FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2

[Jim]

It has no destruct system,

Do you think it needs C4 on it to destruct?  It's a common dome, all you need to do for FTS is vent the fuel tank while leaving the lox tank pressed.

That isn't enough, too slow.

Standard practice of a linear charge on the outside for ease of production and installation. 

See heritage atlas and centaur destruct systems

[yinzer]

As yet, I've seen No evidence to suggest SpaceX has an institutional issue that could be fixed by adopting the typical rocket industry cost structure.  In fact, I think the evidence suggests exactly the opposite.  It suggests that they are working through problems that can only be tested in a live fire environment.  It suggests that once they've experienced each of these show stoppers, they should reach industry levels of reliability.

Part of SpaceX's approach is based on doing things differently from the rest of the aerospace industry.  This was expected to lower costs, but it's also caused them to lose three flights due to known issues.  Dissimilar metal corrosion is nothing new - I have problems with it on my motorcycles.  Propellant slosh is difficult to model yet critical to launch vehicle control.  Staging requires care to ensure clean separation.

Who knows what other lessons they'll learn the hard way.  Don't load improper constants into GN&C software and don't tape together connectors that are supposed to separate during staging seem like plausible candidates.

[aero313]

As yet, I've seen No evidence to suggest SpaceX has an institutional issue that could be fixed by adopting the typical rocket industry cost structure.  In fact, I think the evidence suggests exactly the opposite.  It suggests that they are working through problems that can only be tested in a live fire environment.  It suggests that once they've experienced each of these show stoppers, they should reach industry levels of reliability.

Part of SpaceX's approach is based on doing things differently from the rest of the aerospace industry.  This was expected to lower costs, but it's also caused them to lose three flights due to known issues.  Dissimilar metal corrosion is nothing new - I have problems with it on my motorcycles.  Propellant slosh is difficult to model yet critical to launch vehicle control.  Staging requires care to ensure clean separation.

Who knows what other lessons they'll learn the hard way.  Don't load improper constants into GN&C software and don't tape together connectors that are supposed to separate during staging seem like plausible candidates.

I've had first hand experience with established launch service providers and some of the alt.space companies.  The fundamental difference between the two is that the alt.space companies invariably do not appreciate the things that can go wrong or the need for rigorous documentation, process control, and mission assurance effort.  These are the things that increase the costs of the established launch providers.  Recall that after the "successful" second flight of Falcon 1, SpaceX proclaimed that all systems through stage 2 ignition had been qualified.  Apparently not.  Established launch providers know that one success does not equate to repeatable reliability.

Orbital learned that mission assurance costs are necessary and that customers understand that and are willing to pay for it.  Apparently SpaceX didn't want to hear that and must learn it again on their own.

[Antares]

My total conjecture is that this had something to do with the remating of the second stage after the nozzle change-out.  That's not something that would affect the qualification of the design.

Oh and somewhere up on this thread, someone had a comment about NASA signing off on COTS demo launches.  NASA has no say in whether or not SpaceX launches a COTS mission.  The only thing NASA can disallow is berthing with the Station, on the third mission.

[McDew]

Marsavian just posted a very interesting video of a Merlin 1C engine test firing under the Merlin 1C engine thread.  After shutdown it clearly shows a very large burp and backfire of the engine.  I have seen some reports blaming the recontact during separation on an engine burp after stage 1 shutdown.  With test data showing this shutdown characteristic, I don't understand how SpaceX could have missed this possibility.

[nacnud]

I noticed that too, plus there was that rumour of reconnection posted earlier.

[josh_simonson]

The email said that the stages never separated: "Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together. "   That would seem to invalidate the 'violent recontact' rumor, at least as the root failure.  Certainly they'd shut down the engine long enough before staging that any burps and hiccups seen in testing would subside before the next step. 

Possibly if they were held together by a piece of cable the stages may have pulled apart and bounced back together, or if the second stage fired with a cable attached to the first stage it may have swung around and hit the first stage.  That's the only way a 'violent recontact' can be reconciled with SpaceX's statement.

[Carl G]

Was there a big loss of interest in this launch compared to the last. F1 flight II thread has nearly 160,000 views. This one is only up to 12,000

[yinzer]

The email said that the stages never separated: "Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together. "   That would seem to invalidate the 'violent recontact' rumor, at least as the root failure.  Certainly they'd shut down the engine long enough before staging that any burps and hiccups seen in testing would subside before the next step. 

