FAILURE: Space One KAIROS LV first launch - March 13, 2024 (02:01 UTC)

[blister]

[catdlr]

Satellite got thrown out intact after the LV disintegrated:

https://twitter.com/koumeishibata/status/1767762940915237357

Best picture of the day.  Satellite deployed.  Mission accomplish.

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1767769592229699891

Recent launch of KAIROS Maiden Flight mission via brand new #SpaceOne's #KAIROS vehicle

#Space #スペースワン #カイロス

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1767757519420817745

t looks to me as if the majority of the launch vehicle ended up west of the pad, but it was supposed to head south. It's plausible this was an automatic flight termination.

But I think it's more likely the forward bulkhead in the first stage just burst and the first stage booster venting exhaust from both ends didn't fall straight down.

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/SpacecoastPix/status/1767757339673968894

Looks like the forward dome of the first stage either failed or was blown, much the way an FTS would trigger, allowing pressure to escape from both ends of the first stage solid fuel barrel section and preventing continuing thrust.

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1767753157369884989

I hadn't noticed that there was a helicopter hanging out watching the launch:

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1767734866244755912

Goodness me! There was a Japanese news chopper filming at what doesn't seem like the safest of distances.

[blister]

5:00 UTC start
--

[sdsds]

I'm fairly confident he said, "We will analyze the available data and after thorough review determine a root cause."

No, I don't understand even a single word of Japanese. I got all that from tone of voice.

[blister]

Press conference　memo
--
 https://x.com/ohnuki_tsuyoshi/status/1767777279999164775?s=20

[catdlr]

I'm fairly confident he said, "We will analyze the available data and after thorough review determine a root cause."

No, I don't understand even a single word of Japanese. I got all that from tone of voice.

If a transcript is generated I can Translate it.

[Asteroza]

Rough translation of the beginning

All debris fell within the spaceport property and fires have been extinguished, with no injuries.

At +5 sec, the flight was determined to be impossible to succeed (unclear if this is ATFS or human intervention)

[Asteroza]

Rough translation of the beginning

All debris fell within the spaceport property and fires have been extinguished, with no injuries.

At +5 sec, the flight was determined to be impossible to succeed (unclear if this is ATFS or human intervention)

continuing with rough translation/paraphrasing


ATFS did fire (not external command), not clear if all ATFS charges fired.

Currently collecting/analyzing data, have not confirmed ATFS fire reason, will not speculate.


Sorry, but the sat is busted (asked if sat is okay)


will be talking with customers of future #2 and #3 rocket after failure investigation

will be doing more thorough pad check for damage but currently okay, also need to check spaceport property


no go fever to launch #2 within this year, will work through failure investigation and work through fixes


probably only went 50-100m high


safety zone made to allow safe debris fall, that's why debris fell on spaceport property and not private land


still planning to do 20 launches a year, still planning to do 30 launches a year in 2030


firefighting done with water, no special foams necessary for solid propellant used


professor does light general explanation of launch failures (first few launches are hard, industry has several failures a year) and speed of failure investigations


Space One won't use the word "Failure" as an internal business culture reason, only if the mission is completed or how many mission steps have been completed (Note previous discussion says they cleared mission 4 step 1, liftoff and didn't get to step 2)


business loss figures will not be released at this time


at this time previous scrub does not appear to have any bearing on this launch failure


after failure report and explaining to customer, still planning to launch #2


ATFS for a solid rocket uses charges to break case to stop thrust
each stage has an ATFS charge


Getting a little testy with the reporters, telling them to look that question up in a basic rocketry education text.


Regarding failure investigation flow , telemetry data analysis, determine facts from data, confirm facts


No timeline for failure investigation yet


Pitchover at +2 sec was planned? (not sure of the japanese wording here)


All previous SRM tests on land were successful (all stages tested)


small rockets are for small payloads, so they don't have to be rideshares (can pick their orbits)


Looking at Rocket Lab's failures and their speed of recovery/failure investigation for comparison, have a lot of work ahead.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

A good compilation of different viewpoints:

[eeergo]

Thank you so much for the transcription, very much appreciated!

Space One won't use the word "Failure" as an internal business culture reason, only if the mission is completed or how many mission steps have been completed (Note previous discussion says they cleared mission 4 step 1, liftoff and didn't get to step 2)

Another successful failure  Certainly applying the "failure is not an option" saying with a particular interpretation: if you don't say it, it is certainly not an option in the book. Everything will contain a measure of success.
At any rate, they also unambiguously succeeded in separating the payload as mentioned upthread, should have added that to the step tally so that the culture doesn't suffer.

[edkyle99]

If it appeared to originate near the S1/S2 interstage, my money is on failure of the forward dome of the stage 1 solid motor, "popping the case" so to speak. Solids having a bit of trouble nowadays, it seems.

The AFTS accidentally triggering might also be a cause.

We now know that the AFTS did trigger.  It appears to me that the rocket was flying under control up until the moment AFTS fired.  There may have been a hidden internal failure that triggered the destruct, but I agree that an accidental firing is right up there on the list of possibilities for this one.

 - Ed Kyle

[Perchlorate]

I'm fairly confident he said, "We will analyze the available data and after thorough review determine a root cause."

No, I don't understand even a single word of Japanese. I got all that from tone of voice.

If a transcript is generated I can Translate it.

    Yes...I believe we've established that.

[Steven Pietrobon]

We now know that the AFTS did trigger.  It appears to me that the rocket was flying under control up until the moment AFTS fired.  There may have been a hidden internal failure that triggered the destruct, but I agree that an accidental firing is right up there on the list of possibilities for this one.

What I'm not clear about is whether the AFTS triggered because of a vehicle failure, e.g., the forward dome failing, or if the AFTS triggered accidentally.

[catdlr]

NHK published a news video of the event including a few comments from the press conference.  Start watching at 1:00 into the following video

https://youtube.com/watch?v=v7-MmmNEfok

[Asteroza]

We now know that the AFTS did trigger.  It appears to me that the rocket was flying under control up until the moment AFTS fired.  There may have been a hidden internal failure that triggered the destruct, but I agree that an accidental firing is right up there on the list of possibilities for this one.

What I'm not clear about is whether the AFTS triggered because of a vehicle failure, e.g., the forward dome failing, or if the AFTS triggered accidentally.

AFTS needs to trigger on either vehicle health or trajectory, so accidental would come from bad vehicle sensors. If it was a valid activation, then there was an internal problem not visible on the videos, or something the AFTS didn't like with the pitchover.

The pitchover looked clean though, so I am disinclined to believed it was a trajectory issue. At this early in the flight, the case/dome blowing would be unlikely, so the dome blow was likely the ATFS charge itself, there probably wasn't enough time for a case burn-thru unless there was truly catastrophic grain failure. A catastrophic grain failure increasing case pressure beyond limits may be possible, but that would imply an even faster burn than expected (and I don't think I see propellant chunks in the exhaust).

To me, bad sensor data or some other internal issue set off the AFTS. Unless it was a bug within the AFTS itself. It wasn't mentioned if the AFTS was a bought component or self-made, and/or supplied by the avionics maker.