Falcon 1 - Post Failure thread

[Jim]

DaveS - 25/3/2006  12:54 PMIt's leaking RP-1 alright! Leak starts at approx. T+1 second and forms a dark band around the very base of the RP-1 tank structure and the leak point is directly facing the camera.

the dark band is part of the paint scheme

[wirehead]

I'm betting the biggest problem is that if this is a fuel leak so soon after takeoff, why didn't their testing regeme catch it earlier?  They did several static firings of the complete booster, stand firings, etc.  If they are going to be in it for the long haul, the answer to "why didn't this get spotted while testing" is more important than "what went wrong?"

Is it just me or did the launch pad picture look comically small compared to the shuttle's?  The water deluge system looked like a few garden hoses and with the little hut as scale reference....

[Jamie Young]

No, that's just the quotes from the Elon blog........................which you should have read already earlier in this thread!

[Avron]

Jamie Young - 25/3/2006  3:53 PM

No, that's just the quotes from the Elon blog........................which you should have read already earlier in this thread!

Correct, my error.. deleted

[Flightstar]

wirehead - 25/3/2006  1:56 PM

I'm betting the biggest problem is that if this is a fuel leak so soon after takeoff, why didn't their testing regeme catch it earlier?  They did several static firings of the complete booster, stand firings, etc.  If they are going to be in it for the long haul, the answer to "why didn't this get spotted while testing" is more important than "what went wrong?"

Is it just me or did the launch pad picture look comically small compared to the shuttle's?  The water deluge system looked like a few garden hoses and with the little hut as scale reference....

Problem with the static fires is the longest was 3 seconds, I believe. I wonder if they over-pressurized during ascent, which is never an exact science.

[Chris Bergin]

Tap-Sa - 25/3/2006  6:33 PM

Exci - 25/3/2006  6:10 PM
  On high resolution imagery, the fire is clearly visible within seconds after liftoff.  

I wonder if webcast got a glimpse of this. Check out the video in FTP section, at about T+3s which is 14 seconds from start of the clip. A bright puff appears in the upper section of the engine.

Well observed.

I'm trying to get more video footage, so I'll update this if successful.

[Chris Bergin]

And the answer has come back that they do indeed have a lot of extra footage. SpaceX are currently compiling it all together and will publish it in the near future.

[realtime]

Here's what I think I see when examining frame by frame:

T-3 (frames 250-270, 08:10-09:00)  Ignition
A fireball rises from the lower right of the engine and moves up and to the left.  It paints the lower left side of the rocket with soot.  Presumably there's something to burn there.  Could the leak have started before launch, inundating the engine area with RP-1 or RP-1 fumes?

T+1 (frames 338-358 , 11:08-11:28)  Liftoff
Fire washes up over the same area.  This seems like blastback.

T+4 (frames 426-442, 14:06-14:22)  Smoke puff
Possible flame and smoke puff above nozzle as pointed out earlier.  Leak source?  Or is it just a reflection?

I bet SpaceX has a much better high-res version of this clip, and others as well.

[lmike]

I wonder if SpaceX should wait and switch immediately to the regen nozzle Merlin for the next tests/launches.  This would allow them to do longer test burns and a better chance to debug their engine plumbing?  Is it possible to test this vehcle in flight stage by stage?  (dummy upper stage, then dummy payload)  to boost customer's confidence.  I realize it'd be more expensive in the short run, but...  incremental testing has its advantages.

[lmike]

In any case, I'm sure Mr. Musk has enough fortitude to persevere this setback and adapt his strategy without sacrificing the cost advantages too much.  How cleverly and professionally they investigate this and proceed will also be a big boost to them.  And my props to them for being so open and providing a video feed in real-time.  Go SpaceX!

[DaveS]

The engine was fine. What started it all was an leak from the RP-1 fuel tank suggesting that it suffered a structural failure which caused a fire that then ate itself into the first stage helium pneumatic system.

Then when the pressure in the helium pneumatic system fell below a certain limit, the engine shut itself down, and from there on it fell back to Earth.

[lmike]

Even if so, longer test firings which (apparently) the new Merlin would let them do, would test the tanks and the structure as well for the harmful oscillations, and material limits.

[DaveS]

And there's some updates in the blog: http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Seems like the Falcon impacted a reef 250 ft(75 m) from the launch pad! And their machine shop got an unexpected visitor when the FalconSat-2 payload survived the failure mostly intact.

[Tony T. Harris]

Well this tells a story:

[Damon Hill]

Or does it?  Entrained exhaust in the aft section during launch is a common
occurance; the Delta IV and some other rockets have an aft fairing to protect
the engine hardware.

Or it could be a fuel leak spraying a heavy mist from somewhere...

Again, one hopes they got back enough intact pieces to determine the
exact point of failure.

I think the next flights will continue to be 'all up', since that's the best way
to test the entire system.  Whether or not a payload will go up on the next
launch will depend on the particular customer's intestinal fortitude.  You
takes your chances in this business even with well-established launchers.

[lmike]

Damon Hill - 25/3/2006  4:21 PM
...Whether or not a payload will go up on the next
launch will depend on the particular customer's intestinal fortitude.  You
takes your chances in this business even with well-established launchers.

Absolutely, but Mr. Musk seems to strive for "better than the rest", and good on him.  Man, I love competition!  (I wish we had a dozen of SpaceXs in the same stage of development doing test launches every other week!)

[hyper_snyper]

DaveS - 25/3/2006  6:47 PMAnd there's some updates in the blog: http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/Seems like the Falcon impacted a reef 250 ft(75 m) from the launch pad! And their machine shop got an unexpected visitor when the FalconSat-2 payload survived the failure mostly intact.

I wonder if he meant the second stage or some portion of it with FalconSat-2 still inside.  Because I fail to see how FalconSat got out of the fairing and landed independently of the rocket.

[Chris Bergin]

SpaceX just now:

"There will be a formal US Government led anomaly investigation in partnership with SpaceX. The report issued by that team will reflect the fully considered official opinion. The website updates reflect only the preliminary analysis of SpaceX and are provided pursuant to our policy of early and full disclosure."

And then published what we saw earlier on Elon's brother's blog site.

[R&R]

DaveS - 26/3/2006  4:47 PM

And there's some updates in the blog: http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Seems like the Falcon impacted a reef 250 ft(75 m) from the launch pad! And their machine shop got an unexpected visitor when the FalconSat-2 payload survived the failure mostly intact.

Well that will guarantee they get moved from SLC-3 (East I think) at VAFB.  The Air Force had already informed them of that since they are worried about an impact on the Atlas V Pad also at SLC-3 (West I think).  And if what they all the reports indicate are true that big pieces (makes sense since their FTS just shuts down the engine) came down so close and possibly on facilities there's no way the East or West Range will ever let them launch in the US without explosive destruct systems.

[Flightstar]

Damon Hill - 25/3/2006  6:21 PM

Or does it?  Entrained exhaust in the aft section during launch is a common
occurance; the Delta IV and some other rockets have an aft fairing to protect
the engine hardware.

Correct, but not to that extent seen in the image.