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.
The incident in question did not occur during an engine firing. Rather they were performing a "LOX drop" test which basically involves pumping LOX through the engine and checking for leaks. Something went wrong in this process, causing the damage. Until the investigation is completed, there's no way to know whether it was an issue with the engine, the test rig, or the setup. It might be that a tech just dind't tighten something adequately, or a filler hose leaked or whatever. SpaceX won't know until they complete their investigation, and we may never know.
To quote Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame "LOX makes anything flammable. LOX makes something flammable into a high explosive." So even if they just had a sufficiently large leak, and the LOX leaked onto/into asphalt or similar, all it takes is a spark to cause that asphalt to detonate like a bunch of dynamite.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
I'm no Musk fan, but what's why you test?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
That’s what happens when you cut corners and half ass things to make things cheaper.
Launch costs need to be cheaper. The trick is to figure out which corners can be cut, and which can not. Engineers learn by trying and failing, and I am sure SpaceX learned some valuable lessons today.
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett
That's a 1650-cubic inch V-12.
At least this happened with the new Merlin Series 5 redesign, scheduled for flight next year.
The current Series 4 engines have been pretty reliable so far...
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
the nature of test is to find faults
if everything was perfect by design the test people would be flipping burgers or work as perfect-design engineers
4wdloop
At least this happened with the new Merlin Series 5 redesign, scheduled for flight next year.
Exactly. That's important-- this is the next generation engine, not the one currently flying.
Some alternate sources, some with more information:
https://www.space.com/38712-spacex-rocket-engine-test-explosion.html
https://www.geekwire.com/2017/next-generation-spacex-rocket-engine-goes-flames-texas-test/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/an-experimental-spacex-rocket-engine-has-exploded-in-texas/
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
No, then they wouldn't test at all.
My reaction to this is more like:
Yeah so, this is why they test.
No, not quite; more like "this is why we have tests."
Flattery's an insult? You must've read 1984.
The Rolls Royce "merlin", like other Rolls Royce aero engines of the time, was named after a bird of prey. The bird they named the engine after is a type of falcon which is called a "pigeon hawk" in North America and "merlin" in Europe.
So, did SpaceX name their engine after the bird (and Rolls Royce's engine) or the mythical wizard?
Doing a quick search and there's no clear answer.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
You're partly right. If you're being smart economically, or advancing technology, you'll test some things that don't work. If everything you test works, you're a) doing the same boring shit that's been done and b) over-engineering, making things much more expensive than they should be.
Testing is how you find out what works and what doesn't, and how much you need to spend to make things work reliably.
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.
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.
amazing how you have invented up new ways of being offended.
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.
DoD is launching with SpaceX now, so they have definitely jumped up in the rankings compared to ULA, and the various state-owned launchers. Cubesats and science projects are becoming the domain of start-ups that NASA is funding
FWIW the accident involved a new block-5 merlin engine that was undergoing lox load testing for leaks and 'something' caught fire, damaging the test facility, and presumably the engine, severely. It has not been determined if the engine, which was not firing, was at fault.
I suppose those expensive GSO sats (TV & comm) that SES, largest commercial sat operator, is having launched by SpaceX, even on refurbished SpaceX launchers (SES being first commercial customer), must be cubesats... NOT!
SES being a for-profit corporation, they run the numbers... and they don't seem to do much business with ULA (as compared to SpaceX, Arianespace, Proton...).
Oh, yes. A failure during a test is nothing unexpected. It is where failures are supposed to happen. Anybody that does not understand that does not know the first thing about engineering. And a "qualification test" in particular serves to find the occasional manufacturing fault still present before it does real damage.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I was thinking the same thing.
Mishaps on the test stand is what the thing is built for.
Even a massive explosion with all equipment lost is a success because it thus did not happen on a launch pad where in addition to the lost equipment you very well may/will lose:
* The Payload.
* The Launchpad Facility.
* The actual Launchpad.
* Lives.
* Delay to future launches of unknown duration because of aforementioned damage.
Sure it's a suboptimal success, but it is still not a failure.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump