Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Rocket Engine Explodes During Test (space.com)
According to The Washington Post, a SpaceX rocket engine exploded Sunday (Nov. 5) at the company's test facility in McGregor, Texas. The explosion reportedly occurred during a "qualification test" of a Merlin engine, the type that powers SpaceX's workhorse Falcon 9 rocket. Space.com reports: SpaceX has suspended engine testing while it investigates what caused the incident, which didn't injure anyone, the Post added. In a statement provided to the Post, SpaceX representatives said they didn't expect the explosion to affect the company's launch schedule. That schedule has been pretty packed this year. SpaceX has already launched 16 missions, all of them successful, in 2017 -- twice as many as its previous high in a calendar year. And all but three of these missions also involved landings of the Falcon 9 first stage, for eventual refurbishment and reuse.
We should also remember that SpaceX had an engine fail destructively on the CRS-1 mission. The design of the rocket contains such a failure in one engine without damaging the others. The rocket had an engine-out capability that can cope with one or more failures. It compensated and completed the mission, achieving all expected parameters on the remaining 8 first-stage engines.
Bruce Perens.
There is a marvelous history of the development of rocket fuel called, "Ignition!", written by John D. Clark, one of the field's insiders who has an ascerbic wit. The foreword was written by Isaac Asimov, which contains the following fantastic quote:
Now it is clear that anyone working with rocket fuels is outstandingly mad. I don't mean garden-variety crazy or a mere raving lunatic. I mean a record-shattering exponent of far-out insanity.
There are, after all, some chemicals that explode shatteringly, some that flame ravenously, some that corrode hellishly, some that poison sneakily, and some that stink stenchily. As far as I know, though, only liquid rocket fuels have all these delightful properties combined into one delectable whole.
Explosions are par for the course. Rocket science is hard.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
I for one, am glad its news. I would like to get back to "news for nerds" with stories like this.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Ok, then, can we get ULA on a level playing field with cutting corners?
You are being silly. This was R&D, not a production launch.
Right now ULA is required to do the full engineering work up for every launch, v.s. spaceX not
1. This was not a "launch"
2. It should be up to the market.
ULA provides expensive reliability. SpaceX provides discount access to orbit. If you are launching a 5 billion dollar GSO comsat, you will go with ULA. If you want to dump a van load of cubesats designed by high school science clubs into LEO, you go with SpaceX.
SpaceX will get more reliable much faster than ULA will get cheaper. In ten years, ULA will be out of business.