintentional "it's far worse than you think" vibe I get off this description.

Basically a government fixed-price request is a very vague description of an idea. The fixed-price bid is a very vague description of a project and associated budget. Whether or not the budget then balloons to eclipse the specified price is irrelevant to the bureaucracy on either side.

The more profit the private side gets, then the more money for bureaucracies on either side either directly through profit or indirectly through bribes and the revolving door. Such things are illegal only if you get caught. This is a built in incentive to balloon costs of projects.

Ever wonder why Congress keeps coming up with cost plus schemes for funding big rockets which use ATK solid rocket motors? Because ATK knows which bureaucracies to bribe.

Re:An

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why you can have a fixed price contract in this situation is that NASA isn't really defining any requirements; also not changing them midstream; but also that there is little development risk. The rocket from SpaceX isn't really anything innovative, which is actually a good thing, not a bad thing.

Where fixed price contracts don't work is when you have a significant amount of development risk, and you end up having to build that into the cost of the contract, meaning that you often don't end up with low price bids. Europe's ESA for example pretty much only works from Fixed Price contracts, which builds in the cost of that risk into the project, inflating the bid cost, and you end up with Europe overall, not really committing to many projects, because they get sticker shock.

Who can say which method is better overall.

Re:An

[khallow]

What I don't like is the fact that space is becoming increasingly privatised.

Well, why shouldn't it be? Most endeavors in the US are handled privately.

Then Musk came along and said, "Hey, I've got rich from founding the world's worst consumer bank, how about I give you the first few hits for free?" and hired a few experienced people.

Libertarians rode the back of this and shouted about how much better it would be to privatise space. But in fact we're just right (*) here again, with SpaceX substituted for Boeing.

And a considerably cheaper launch vehicle compared to the Delta IV (which Boeing put in the United Launch Alliance rather than continue to fly it themselves). I can't argue with results.

Re:An

[TFAFalcon]

Weren't all rockets built by private companies? So why not let private companies compete against NASA (which is now mostly just a wealth-transfer entity - subsidizing US corporations)

Now that it's been demonstrated that space can be cheaper then what NASA is used to doing, other companies can get in on the game. So NASA will be able to have some options in the selection of their manufacturers.

Re:An

[kellymcdonald78]

To clairfy the contracts that SpaceX and Orbital are operating under for station resupply are neither "cost-plus" nor "fixed price" contracts, they are "fee for service" contracts. NASA pays for certain miletones successfully achieved and cargo delivered to the station. NASA doesn't buy Falcon 9's or Dragons (the Dragon remains the property of SpaceX) they are buying the service (just as they buy FedEx and Airline tickets)

Re:An

[FeatureSpace]

You are exaggerating.

First of all, US government solicitations can be vague or specific. When they are vague, it is intentional in order to encourage a wide variety of proposals. Have a look at: http://www.sbir.gov/solicitations

Now here is where you are very wrong. Bids and proposals are anything but "a very vague description of a project and associated budget". Maybe years ago, in some areas of the US Government this was true. Maybe its still true in a handful of areas. But right the majority of DoD proposals are very specific. I've composed, won and lost SBIR proposals. Vague SBIR proposals are rarely awarded.

Re:An

[ultranova]

What I don't like is the fact that space is becoming increasingly privatised.

Why? All it really means is that launch costs are getting low enough that it no longer requires the resources of a nation-state to do them. Historically, that has marked the tipping point where money starts pouring in and advancements accelerate. So why not let SpaceX's investors pay for further research into the matter? It's not like it excludes anyone else from doing likewise.

Whats the problem?

[ZiakII]

The Falcon 9, as its name implies, has nine engines, and is designed to go to orbit if one of them fails. On-board computers will detect engine failure, cut the fuel supply, and then distribute the unused propellant to the remaining engines, allowing them to burn longer. This seems to be the case where that was required, and the computers came through. The engines are also built with protection to limit the damage in cases where a neighboring engine explodes, which appears to be the case here.

