Author Topic: What failed at T-0 to cause that Fireball and Heavy Black Smoke?  (Read 25726 times)

Offline Steve_the_Deev

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Watching the video you can clearly see the grnd half QD separate as designed from the vehicle but as it does you can see a fluid gushing from the QD!  Most likely there is an internal failure which causes a "no check" failure on the fluid flow.  This "fluid" is spewing wildly into the air from the grnd half T-0 QD.  As the QD (with attached fluid line) is falling away from the vehicle towards the Tower it ignites!  The resulting eruption with a large fireball and heavy black smoke tells me it had to be a large fuel (kerosene) leak.  Black smoke continued but the video's picture followed the rocket and I could not watch the Pad any longer than what was presented, I don't know how long it continued.
Has anyone heard about this failure?  It was barely mentioned when Elon was asked about it at the presser.  I'm waiting for any further news and I'm betting we won't hear a thing about it because it could put a shadow on Elon and NASA's newest baby.

Offline KEdward5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 840
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 116
Referenced lots and lots and lots of times during the live thread. Might of been worth looking at that before posting a new thread with such ovely-dramatic wording, which does not really fit such an experienced engineer like youself? ;)

It was nothing, just a valve on an umbilical failed causing a flash (not a fireball). Elon only mentioned it in passing as it was so minor.

Unless you know something different? Maybe you're on to something where Elon is indifferent about it, but as a NASA guy you'd be very unhappy with it?

Might be interesting to hear about that?
« Last Edit: 12/14/2010 03:03 am by KEdward5 »

Offline drbobguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Well a flash can only be caused by photons due to high temperature atoms having their electrons shifting down an orbital, so it was indeed a fireball.  Maybe minor, maybe major.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7205
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1967
I think it's basic human nature to be fascinated by the first seconds of rocket launches, as the vehicles slowly begin to climb past the towers.  In part that's due to how the human visual cortex is wired to track accelerating objects; in part it's because at a higher level of cognition we know these lumbering vehicles will soon be literally rocketing through they sky.  Totally separate from that subjective fascination, lift-off is objectively a time of high risk.

As regards the SpaceX COTS Demo 1 launch I think what people are curious about is whether Falcon 9 dodged a bullet, i.e. how close to a disaster were they at T + a few seconds?  My personal assessment is, "Not close."  The disconnect worked, at no point was the vehicle substantially exposed to the flames, and since it departed the pad quickly (for a liquid rocket, at least) the duration of the exposure was short.

For this flight, the pad infrastructure could be an "expended" part of the launch system, and I'm betting whatever fault led to this outcome won't reoccur!  I'm also betting that eventually SpaceX will publicly share their analysis of the event.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
From sdsds:

Quote
For this flight, the pad infrastructure could be an "expended" part of the launch system, and I'm betting whatever fault led to this outcome won't reoccur!  I'm also betting that eventually SpaceX will publicly share their analysis of the event.

I would be more worried about the gripper arm which came off the strongback after the fire.
Douglas Clark

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
I would be more worried about the gripper arm which came off the strongback after the fire.

They'll probably fix that too.  I doubt they want to replace/rebuild the erector after every launch.  Expect to see a beefier design and/or deeper lean angle.  At the very least, I bet they'll weld on some cross-bracing.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
You can see the arm come off in the video, it happens when the rocket is well clear of the pad when the strongarm was buffeted by the exhaust stream.  It was also after the 'fireball', not concurrent with it.

It isn't unusual for a pad to suffer some damage in a launch.

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
You can see the arm come off in the video, it happens when the rocket is well clear of the pad when the strongarm was buffeted by the exhaust stream.  It was also after the 'fireball', not concurrent with it.

It isn't unusual for a pad to suffer some damage in a launch.

LC39 suffers damage at every launch.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Yes, but LC-39 is a huge pad.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Non-sequitur?  What does the size of the pad have to do with it?

Also, is there any confirmation a "gripper arm" is what was seen to be liberated?  Could've just been a duct.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Pedantic Twit

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
LC39 suffers damage at every launch.
Sure, but pad damage is a part of why Shuttle costs 500 to 1000 millions per flight. It is not something desirable for high-rate systems. How can we talk about reusable stages if we cannot build a reusable strongback?