You'd hope so.  In the video from the 2nd launch, MECO happened at about 2:50 and stage separation happened at 2:52.  This is a pretty short time in comparison to the Delta II or Atlas V.  The Delta uses vernier rockets for attitude control after MECO and the Atlas uses booster separation motors.

Possibly if they were held together by a piece of cable the stages may have pulled apart and bounced back together, or if the second stage fired with a cable attached to the first stage it may have swung around and hit the first stage.  That's the only way a 'violent recontact' can be reconciled with SpaceX's statement.

This happened on a Titan IV / IUS mission in 1999.  Also, keep in mind that the current SpaceX statement is based off of at most a few hours of examination of telemetry, so it could be wrong.  Also note that they said the entire first stage flight of the 2nd Falcon 1 launch went perfectly, despite large angular rates on the vehicle causing the interstage to hit the second stage nozzle.

Wait and see.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Elon Speaks!:

We're not quite ready to release details on the initial investigation yet, but we should do it very soon. We think we have a very good idea but I don't want to get ahead of ourselves and then be wrong. We definitely know where the problem occurred, but 'why?' is the question. We think we know, but have to be sure. We think it's very small and will require a tiny change, so tiny that if we had another rocket on the pad we could launch tomorrow.

  Some things can only be tested in space. Bear in mind, Falcon 1 is our test vehicle. The reason we started with F1 isn't because I'm passionate about launching small satellites, but because I want to make mistakes on a small scale and not a large one. And this doesn't appear to be a quality issue or a manufacturing issue. It's a design issue related to new hardware that has only flown on this flight. It was our first with the new Merlin 1C regeneratively cooled engine. The problem we think we've identified is a lesson learned and thus we won't make it on the big Falcon 9, and in that sense it's helpful.

Yes, we took an investment from the Founder's Fund, a fund run by a bunch of guys I used to work with at PayPal. They've been interested in SpaceX for a long time and I knew that, and thought it might be smart to take an investment from them to increase our war chest in case something didn't go right on flight three. Which turned out to be true.

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa

[Chris Bergin]

Was there a big loss of interest in this launch compared to the last. F1 flight II thread has nearly 160,000 views. This one is only up to 12,000

We're on new forum software and new servers now. Previous forum software worked on page impressions on the view count (as in if you read each of the 47 pages on this thread, it'd add 47 views to the counter). This one works on "unique" views - counts one per different IP address viewing (thus one view is added to the counter, regardless of how many pages you clicked or refreshed).....

We've been well past the point where the previous forum software and server would slow down and timeout a few times now, and this launch was one such example, so we as a site had more watching than the last F1 launch - but we're still a growing site.

[manlymissileman]

"...We think it's very small and will require a tiny change, so tiny that if we had another rocket on the pad we could launch tomorrow." 

Not to put a fine point on this but - Oy.  Being cavalier like this now is not smart.  A customer has lost a sat that was paid and hard worked for.

[edit] and this:

"The reason we started with F1 isn't because I'm passionate about launching small satellites, but because I want to make mistakes on a small scale and not a large one."

is irresponsible and uncharitable to the ones who trusted F1 with their ("test") payloads.*  Start doing things right form the beginning if you want trust and return business ("the little guys" may become bigger in the future)

*sure they can understand that it's an LV test, but the "who cares" attitude expressed in the phrase?

[marsavian]

Looks like they didn't take account of the extra roll momentum after all. Seat of the pants stuff but fun to watch Who's going to be as brave as Scotty, rest his soul, and chance the first Dragon manned flight ?

[jimvela]

Elon Speaks!:
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa

Very interesting read.  Note the following [mods: quoted verbatim, please censor the explative if so inclined]

Musk: Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work.

The man's arrogance sometimes fraks me off, but you sure as hell can't claim that he's not driven.

Anything so trivial that they could fly another launch tomorrow just has to be software related...

Timing related to that burp of the 1C shown in the other thread, for example, waiting a couple of seconds longer to stage... 

Or some other bit of minutiae...  I can't wait to hear what they found.

