SpaceX Loses a bird :( - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2015, 03:09:59 pm
content: Nuts.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/science/space/spacex-rocket-explodes-during-launch.html?_r=0

author: EEMarc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2015, 03:25:22 pm
content: It looks like the new second stage LOX tank blew open. I heard that they were increasing it's size in order to run more oxygen rich.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNymhcTtSQ&feature=youtu.be&t=3m18s

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2015, 03:29:58 pm
content: Does seem (at least superficially) clear that the incident happened well forward of the first stage.After Orbital ATK lost Cygnus in October, and the recent Soyuz Progress fail, it's been a tough year.Progress launch Scheduled for July 3rd. Hopefully that goes well.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2015, 03:51:50 pm
content: I would guess a pipe failed in the second stage, or a valve body cracked. Looks like a lot of gas was generated suddenly around the stage joint before failure.would love to see the inside interstage live feed at around that point, it will give a good idea as to which pipe or join failed.Wonder if the on board camera's have storage, and if it is crash rated to survive. Would only add around 10kg to the first and second stages ( lose some ballast mass to compensate) to have some FDR type housings there and a pinger per unit.

author: EEMarc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2015, 04:14:54 pm
content: I called that right. The second stage LOX tank overpressurized then blew up.

author: EEMarc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2015, 04:25:22 pm
content: I wonder if they still have a camera in the LOX tank. The following is a video of the second stage LOX during second stage run until after SECO. It is cool to watch the LOX drain then the remainder float around in microgravity.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2015, 05:06:27 pm
content: The first stage operated until the range safety detonated it. So it was almost certainly an issue with the upper stages.It's a shame - as SpaceX had been failure-free on Falcon9 until now.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2015, 06:08:57 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 28, 2015, 05:06:27 pm

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2015, 06:50:06 pm
content: Primary objective completed with engine out, that's one of the design targets of Falcon9. Secondary payload went into wrong orbit because NASA didn't want to take the chance (flight plan would need to be adapted.)I believe it can still insert into orbit most payloads with 1 or 2 engines out.Nothing is perfect though. Hopefully this won't impact ISS too much.

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2015, 08:20:33 pm
content: Slo mohttps://youtu.be/fTom8xVzFdo

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 28, 2015, 10:28:11 pm
content: BummerI wonder what this does to insurance premiums?

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 01:03:09 am
content: in other news : Falcon self-destruct proven to perform flawlessly when emergency arises. ( putting a positive spin on things ).Damn, and that on E's Birthday ..

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 02:14:03 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 28, 2015, 10:28:11 pmInteresting question; the insurance companies must have been expecting a failure atsomepoint? It took launch #19 for a (mission) failure to occur, that's pretty good for rocketry isn't it?Meanwhile, illiterate journalists:Quote from: NBCNews.comDoes this person know what fire is? You know, orange stuff?

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 02:39:43 am
content: +1 for visual observation of massive venting of most likely LOX and safety detonation of the vehicle. I will not be surprised if it's something of that sort.

author: EEMarc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 02:48:54 am
content: Quote from: kosmonooit on June 28, 2015, 08:20:33 pmYou can see the dragon capsule fall away from 30 to 50 seconds in that video.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 03:43:06 am
content: Quote from: EEMarc on June 28, 2015, 04:25:22 pmAccording to the press conference a few hours after the failure, they had a camera in the first stage LOX tank, but not in the second stage LOX tank (which is the one which was involved in the failure).Quote from: tom66 on June 28, 2015, 05:06:27 pmYes, the first stage did operate well until it was compromised by the stage 2 failure. According to the press release though, there was no remote destruction. Many observers speculated that range safety blew up the first stage after it was an obvious loss (because that's what it looks like in the video footage), but that was refuted during Q&A a few hours later.I've seen a few rumors circulating that the docking ring being carried up as part of the cargo might have jostled free and impacted the upper tank (it rides just above the tank). But that's sheer speculation at this point.I was really hoping to see them stick the landing. Totally wasn't expecting a launch vehicle failure.

author: EEMarc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 05:48:21 am
content: Quote from: MacAttak on June 29, 2015, 03:43:06 amNice Catch. I missed that when watching the Q&A session. I guess that they got the data they needed from the LOX tank then removed the camera for future flights for weight savings.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 05:59:56 am
content: Quote from: EEMarc on June 29, 2015, 05:48:21 amUnfortunate; the footage would have been spectacular (if not completely overexposed).

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 06:17:51 am
content: Quote from: MacAttak on June 29, 2015, 03:43:06 amOne never does ... but I did have a niggling sensation that their supreme over confidence might just not work out some time soon. Don't get me wrong, I have been a huge Space X fan right from the get-go, and I hope they can recover soon. But its not been said who bears the cost for all this, hope they have good insurance.And I wonder how this will effect their certification for National Security payloads?