Offline e of pi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 406
LC39 suffers damage at every launch.
Sure, but pad damage is a part of why Shuttle costs 500 to 1000 millions per flight. It is not something desirable for high-rate systems. How can we talk about reusable stages if we cannot build a reusable strongback?

We can build a reusable strongback. This one was not designed to fail like this, it's just something happened with the design of this one or the launch events (perhaps the T-0 fire) that lead to an unanticipated failure. I would bet some team at SpaceX is right now reviewing that design and the events of the launch to figure out why it failed with the goal that it won't happen again, just like the T-0 roll of the first flight was fixed for the second. This isn't something that's going to be required every flight.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Non-sequitur?  What does the size of the pad have to do with it?

The fact there are much larger structures on LC-39 pad that get flooded by SRB exhaust and whatnot. More things to break and repair. SpaceX pad is as minimalistic as it gets so one kind of expects the only thing standing after the rocket lifts off could/should be left standing. Cables/pipes being torched I can understand, but losing an important portion of the erector can't be good for pad turnaround and cost.
« Last Edit: 12/15/2010 08:28 am by ugordan »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428

We can build a reusable strongback. This one was not designed to fail like this, it's just something happened with the design of this one or the launch events (perhaps the T-0 fire) that lead to an unanticipated failure. I would bet some team at SpaceX is right now reviewing that design and the events of the launch to figure out why it failed with the goal that it won't happen again, just like the T-0 roll of the first flight was fixed for the second. This isn't something that's going to be required every flight.

How do you know?  Maybe the basic concept is flawed and the strongback is too close to the vehicle at launch and will be heavily damaged after each launch.
« Last Edit: 12/15/2010 11:40 am by Jim »

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172

We can build a reusable strongback. This one was not designed to fail like this, it's just something happened with the design of this one or the launch events (perhaps the T-0 fire) that lead to an unanticipated failure. I would bet some team at SpaceX is right now reviewing that design and the events of the launch to figure out why it failed with the goal that it won't happen again, just like the T-0 roll of the first flight was fixed for the second. This isn't something that's going to be required every flight.

How do you know?  Maybe the basic concept is flawed and the strongback is too close to the vehicle at launch and will be heavily damaged after each launch.

Until they redesign it.  When you compare it to the F1 set up, they have separate strongback which lays right back out of the way, and a separate utilities tower.  Don't think they'll go for that option however but additional angle to get it further out of the way wouldn't seem to go astray.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline JayP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Until they redesign it.  When you compare it to the F1 set up, they have separate strongback which lays right back out of the way, and a separate utilities tower.  Don't think they'll go for that option however but additional angle to get it further out of the way wouldn't seem to go astray.

A steeper angle wolud mean that the umbilicle lines from the tower to the vehicle would have to be longer and would swing thru a longer distance when the released. Who knows, that may make the issue that led to the excess fuel being vented even worse.

The following is just an educated engineering guess with no data behind it besides watching that video, so it's worth exactly what you are paying for it. :)

It looks like the arm just fell streight down at the acceleration of gravity. It wasn't twisting or moving laterally. That suggests to me that it wasn't torn loose by blast or over pressure. I wonder if it is actually a vibration problem? the engine note, could have setup a harmonic in the truss of the tower that amplified and found a week spot in one of the hinges. It could have been a high cycle fatigue failure in one of the turnbuckel connections.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Also, is there any confirmation a "gripper arm" is what was seen to be liberated?  Could've just been a duct.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23516.msg669853#msg669853 (picture)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23516.msg669954#msg669954 (video)

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=49739

Precisely my point.  Can you follow the origin of the white thing and prove that it was a large chunk of metal being liberated?
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline dmc6960

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 3
Watch at full resolution, the high-def mission highlights video from the SpaceX website.  At 22-24 seconds you'll see from the downward-camera view in the upper left; the right side gripper arm fall off.
-Jim

Offline rickyramjet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Killeen, TX
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 78
Looking at the launch video I wasn't convinced that the right side arm fell off, I thought it might just be smoke that obscured it.  I looked at the NASA video of the launch.   At t 0:48 there is a good shot of the tower with both arms.  At t 5:57 it appears to be a view from a different camera, but it sure looks like the arm is indeed missing. 

NASA video:  ()
« Last Edit: 12/17/2010 11:14 pm by rickyramjet »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0