Sounds like it did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Re:Whats the problem?

[residieu]

Just because you have a backup plan, and it works, doesn't mean the launch was perfect.

Re:Whats the problem?

[Hentes]

The fact that the rocket had enough redundancy built in doesn't mean that the cause of the failure should not be investigated.

Re:Whats the problem?

[Maximum Prophet]

Who is saying it shouldn't be investigated? Every launch should be measured and checked.

If you can recover the engines, the unburned parts tell you where they're too heavy, and the burnt through parts tell you where you need more strength.

Re:Whats the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

As the update to the article from SpaceX points out - the engine didn't blow.

Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night’s launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued immediately. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.

As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.

Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do. Like the Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission.

Re:Whats the problem?

[afidel]

It wasn't an engine explosion, the protective fairing around the engine shattered when the engine cutoff caused a major change in pressure. SpaceX said that they continued to receive telemetry data from the engine which means it did not explode, and in fact was physically intact though not functioning correctly.

Re:Whats the problem?

[MightyYar]

The first outage was during an earlier Apollo with a dummy payload - they actually failed to achieve their planned orbit and had it been a moon launch, they would have had to scrub. But since it was just a test, and since they thought they knew the solution - they called it a success and did not delay the program.

The second outage was, ominously, on Apollo 13.

Re:Whats the problem?

[jamstar7]

As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.

IIRC, there was no way to recompute a Saturn 5 flight profile on the fly. Remember, kids, that was back in the days when we hunted dinosaurs from the backs of our '57 Chevys. Kudos to SpaceX for having enough out of the box thinking to have the needed software routines in the can already and ready to go. Falcon 9 is more than just another Big Dumb Booster, AAMOF, from everything I'm reading and seeing of its operation, it's pretty goddamned smart. Remember the test flight to the ISS? The first launch attempt, the onboard computers detected a glitch that might have taken out the bird and shut down and aborted the launch right at T -0, even after the humans tapped the buttons authorising the computers to do the launch. Like I say, some serious onboard smarts programmed by some seriously smart people.

Re:Whats the problem?

[fyngyrz]

No, the engine did not explode. The fairing around the nozzle was crush by the sudden loss of interior pressure when the engine shut down -- the external pressure was then much higher than the nozzle's interior pressure (no more rocket exhaust) and it got crushed and fell away, harming nothing. The engine is still there, intact, and it did, in fact, just turn off.

Re:Whats the problem?

[astrodoom]

Actually, according to SpaceX engineers, it did not explode as they were able to continue to communicate with it. The current theory is the outer covering blew off because of the change in pressure.

From TFA: "We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event."

Re:Whats the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, they need to build the next engine entirely out of sensors.

Re:Whats the problem?

[Teancum]

From what can be read between the lines, the engine didn't explode but rather imploded. It shut off at "maximum dynamic pressure", sometimes called simply "Max-Q", when the atmospheric pressure pushing against the vehicle due to its velocity is at the highest it can be at that point in the flight. Between the pressure from outside of the spacecraft and from the nearby engines, the nozzle apparently collapsed in on itself and tore loose, hence the debris.

The engine itself was still there, just missing the nozzle. That is why data was continuing to be sent from the engine and respond to system queries about its status. Had it exploded, those sensors and microcontrollers running the engine would not be in place.

Technically you are correct that all that could be said from the telemetry is that the sensors were still in place, but those sensors would not be registering if it was an outright explosion.

Re:Whats the problem?

[rickb928]

If that's accurate, then SpaceX is looking into a shutdown event, a LOT different than a destructive failure. The fairing imploding will either be the anticipated result, or a new issue to understand and resolve/document.

Shutdown may be accompanied by data, and there is a fix. Valves, pumps, all kinds of fairly well understood stuff to analyze and resolve. Destructive catastrophic failure would be much more disturbing.

So far, they seem to be doing at least as well as NASA did in the early days. Mercury was a real crap shoot, and early Saturn development was exciting to say the least. I filled a few scrapbooks with notes on those faiures. Fun times...