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 06:40:36 am
content: Quote from: kosmonooit on June 29, 2015, 06:17:51 amI'd be cautious not to confuse audaciousness with over-confidence. I don't think they've ever said "we'll never have a failure" -- in fact, Elon described a 50% success probability at one point (I think for sticking the landing today? Or last time).Quote from: kosmonooit on June 29, 2015, 06:17:51 amAgain, any certification policy that goes ape over a single failure is not a sensible spaceflight certification policy. As for insurance, it's included in the price (at least it was for the Falcon 1):Quote from: SpaceXSource:http://www.spacex.com/news/2005/12/19/june-2005-december-2005

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 11:18:57 am
content: From Elon on Twitter:"Cause still unknown after several thousand engineering-hours of review. Now parsing data with a hex editor to recover final milliseconds."

author: kosmonooit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2015, 03:12:21 pm
content: Quote from: rs20 on June 29, 2015, 06:40:36 amTrue, although ... did you follow the Congressional Hearings where they were making a bid for a piece of the military payload launch pie? They were a tad boastful that the Falcon 9 had a perfect record, although the old guard industry pundits of ULA were saying it was unproven launch vehicle c.f. theirs, the Atlas V which they claim has had a 100% launch success with 600+ launches.http://www.ulalaunch.com/products_atlasv.aspx

author: abebarker
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2015, 06:05:51 am
content: My first gut reaction was; Did they transition a charged strata too quickly while it was highly charged after that last solar flare? Those ions can be bunch together for a while as they work there way through the system. It takes time to for the ionosphere to settle down. The symptoms of a large electrical stress like that could be attributed to more mundane causes like a mechanical over stress.Of course this opinion could be completely out in left field. No body considers large electrical phenomena like that. Its easier to think of the earth as a big electrically neutral hunk of rock rather than a complex, multilayer plasma sphere being fed a ceaseless, dynamic electrical current from another complex, multilayer plasma sphere.While it is on my mind, would you like to know how to make the biggest lighting bolt that has ever been seen? It's call a 'space elevator' but it would only last a few milliseconds.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2015, 07:14:03 am
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on June 29, 2015, 11:18:57 amDisplaying his inner geek!That suggests that they received a final partial FEC telemetry block which won't decode with the standard groundstation code, it might well be possible to decode some if not all of the data in that final frame with some judicious poking about with the raw data.Reminds me of mending databases, manually patching page links in the middle of the night twenty years ago when they weren't quite as resilient as they are these days.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2015, 09:15:56 am
content: Quote from: EEMarc on June 28, 2015, 04:25:22 pmWow - never seen anything like that. So cool to see *inside* the tank. Thanks for the post.Quote from: EEVblog on June 28, 2015, 10:28:11 pmI would assume their insurance is for loss of life/injury for the manufacturing part is no small bill. Good question. I think the government covers anything past their insurance coverage.Here's some links for reading more.http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2stoin/space_launch_insurance_costs/http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20131229/NEWS07/312299982

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 30, 2015, 12:56:26 pm
content: Quote from: kosmonooit on June 29, 2015, 06:17:51 amPretty much a guarantee that their competitors (i.e. ULA) will use this as a way to plant FUD in congress / USAF. They really don't like the "multiple vendors" approach and want to maintain their status as sole provider of heavy launch capability.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2015, 03:05:51 pm
content: Quote from: george graves on June 30, 2015, 09:15:56 amWhich can be vast majority of the cost"For example, with the Orbital Sciences Antares failure the cost of the mission was ~$250M with Orbital Sciences receiving a partial payment of ~$200M from NASA and $48M in insurance for the failed mission."

author: silviustro
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2015, 06:10:28 am
content: Let's be grateful this happened with a cargo vehicle and not with a crew vehicle. That's what these cargo rockets are for as well, testing... testing... testing... if something goes wrong with a cargo vehicle, they can fix it up before they put humans inside that thing. I still think SpaceX has an amazing success rate.The most interesting thing about this disaster is the fact that it is the third time in a row in eight months we have failed to get a payload to the ISS.NASA actually plans and manages all of these scenarios in advance, it has an ISO (Inventory and Stowage Officer) that knows exactly what and where everything is inside the space station at all times. We could even fail a fourth time, astronauts aboard the ISS would still have enough supplies to survive. The fact that we blew up 3 rockets and ISS astronauts still have plenty of foodand supplies, speaks how awesome these engineers and mission planners are.To be honest... I am more worried about those "space toilet repair parts" that didn't make it to the ISS...

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2015, 06:15:33 am
content: Quote from: silviustro on July 01, 2015, 06:10:28 amAll they need is a Reprap printer and a spool of PLA.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2015, 03:53:53 pm
content: Here is SmarterEveryDays Dustin's take. He says that his day job is being 'rocket tester'.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2015, 11:00:14 am
content: This is possibly the most bizarre article I've ever read:http://www.technewstoday.com/24699-tesla-motors-inc-ceo-elon-musk-turns-44-space-x-fails-at-launch-analysts-ra/" Its rocket named Falcon 9 exploded a few moments after its launch; initial findings conclude that the rocket went to the international space station."what...the...heck?

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2015, 12:51:35 pm
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on July 04, 2015, 11:00:14 amWelcome to the age of crappy blogs disguised as news stories.

author: George_Race
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 04, 2015, 09:44:56 pm
content: Always a sad day when you loose any kind of a flight platform!But, you can almost be sure that the next one will be perfect, as the learning curve continues.New progress will continue to be made!GR