Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Launch Not So Perfect After All

Posted by samzenpus on from the we-have-a-problem dept.

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.'"

27 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. An by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

    An anomaly? That's strange.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:An by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:An by guruevi · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:An by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. Whats the problem? by ZiakII · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Whats the problem? by residieu · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Whats the problem? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    3. Re:Whats the problem? by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Whats the problem? by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    5. Re:Whats the problem? by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:Whats the problem? by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Whats the problem? by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:Whats the problem? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!

    9. Re:Whats the problem? by adri · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    10. Re:Whats the problem? by johnny+cashed · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

  3. not really a bad thing by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:not really a bad thing by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:not really a bad thing by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  4. Not all the info by Antipater · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  5. The importtant things by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Interesting

    – 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.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  6. It was a good launch by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    1. Re:It was a good launch by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:It was a good launch by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:It was a good launch by cwebster · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  7. Re:Fist Post! by TWX · · Score: 4, Funny

    Shut up, Fruitloops...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  8. 9 engines. All together now! by Fuzzums · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  9. A statistical analysis: by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.