Re:Whats the problem?

[shutdown -p now]

Shooting yourself in the foot is, none the less, not exactly what you're supposed to do.

I'm a C++ developer, you insensitive clod!

Re:Whats the problem?

[0123456]

The Saturn V used a pitch and roll program early in the launch, then switched to closed-loop guidance. If I remember correctly, the digital computer calculated the ideal orientation to reach the desired orbit and an analogue computer tried to move the operational engines to achieve that. So the capability was limited, but it was there.

Re:Whats the problem?

[tsahi]

The Shuttle also had an engine shut down, on STS-51F. It aborted to orbit.

Re:Whats the problem?

[TWX]

First, what's the cost per unit of payload mass?

Second, what's the value in being able to send up smaller missions, akin to a commuter flight versus a jumbo jet?

Third, what's the redundancy of having multiple functional launch systems worth?

Fourth, what's the value in the US having a launch system of its own without depending on other countries?

Fifth, what's the likelihood that having this launch system prove to be successful will result in the developer working on heavier-lift systems?

When the United States has no launch system we are completely dependent on the Russians for access to a very expensive machine built with enormous cost to us and to all of the other participating countries. Should the Russians decide that they don't want to play anymore, they could simply deny our astronauts access, making the station de facto Russian property. Since the Russians have significantly more station experience than we do, I'm sure that they'd be able to operate it without us.

Our having a launch system, ultimately intended to be man-rated, essentially prohibits that possibility. Same with the Europeans, if they ever have a man-rated rocket. I'm all for that.

Re:Whats the problem?

[quasius]

According to wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 ), the Falcon 9 can deliver 29k lbs to LEO.

Re:Whats the problem?

[notsoanonymouscoward]

Care to update the wiki page? At least according to that....

ATV capable of 7,667kg to orbit.
Dragon capable of 3,310 kg pressurized ( + another 3,310 non pressurized)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_space_station_cargo_vehicles

Who knows... maybe just maybe NASA is paying for token payloads until SpaceX gets their flight rate up (and thus some notion of improved reliability).

Re:Whats the problem?

[adri]

.. can we please have those scrapbooks scanned and placed online? pretty please?

Re:Whats the problem?

[0123456]

The astronauts could fly the Saturn V to orbit manually, though it was never done. They would probably get to a usable orbit, but I'd guess it was unlikely to be good enough to get to the Moon.

Re:Whats the problem?

[rickb928]

No. Mine.

Re:Whats the problem?

[johnny cashed]

None of the Saturn series rockets were "dumb". The booster had its own guidance system independent of the spacecraft's guidance system.

For further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Launch_Vehicle_Digital_Computer

Re:Whats the problem?

[johnny cashed]

The computer was fitted to the instrument unit (IU) that was on the S-IVB stage. That computer controlled the stack up until the stage (S-IVB) fitted with the instrument unit was jettisoned. (There abouts anyway, I'm sure there was a "hand-off" to the Apollo guidance computer). Technically the earliest of Saturns had no IU, but they were not manned flights. I believe this was due to the IU still being in development. Here is more on the IU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V_Instrument_Unit

not really a bad thing

[wierd_w]

The engine failure of the falcon 9 engine #1 is not really a bad thing. It served to prove the reliability of the shutoff system, and flight control hardware.

Considering the horrendous failure rate of NASA's early engines, (the kind that explode spectacularly), this managed failure situation is very promising.

Rest assured, there will likely be a strong inquiry concerning the manufacture and design of the engine fairing that failed, causing the pressure drop, and engine shutdown.

Managed failures like this one don't speak poorly of spacex. On the contrary. They show spacex planned ahead, and the failsafes they built actually work.

Re:not really a bad thing

[Virtucon]

Not just Early Engines..

Let's see, there was the Titan IV which took out a facility at Edwards AFB on April Fools Day in 1991. Now that was an Air Force engine, but fairly modern. There was another Titan IV which exploded in more spectacular fashion.

