Exactly. They have lots of telemetry and video both from the vehicle and from the tracking camera. The idea that they would fly again without analysing and correcting this issue is frankly ridiculous.
Quote from: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 02:23 pmExactly. They have lots of telemetry and video both from the vehicle and from the tracking camera. The idea that they would fly again without analysing and correcting this issue is frankly ridiculous.I never claimed they wouldn't analyse it -- in fact I'm sure they're doing just that, in great detail. I merely suggested that it might not be cost-effective to correct it for exactly one final flight of the model of engine that failed. I.e. the cost of LOM on SpX-2 multiplied by the probability of the same issue both recurring and resulting in LOM, might be less than the cost of effectively rebuilding an entire Falcon 9 LV. I'm 100% certain that any necessary changes will be introduced to new build Falcon 9s and the Merlin 1D engine.
As for whether this CRS-1 event will impact the CRS-2 launch: it's almost certain that somebody now has a lot more work to do between now and then! I hope they are open about it. Can anyone confirm the investigation will need to fully include the range operator (USAF) at a minimum? Does NASA pay for insight into this at all?
Why did the second stage roll control thruster only fire (repeatedly) in one direction?Normally you see it burn aprox. equally amount of times (about 45 degrees left/right).Any thoughts?
Quote from: marsman2020 on 10/08/2012 04:55 amLooking at the slow-motion Youtube video, the double view, righthand rocket cam... at T+1:30 as indicated in the video.Is it a trick of the lighting or does the entire skin of the vehicle deflect "inwards" just above the center of the frame?Somehow everybody on the thread is ignoring this. That's clearly deformation, not some trick of light. It appears to happen several seconds after engine 1 problem (note that external and on-board camera views are out of sync). It's interesting what might have caused this? This must have been some considerable force acting to cause such effect.
Looking at the slow-motion Youtube video, the double view, righthand rocket cam... at T+1:30 as indicated in the video.Is it a trick of the lighting or does the entire skin of the vehicle deflect "inwards" just above the center of the frame?
At this point as far as we know, Orbcomm ended up in the 200kmx330km orbit?
I'm going with a nozzle failure.Lots of exposed tubes on a Merlin 1C. How humid has it been at the pad?I worry about rocket engines rusting away. I don't like to see launch vehicles rolled around outdoors too often. Just put them on the pad and fire them off, don't expose them to the elements.
Quote from: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 04:20 amSimply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission. They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.I call it by the skin of their teeth!No, they got the same benefit as Delta IV did recently. They had excess performance. Skin of their teeth or not, I am very impressed. Whether you want to call it an explosion or not the event looked very energetic and big chunks of the rocket got blown out into the slipstream and other big chunks fell off. Falcon 9 just kept on trucking.
Simply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission. They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.I call it by the skin of their teeth!
Quote from: marsman2020 on 10/08/2012 02:51 pmAt this point as far as we know, Orbcomm ended up in the 200kmx330km orbit?I'm going to wait a day to see how Space Trak sorts things out. - Ed Kyle
Bottom line, there was no LOM and SpaceX gets paid for cargo delivery. There aren't bonus points awarded for perfection. Personally, I am skeptical of theories that rely on a fundamental design flaw for a system that has made orbit 4 times now.The Merlin is designed to be inexpensive and reliable enough. The rest of the SpaceX validation process and ultimately the engine out capability of Falcon 9 are designed to weed out bad engines and mitigate the effects of a failure like this one.
Quote from: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 05:40 am*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?I'm wondering about that too. Did we witness an historic first tonight?
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?
It obviously *looked* pretty serious and Spacex confirm early engine shutdown.I'll note that concerns about aerodynamic forces shredding the engine nozzle tend to be about the engine at *sea* level, not when the engine, or rather the nozzle on it reaches (or exceeds) its designed altitude. On that basis the idea that the engine was starting to spin down (smoky exhaust suggesting unburnt RP1) and the unbalenced aero forces tearing the nozzle off seem unlikely.If it was a full on RUD event this could be Spacex's *finest* hour.Engine is not just shut down early, it's *destroyed* (if correct).Primary mission goes to completion.Secondary mission also appears to have successfully been carried out.As others have asked, has a mission *ever* survived that much damage and still succeeded?No LOM, No LOV and I suspect (but cannot prove) had it been a crewed Dragon no LOC (I can imagine ways to kill the crew which leave the capsule intact but I can't believe they would not be picked up in design or test).I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing. The key issues are design flaw Vs fabrication flaw and how to correct and/or detect it.No doubt a lot of telemetry is being chewed through right now and I hope NASA don't get cold feet over Dragon and CRS. while shocking I believe the results will be of *huge* benefit to the programme.
Quote from: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 11:17 amHowever, if the anomoly did not endanger the mission (within allowable levels) then there is no logical reason to delay the next launch.I shudder to think that we've come to a point where a potential engine RUD is not labeled as a mission-endangering event. Just like Delta IV a couple of days ago, they might have been lucky this time. If you don't treat this as a major anomaly that it is, you're back to "normalization of deviance".
However, if the anomoly did not endanger the mission (within allowable levels) then there is no logical reason to delay the next launch.
Quote from: ugordan on 10/08/2012 11:08 amThere is no particularly good reason to think that it will be done by then, either. Quite contrary.Few reasons for that.In most cases(>50%) root cause of rocket failure was determined in well under 3 months.SpaceX is vertically integrated, most work done by them and they are quite independent of supply chain. For example, Falcon 1 Flight 3 failure was investigated and corrective measures were taken, so Flight 4 occurred less then 2 months after Flight 3.Quote from: ugordan on 10/08/2012 11:08 amWhy do you assume root cause analysis and corrective action will be as trivial as that?Trivial? I never said that. Please stop imagining things.But what is your reasons for assuming that it wont be done by next year?
There is no particularly good reason to think that it will be done by then, either.
Why do you assume root cause analysis and corrective action will be as trivial as that?
Quote from: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 10:36 amIt obviously *looked* pretty serious and Spacex confirm early engine shutdown.I'll note that concerns about aerodynamic forces shredding the engine nozzle tend to be about the engine at *sea* level, not when the engine, or rather the nozzle on it reaches (or exceeds) its designed altitude. On that basis the idea that the engine was starting to spin down (smoky exhaust suggesting unburnt RP1) and the unbalenced aero forces tearing the nozzle off seem unlikely.If it was a full on RUD event this could be Spacex's *finest* hour.Engine is not just shut down early, it's *destroyed* (if correct).Primary mission goes to completion.Secondary mission also appears to have successfully been carried out.As others have asked, has a mission *ever* survived that much damage and still succeeded?No LOM, No LOV and I suspect (but cannot prove) had it been a crewed Dragon no LOC (I can imagine ways to kill the crew which leave the capsule intact but I can't believe they would not be picked up in design or test).I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing. The key issues are design flaw Vs fabrication flaw and how to correct and/or detect it.No doubt a lot of telemetry is being chewed through right now and I hope NASA don't get cold feet over Dragon and CRS. while shocking I believe the results will be of *huge* benefit to the programme. Wrong, this is not a finest hour. They just got lucky. A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.
I assume you shouldn't consider secondary satellites placed in the wrong orbit a success either.
So the second stage failed to restart? That sounds bad.
