Elon Musk: Faulty Strut May Have Led To Falcon 9 Launch Failure
garyisabusyguy writes: This Forbes article provides the best analysis of the loss of the last Falcon 9 mission based on information released by Elon Musk to reporters. Highlights include:
- 1. Sound triangulation led them to identify a strut holding helium tank as root cause where the falling helium tank pinched a line causing overpressure in the LOX tank.
- 2. The failure occurred at 2,000 pounds of force, and the struts were rated at 10,000 pounds of force. They initially dismissed this as a cause until sounds triangulation pointed back to the strut
- 3. Further testing of struts in stock found one that failed at 2,000 pounds of force, with further analysis identifying poor grain structure in the metal, which caused weakness
- 4. It will be months before the next launch while SpaceX goes over procurement and QA processes all struts and bolts, and re-assesses any "near misses" with Air Force and NASA
- 5. Next launch will include failure mode software, which will allow recovery of the Dragon module during loss of the launch vehicle since they determined that it could have saved the Dragon module in this lost mission
.
Sell them faulty metal.
Or faulty parts made of metal.
It's just a thought, but would a competitor stoop to that? Even if not now, at some point in the future?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Now THAT is how you summarize.
Well, missing from TFS was what SpaceX is doing to prevent this specific problem in the future:
To avoid this type of accident occurring in the future, the company will now individually test every strut it installs on a Falcon 9, regardless of its material specification. It's also considering a different material for its bolts, as the bolthole was the likely site of failure, and will likely switch strut suppliers.
The first thing any engineer (in any discipline) needs to learn when starting a real job is "the vendor is a lying bastard". I think it will work out substantially cheaper in the long run to test every strut rather than to go crazy with the material specification. Accept the universal truth that the vendor is a lying bastard, test as needed, and get on with life. If SpaceX ever reaches their reusability goal, the cost of all the testing will be spread across many flights anyway.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Conveniently, this part has about a 5x margin (it was implied elsewhere that the 2000lbf is also right about the design load). They could test to two or three times the design load and not even be close to the rating.
Also, maybe it's just because I've never worked in that industry before, maybe it's common practice in rocketry, but is anyone else impressed with the use of sound triangulation to figure out which part broke? I've never heard of that being done before.
Sad that the Falcon Heavy won't be launched until next spring, I've been really looking forward to that. Oh well...
"You see, Government is a system that is based on weapons." -- Timster
Such techniques are used in live environments today, such as factories, oil platforms etc. In fact, I'd be surprised if SpaceX DIDN'T have at least 6+ microphones or other vibration sensors relaying telemetry, and baselines from previous launches to compare with. With that baseline, you can tell if it happens to be a turbopump that malfunctions. Hell, if a strut or something would break in my brothers boat, we hear it immediately, because the overall vibration and thus overall boat noise will be altered.
Also, they clearly have decent bandwidth to the rocket during launch, given that they can have video feeds etc, and you can easily get multiple audio telemetry feeds to take less bandwidth than even a low-res video feed.
"the vendor is a lying bastard"
As a former aerospace systems engineer (now RF systems engineer), I found that that is certainly how the US Government and their Prime Contractors treat their suppliers. Every process in place is there to make sure you're not lying about something, cutting a corner, or inflating expenses. And the depressing thing is that every one of them is there to prevent recurrence of a dishonesty that actually took place in the past.
So even if you are one of those vendors that acts in good faith, and believes that a quality product is the best advertising, and that if your project is paid for by tax money then you're ethically obligated to do the best job possible, you get treated exactly like the asshole who made the decision to make a few extra bucks profit by not properly verifying the workmanship on a major structural component for a vehicle that he knew would eventually be manned.
And as an engineer, I know that most engineers want to act in good faith. Some are inept or inexperienced but they still have good faith. The problem lies in management. Once you get the lawyers and bean counters involved is when asshole decisions like that get made.
I can see the fnords!
I don't know if the railroads still do this, but you used to see men walking down the length of a train tapping each wheel with a hammer and listening to the way they rang. They did this because if a wheel was going bad (i.e., cracking) they wouldn't sound right. It might have looked like busy-work, or featherbedding, but it prevented many train wrecks and saved countless lives.
Good, inexpensive web hosting