Recently, we have the NASA Morpheus Lander Explosion.

Then there's the Delta II, which is a newer launch system which has exploded at least twice that I'm aware of. Once in 1995 and another in 1997.

The point is that NASA and the Air Force and their various subcontractors, SpaceX not included, don't have a perfect record on launch vehicle malfunctions. You can't have lots of propellant with oxidizer burning without some sort of malfunction. While still rare, these events can and do happen and it's good to see SpaceX plan for these kinds of things unlike the Soviets did when their Moon Rocket went "boom" when they were testing in the 60s In Fact, all four launches of the N-1 were failures.

Re:not really a bad thing

[TWX]

No, failsafes refer to a designed-in failure method that is not catastrophic to the whole assembly.

Some engines, like turboshaft engines, have an intentional narrow point in the driveshaft designed to fail under the right circumstances. If something's got to give, make it something that fails without either destroying the machine outright or else killing the occupants.

A rocket design that manages to avoid destroying the vehicle when an engine explodes definitely qualifies as fail-safe.

Re:not really a bad thing

[EvanED]

Not to take anything away from SpaceX, but to the extent that you mean to suggest "SpaceX did a better job than NASA did early on" (which may be none at all), it's of course not really fair to compare considering that SpaceX didn't exactly throw out the knowledge that NASA and others built up because of those failures.

Re:not really a bad thing

[wierd_w]

This is very true, but if you've ever worked in aerospace, you surely know about "tribal knowledge."

SpaceX would have started with a clean slate in that department, and without NASA's tribal knowledge... let's just say that I am very pleased with their performance.

Re:not really a bad thing

[Teancum]

The interesting thing is what may be a failure of the orbital insertion of the Orbcom satellite that was supposed to use the 2nd stage of the Falcon 9 for an additional burn after separation of the Dragon. Apparently either due to this engine loss of the 1st stage or some other problem, that satellite didn't get to the desired orbit.

It will be interesting to see if SpaceX will refund Orbcom their money or do something extra to help them out.

Re:not really a bad thing

[Electricity Likes Me]

I was under the impression that SpaceX had poached a ton of former NASA or support company people?

Re:not really a bad thing

[Nethemas the Great]

Actually there was nothing preventing the Orbcom sat from being inserted into the proper orbit but for rules by NASA and their ISS partners (Russians) that told them that they were not allowed to reignite the second stage because of the malfunction in the first stage.

Re:not really a bad thing

[Nethemas the Great]

There was nothing wrong with the insertion. The Falcon 9 actually shuts down two engines during late flight of the first stage so as to not exceed 5g acceleration anyway. The reason the sat didn't get into it's proper orbit is because they weren't permitted to perform the required re-igniting of the second-stage after sending Dragon on it's merry way due to rules placed upon them by NASA and co. the first-stage engine out (see above for links).

Re:not really a bad thing

[Matt]

Neither SpaceX nor Orbcomm have commented about the snafu.

Orbcomm has in it's latest press release: Orbcomm Launches Prototype OG2 Satellite. OG2 satellite's insertion orbit lower than expected.

" ...the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned ISS safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn."

I haven't read anywhere exactly what that means.

Not all the info

[Antipater]

TFA only tells half the story. MSNBC has more. Dragon is fine, but it's possible that the launch's secondary objective, which was to put the first of an 18-satellite telecom array into a tricky high-inclination orbit, went a little screwy as well, and the sat isn't in the proper orbit at the moment. Details are still being dug out.

Re:Not all the info

[Antipater]

Dragon is fine, but...

Did you miss that part of my post? The telecom satellite is separate from the resupply mission.

Re:Not all the info

[0123456]

Apparently the second stage didn't hit the required orbit for NASA to allow them to restart it without risk of collision with ISS if something went wrong. So it looks like SpaceX could have restarted the stage but NASA didn't let them; it was a consequence of the first stage engine failure, not a second failure.