I also think that it's unwise for him to claim that the F1 is just a testbed, unless he's actually all out of customers for it...  There are small sats to be launched...

[zappafrank]

He may be a maverick and billionaire and all that, but if I had a few million invested in a sat, I'd go to someone who is boring, conservative and reliable.

He is a bit too cheeky, and isn't doing a lot to instill confidence. (at least not in me)

[manlymissileman]

This band-aid fix might work tomorrow, and I'm not even sure Musk means that seriously or 'just talkin' to a magazine, but the attitude just displayed will continue to cause problems.

[edit] this was in reaction to the "tiny change"

[manlymissileman]

Well what do I know.  Strangely enough the customer in question SpaceDev is thankful to SpaceX for "delivering" their sat which was deemed a success:  http://spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=278  without actualy being delivered and doing its thing.  If I had customers like that...

[Dalon]

1) Where do you base your beliefs? Three failure in a row say different.

2) Having quality control takes money. Why do you assume other companies waste money with their "typical rocket industry cost structure"? More likely you need this structure and the costs to have a reliable vehicle. You don't simply fix problems. Others will crop up.

3) Sure they have respect, but this isn't enough. Three failures in a row say different. As does launching minutes after an abort. . .

8 ) I have: Three failures in a row. Everything suggests old spaceflight players have a reason to do stuff the way they do. They want profit too and don't waste money for unneccecary procedures. Doesn't mean everything is perfect there. But there must be a reason, don't you think?

Analyst

You and others here continue to suggest that "Three Failures" is some sort of magic number that damns SpaceX as a company with huge institutional problems.  While it's not good to have three failures, neither is it good to have one, or two.  Yet each of the major players in the industry have suffered far more than three failures during their time in the business. 

Statistically, given the tiny, tiny sample size of rocket launching organizations combined with the very small number of launches per organization, two failures versus three failures is barely statistically significant in defining SpaceX's health.  Before you attack this statement, I am not saying that the failure is insignificant.  I am only saying that your break point of two failures versus three failures is statistically insignificant in defining the institutional health of a rocket company. 

As I said above, I think the evidence demonstrates that the key reason for SpaceX's failures have been that the breaking of new ground is typically troublesome.  There are a number of design issues that can only be tested in a live fire environment.  As I said above, I believe SpaceX is working through these show-stoppers one by one.  Once they have cleared each of these hurdles, they will achieve success and reliability.

We must also consider the fact that SpaceX is competing with companies that have been in the business for 20, or 30, or 40 years.  The Big Rocket companies have certainly accrued institutional knowledge completely irrespective of their large and costly Big Company Cost Structure. 

SpaceX is a company doing everything for the first time.  With or without employing the Big Company Cost Structure, they were bound to stumble over problems that their competition had solved years or decades ago. 

While I will concede that my opinion of SpaceX merely working through design issues is not backed by a tremendous abundance of evidence, your allegation that SpaceX's failures have been caused by a lack of the Big Company Cost Structure and/or institutional problems is an opinion without Any evidence at all.

No, three failures is not evidence of an institutional meltdown.  Three failures is evidence of three failures.

As it turns out, Elon Musk has just commented on the recent issues.  His explanations clearly squares with my take on events.  He states that the latest failure was not a QA issue, it was a design issue.  A hurdle he says can be quickly resolved, allowing them to move forward.

Three launches, no QA issues, no technical defects, ALL design issues.

Looks like I was right, go figure.

"And this doesn't appear to be a quality issue or a manufacturing issue. It's a design issue related to new hardware that has only flown on this flight."
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa

[manlymissileman]

...snip...
As I said above, I think the evidence demonstrates that the key reason for SpaceX's failures have been that the breaking of new ground is typically troublesome. 
.. snip...

Sorry for butting into your conversation but what new ground is SpaceX breaking?  (do you know that their key engineers are from the "old industry" background, and rightly so)  Yes they've devloped some new engines but there is nothing extraordinary about them.  On the contrary.  I thought the whole point of SpaceX was NOT to break new ground (so that it might be cheaper to launch them old rockets)

[dirkthefirst]

Three launches, no QA issues, no technical defects, ALL design issues.

I thought the failure on Flight 2 was caused by the loading of incorrect engine management software into the OBC?
That sounds like a QA issue to me.