Anomaly Triggers Self-Destruct For SpaceX Falcon 9 Test Flight

SpaceMika (867804) writes "A SpaceX test flight at the McGregor test facility ended explosively on Friday afternoon. A test flight of a three-engine Falcon 9 Dev1 reusable rocket ended in a rapid unscheduled disassembly after an unspecified anomaly triggered the Flight Termination System, destroying the rocket. No injuries were reported." Update: 08/23 13:33 GMT by T : Space.com has video.

Comments

So it works then?

[EzInKy]

Good on them for making the self-destruct such a high priority!

Re:So it works then?

[Opportunist]

Actually, yes, I'd consider that a major display of responsibility. The very last thing I'd want a rocket to do when it goes out of control is to choose its own place to go kaboom. And yes, even for a manned rocket.

Re:So it works then?

[Mr D from 63]

Had this been a NASA test, or maybe a DOD test, it more likely would have been billed as a blatant failure. This article goes a bit out of its way to remind us this 'its a good thing to learn' this way.

Re:So it works then?

[DexterIsADog]

I love that reaction - "they fucked up - but they did it so well!"

At least I don't have to ask what you think of Fukushima. :-)

Re:So it works then?

[RoverDaddy]

Totally depends on who's providing the news coverage. Fox news, yes. CNN, maybe. Space.com, not so much.
BREAKING NEWS: Media outlets are biased.

Re:Fanboys,

[durrr]

Because unlike your life they're doing something interesting.

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[lesincompetent]

"rapid unscheduled disassembly"
Talk about an understatement!
George Carlin would have gone mad about that nugget.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[Doctor Device]

I would have preferred "Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure", myself.

Exactly!

[EzInKy]

This really moves SpaceX up in my estimation as well. Until now, I pictured private space flight as focusing only on making profits, not sacrificing dollars in order to protect people around them. Maybe the privatization of space flight has a future after all!

Re:Exactly!

[rasmusbr]

This really moves SpaceX up in my estimation as well. Until now, I pictured private space flight as focusing only on making profits, not sacrificing dollars in order to protect people around them. Maybe the privatization of space flight has a future after all!

Uhhh, yeah, let me know how well the PR monkey handles explaining to the general public that your loved ones aboard their dream vacation to space were blown up on purpose as a safety measure.

Good luck with that shit.

Manned capsules must have an emergency escape system.

Basically what would happen is explosive bolts would detach the capsule from the rocket and the capsule would fly away under its own power until it's far enough away from the rocket. Then the rocket would self destruct and the capsule would come down to a safe-ish landing either under parachutes or under its own power.

This is nothing new, NASA had this in the 1960's, the Russians evidently had it in the 1980's. Also the Kerbals, apparently.

Re:Exactly!

[v1]

Look at the top of any manned rocket. see that "mini rocket" looking thing strapped to the top? that's an "escape tower". It IS a mini rocket. if there's a catastrophic faulure on a rocket massive enough to go to the moon, you REALLY don't want it hitting dirt before it explodes. The cabin module separates from the top with explosive bolts, and the escape tower pulls them a distance away from the main rocket and after awhile a parachute goes off.

Probaby still a heck of a close call though, being so close to the rocket when it blows up. But you still have a chance.

Re:Exactly!

[DMUTPeregrine]

Specifically, the space shuttle didn't have a launch escape system. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Vostok, Shenzhou and Soyuz all do/did, though Vostok and Gemini used ejection seats for the purpose instead of taking the whole capsule. The shuttle test flights had ejection seats, but those were removed when normal operations started. After Challenger a method to escape the shuttle was added: get into a controlled glide, get to the rear hatch, jump out, and parachute to safety...

Re:Fanboys,

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm boning your mom, is that interesting enough for you?

It is for me, she's ashes in an urn over my fireplace.

Would you like a damp washcloth?

Re:what does auto-termination mean?

[robbak]

That's pretty much it. The on-board computers detected that the rockets attitude or location was out of limits, so it triggered some explosive detcord fixed against the fuel and lox tanks, tearing them open, so that the rocket safely disintegrates.

I notice from the video that the destruction is done in a way that doesn't mix the LOX and fuel together - you can see the Cold Lox falling away and the ignited cloud of burning RP1 floating higher. Really nice bit of design I hadn't thought of.

Re:Government Lawsuit?

[cjameshuff]

This was a modified Falcon 9 first stage with only 3 engines and no second stage, put together as a testbed for developing the landing capabilities. It launches off support blocks on a concrete foundation instead of a full launch pad, does various maneuvers, and lands on bare concrete right next to the launch site.

It wasn't an orbital launch of a standard vehicle, it was a test flight with heavily modified experimental hardware and software operating under rather unusual conditions, so it really shouldn't impact other things like their attempts to compete for military launches...the actual Falcon 9 launches have actually all gone without losing a single vehicle, though there have been some minor failures and one somewhat exciting unplanned demonstration of the engine-out capability. Attempting to hold tests to the same standards as launches would be quite foolish, deterring companies from performing those tests...definitely not the desired outcome.