Re:Not all the info

[0123456]

Failure to reach the orbit that SpaceX claimed that they were going to put the satellite into is to me massive egg on the face of SpaceX and will make it harder to sell future flights unless they can provide some assurance that even the secondary payloads will be able to meet mission objectives.

Except it appears that the only reason for the 'failure to reach orbit' was that NASA said they couldn't restart the engine due to the possibility of hitting ISS if something went wrong. That only applies to flights to ISS, not to satellite launches.

The importtant things

[Samantha Wright]

– Both Saturn V and the shuttle launch system were designed to handle failure of at least one engine
– The entire engine didn't actually explode, as some sources have reported; the onboard computers were still sending data from it (SpaceX believes it was just the aerodynamic casing (fairing) that exploded, due to the pressure release of the engine)
– This doesn't mean the Falcon 9 system is necessarily less safe than NASA systems; on two occasions, Saturn V rockets experienced a similar loss, with similar (i.e., nil) impact to the mission's success

So, y'know. Rejoice nerdily about the fact that the failsafes worked, rather than worrying about commercial technology being inferior.

It was a good launch

[Maximum Prophet]

Pilots say any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

In space, any launch that accomplishes its goals is a good launch. If good costs 10% of perfect, go for good.

Re:It was a good launch

[TWX]

Obviously SpaceX wants to achieve man-rating so that they can launch and return personnel in addition to the cargo runs they're currently beginning. I'm curious as to how this moderate malfunction will impact the rest of the program.

Bearing in mind, of course, the deaths of Chaffee, Grissom, and White in the Apollo 1 accident, the launch-time engine failure and later unrelated catastrophic failure for Apollo 13, the Challenger disaster, and the Columbia disaster, it's difficult to call SpaceX's anomaly as being any worse than those. If SpaceX manages a series of cargo deliveries without any loss of the capsule or with complete success on delivery then even with this anomaly they're arguably no worse off than any of the previous space programs were, as far as reliability and safety goes.

Re:It was a good launch

[Electricity Likes Me]

Obviously SpaceX wants to achieve man-rating so that they can launch and return personnel in addition to the cargo runs they're currently beginning. I'm curious as to how this moderate malfunction will impact the rest of the program.

Bearing in mind, of course, the deaths of Chaffee, Grissom, and White in the Apollo 1 accident, the launch-time engine failure and later unrelated catastrophic failure for Apollo 13, the Challenger disaster, and the Columbia disaster, it's difficult to call SpaceX's anomaly as being any worse than those. If SpaceX manages a series of cargo deliveries without any loss of the capsule or with complete success on delivery then even with this anomaly they're arguably no worse off than any of the previous space programs were, as far as reliability and safety goes.

The important thing is whether they can successfully determine what actually happened, and why it happened (i.e. replicate the malfunction on a test bed engine). This was the thing Feynman was most critical of NASA for post-Challenger - that the whole disaster was caused by this faulty assumption about engineering risks on the O-Ring seals (i.e. the seals were getting eroded by exhaust during launch, but the question posed was "is this dangerous" not "why is this happening" - the former being foolish since the system was not designed to cope with this, and it's true cause was unknown).

It's a triumph that the launch still succeeded, but having averted an unforeseen consequence the only safe thing to do is make sure it's both forseen and mitigated in the future.

Re:It was a good launch

[cwebster]

A landing you can walk away from is a good landing... A landing when you can re-use the airplane is a great landing.

Re:It was a good launch

[TWX]

Very true, especially in the infancy of SpaceX's program. I do hope that they figure out why the engine failed, and hopefully their records on its manufacture and testing prior to its use will contribute toward answering that.

I'll have to ask my wife about it- she actually is a rocket scientist, albeit one that deals with solid rockets, not liquid, but I'd expect that the post-failure analysis would follow the same kinds of procedures.

Re:It was a good launch

[cplusplus]

The Ars Technica article states that Apollo missions had the same protections against engine failure, and that two of the Apollo missions actually suffered engine losses and still completed the mission. So, maybe there's precedent?

