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...
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
I'm no Musk fan, but what's why you test?
No, who's why you test.
What's on second.
Yea, I'm not sure why this is news. They did a test and it failed with no injuries because they did the test safely. Other than some acceptable losses and likely the loss of the engine, there was no harm. This is why you test things like this.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
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.
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, not quite; more like "this is why we have tests."
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.
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.