Re:It was a good launch

[CNTOAGN]

But what if the cost to fix the failure is deemed to high? It is an acceptable engineering practice to just plan on something going wrong x% of the time. Now if 1/9 is the maximum failure rate, and you can still get to orbit (meaning you design in the possibility of an engine exploding - can you imagine!), and the probability of 2/9 is astronomical, is something that is "forseen" have to be mitigated? Now granted, I hope the engine failure is truly something anomalous, given that even the smallest fracture can cause problems, and you have to test the engine at least once before use...

Will space travel ever enter the "good enough" phase of manufacturing? Being an A.E. I applaud the design of the falcon engine system. Just like most large aircraft can land with 1 out of 4 engines being functional, a system that can take a full system failure on one of its parts and still perform is quality engineering.

Re:It was a good launch

[Narcocide]

Aeryn: Insane?
John: Since birth
Aeryn: Suicidal?
John: Test pilot

- Farscape (Self Inflicted Wounds, Part 1: Could'a, Would'a, Should'a)

Re:It was a good launch

[Cassini2]

Surprisingly, if failure is measured in terms of human deaths, fairly high failure rates are tolerable in many branches of engineering. It was assumed that about 5 people would die in the construction of a tall sky scraper. Now, with massive changes in safety, it is possible to build a sky scraper with no deaths. However, injuries still happen.

Similarly, mining regularly kills people. They have reduced their deaths per year from several thousand (1907) to averaging 6/year (2001-2005). See government records for details.

Manufacturing regularly hurts people, with occasional fatal accidents. Same with forestry.

Space travel is relatively safe compared to some of the shit jobs out there, particularly in places with lax safety records, like China. It helps that the average astronaut trainee doesn't actually make it into space.

Re:It was a good launch

[dbIII]

the seals were getting eroded by exhaust during launch

No it was a known glass transition temperature problem - the o-rings were not safe to use below a known temperature. It's the sort of problem where you can soak a squeaky rubber toy in liquid nitrogen for a while, then pull it out and shatter it with a hammer.

Re:It was a good launch

[uvajed_ekil]

Yep, you can't have all the answers until you know the questions. Components of the lift vehicle may have failed, but the failsafes performed as designed and the mission was completed successfully and on schedule. The redundancies and backups are built in as a function of the design, and may not even be called into action most of the time. All in all, this is proof that the system works, and I can not wait to see more launches. This was a perfect result and demonstrates a functional system that is good and will get even better.

If you took a team with an average age of 23 to the World Series or World Cup finals, you wouldn't complain if they only won 3-2.

Re:It was a good launch

[TheLink]

Space travel is relatively safe compared to some of the shit jobs out there, particularly in places with lax safety records, like China.

One of the most dangerous jobs is President of the USA. About 10% have died due to job-related issues. And it does not appear that the job has become much safer over the years.

Re:Fist Post!

[TWX]

Shut up, Fruitloops...

9 engines. All together now!

[Fuzzums]

9 engines of LOX on the rocket, 9 engines of LOX
drop one down, blow it around
8 engines of LOX on the rocket....

Transparency ?

[m0s3m8n]

Did anyone here a call of engine cut-off in the NASA TV feed? I did not. Or a call for a longer burn? Seems the SpaceX team would have made those calls. Of course, they could have on private channels. Seems NASA was more transparent. Also, when I fly I like my pilots to be well dressed and professional. The SpaceX team did not. Maybe that is the SpaceX culture, but I am an old fart and I prefer a much more orderly look.

Re:Transparency ?

[Carnildo]

Did anyone here a call of engine cut-off in the NASA TV feed? I did not. Or a call for a longer burn? Seems the SpaceX team would have made those calls.

The decision to shut down engine #1 and the decision to adjust the other engines' burns to compensate were made automatically by the flight-control computer onboard the rocket. There's no need for the ground team to make the decisions, and no need for the computer to make voice announcements about them.

(Obligatory car analogy: it would be like having your car's ECU call your mechanic to announce that it's adjusted the spark timing to compensate for driver error.)

Re:Saturn V engine loss?

[0123456]

News to me. Details anyone?

Apollo 6 lost two engines and, AFAIR, suffered partial breakup of the SLA panels covering the lunar module due to pogo.
Apollo 13 lost one engine, which was fortunate because pogo had grown so bad that the Saturn V was on the verge of structural failure. If the engine hadn't failed, they'd have been parachuting back to Earth soon after.

A statistical analysis:

[mosb1000]

They've launched 4 Falcon 9 rockets. One engine has failed, so that's an observed failure rate of 1/36 or about 3%. The means the odds of 0 or 1 engine failing (a successful launch) is 97.6% and the odds of more than one failing is 2.4% assuming the currently observed rate is representative of the actual rate. 2.4% would be an excellent failure rate for any rocket launch system. In fact, no one has achieved a failure rate that low. And bear in mind this rate includes 3 experimental launches and only one production launch. Of course, a launch failure can be brought about by more than just engine failures, so 2.4% is really a minimum and other factors which haven't yet manifested themselves would add to it.

Space X is saying that this is probably a failure in the aerodynamic structure of the rocket, not the rocket engine itself. If that's the case, the above statistical analysis is invalid because it assumes no interdependency in engine failures. A structural failure could lead to more than one engine failing. It would also be problematic in assessing the future failure rate because the engine configuration is going to change in their 1.1 version. The outer engines will be circularly arranged in future versions while in current versions they're arranged in a square.

Re:A statistical analysis:

[crunchygranola]

...The means the odds of 0 or 1 engine failing (a successful launch) is 97.6% and the odds of more than one failing is 2.4% assuming the currently observed rate is representative of the actual rate. 2.4% would be an excellent failure rate for any rocket launch system. In fact, no one has achieved a failure rate that low....

There are vehicles that have matched or beaten this rate. The Delta 2 (retired) achieved 149 out of 151 (99%). The currently active Soyuz-U has achieved a failure rate indistinguishable from this (741 successes out of 761, 97.4%). There are other vehicles that claim 100%, but have launched too few to be able to claim this rate. One factor to consider is that launch systems often mature and have a long series on unbroken successes after having some failures early on: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/log2012.html

Re:Saturn V engine loss?

[tp1024]

Parachuting back to earth would have been *a lot* more comfortable than what they ended up doing.

Re:Saturn V engine loss?

[goodmanj]

Apollo 6 (unmanned test, uncontrolled pogo oscillation during first stage, multiple engine failures on 2nd)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_6

Apollo 13 (manned launch, pogo oscillations again, shutdown of center first-stage engine.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13#Launch_incident

Re:Learning from the past

[Paul Fernhout]

So much can get forgotten from one generation of engineers to another -- especially all the things that did not work. Even assuming all the information is publicly available, the effort spent collecting it, organizing it, and filtering it from a vast amount of other information at the time is potentially valuable.

Re:Bad calculation. The reality is much worse.

[mosb1000]

No, this is not a correct analysis. You have to break it up into all 512 possible outcomes and then calculate the probability for each. So one of the possibilities is that all engines will work, that has a probability of (35/36)^9 or 77.6%. There are 9 possible ways that one engine could fail. Each possibility has a probability of (1/36)^1*(35/36)^8 or 2.2%. If you multiply that by the 9 single engine failure possibilities you get a probability of 20.0% that exactly one engine will fail. So if a successful flight can have either no engines or one engine fail the probability is 77.6% + 20.0% = 97.6%. Does that make sense?

Re:Learning from the past

[Raenex]

Maybe he doesn't really have them and is bullshitting. People do that a lot.

Re:Learning from the past

[rickb928]

I was 15 when Armstrong stepped off the LEM. I scrapbooked some of Mercury, all of Gemini, and Apollo. News clippings, magazine articles, notes.

IANARS. Sheesh, I'm not holding the keys to interplanetary glory, you sad miserable geese.