Falcon 1 - Post Failure thread

[James Lowe1]

Jonesy STS - 1/4/2006  10:22 AM

amon - 1/4/2006  7:25 AM

There are a number of videos on www.spacex.com which look like they might be interesting if I could access them. If there is anyone here from spacex, could you have someone try viewing them with mplayer from a linux box? (Other viewers are not working either: totem just gets locked solid).

Either that, or put the files where they could be alternatively downloaded.

Maybe Chris could put them on the FTP to make it easier?

I don't think that would make any difference to the problem. Chris is doing his military thing at the weekend anyway.

Nice to see the extra videos, although it's a shame the only thing you get to see is on the long range video, where you can see it almost 'wobble'.

[Chonner]

Audio Interview with Gwen Shotwell (not Elon as it says) over at NPR News, here are some various quotes of interest:

"Unfourtunatly at this particuler moment we can't release the details..."

"we do know what occured, can't release it yet but i can tell you that it was a procedural problem, it was not an issue associated with vehicle itself ... there was a fire, we had a  leak of the fuel which was RP"

"we have recovered quite a bit of it (the vehicle)"

"the payload we have recovered actually, frankly it looks relativly intact, it certaintly can't be resued at this particular time but it still looks very much like the satalite that we launched"

"we expect to be back on the flightline in 6 months since we do know the cause of this particular issue and its a very easy fix, we are going to use the stand down time however and carefully go through every other vehicle subsystem to make sure the probability of sucess is a high as we can possibly make it on the next flight"

"we need the blessing of the goverment to say definatively what we found as they are part of the review team"

Then the interviewer then becomes a really obnoxious and critisises SpaceX for not releasing more info, Gwen handles it quite well and says they can't do so because of the goverment.

[Benny]

a procedual problem....mmh...not being an engineer rather educated in
economic and business sciences I wonder what this could mean?

Procedual problem that caused a fire would in my view mean, that something
was mismanaged.

Could this not point to the early assessment which was mentioned here in the
Forum, that the isolation blanket was not properly released and subsequently
caused the fire thru impact?

[hyper_snyper]

Chonner - 1/4/2006  2:45 PMAudio Interview with Gwen Shotwell (not Elon as it says) over at NPR News, here are some various quotes of interest:

"Unfourtunatly at this particuler moment we can't release the details..."

"we do know what occured, can't release it yet but i can tell you that it was a procedural problem, it was not an issue associated with vehicle itself ... there was a fire, we had a  leak of the fuel which was RP"

"we have recovered quite a bit of it (the vehicle)"

"the payload we have recovered actually, frankly it looks relativly intact, it certaintly can't be resued at this particular time but it still looks very much like the satalite that we launched"

"we expect to be back on the flightline in 6 months since we do know the cause of this particular issue and its a very easy fix, we are going to use the stand down time however and carefully go through every other vehicle subsystem to make sure the probability of sucess is a high as we can possibly make it on the next flight"

"we need the blessing of the goverment to say definatively what we found as they are part of the review team"

Then the interviewer then becomes a really obnoxious and critisises SpaceX for not releasing more info, Gwen handles it quite well and says they can't do so because of the goverment.

Wow...the interviewer was a jerk.  He has no right to criticize like that. 

I'm glad the failure is easy to fix.  Although I'm not sure what a procedural problem is.

[R&R]

hyper_snyper - 2/4/2006  1:07 PM

Chonner - 1/4/2006  2:45 PMAudio Interview with Gwen Shotwell (not Elon as it says) over at NPR News, here are some various quotes of interest:

"Unfourtunatly at this particuler moment we can't release the details..."

"we do know what occured, can't release it yet but i can tell you that it was a procedural problem, it was not an issue associated with vehicle itself ...

Wow...the interviewer was a jerk.  He has no right to criticize like that. 

I'm glad the failure is easy to fix.  Although I'm not sure what a procedural problem is.

He's a reporter what else is new.  But releasing too much too soon is not necessarily a great approach; it's too easy to put your foot in your mouth.

They better hope it is a vehicle problem not procedural.  Procedural means somebody screwed up either by not following procedure or forgetting even not knowing enough to get the right precautions in the procedure.  I could believe the procedure is at fault because Elon stated in some interview I saw excerpts from that their countdown procedure had tripled since the first attempt.  Kind of makes you wonder about the launch background of their control room team.  Getting the government comfortable with the new procedure may well require dress rehearsals and even static firings to prove it works.

If it is the procedure they'll have real problems with the government (DARPA, Air Force, Range etc) because they can forgive hardware problems a lot easier than procedural ones.  Even so they can forget about launching again in six months unless it's from Kwaj.  The Range will force them to put explosives on the vehicle (braddock indicated in an earlier replay to me that Vandenberg, probably Western Range, was already hedging on a launch with just engine termination and there was no formal go yet) and that's no easy add and drives a ton of training, testing and the cost would have to absorbed by SapceX I'm guessing for the near future since the contracts they already have likely don't allow for this to be passed on since it was not a part of design when they were signed.

[Pointman 7]

I wouldn't tar all reporters with the same brush, such as the ones who work on this site are nothing like the one in the interview above.

However, SpaceX have a fair bit to answer for with the release of the launch videos without showing the failure. That was error as it's not going to be as big a boost when they succeed. People like winners, but they like winners after adversity more.

[Benny]

But isnīt it much more costly and time consuming to solve non-procedual
issues such as mechanical malfunction or others of that kind.

If there merely was an issue of someone not doing his job properly, this
should be adressed and solved in a rather short time.

I would think that SpaceX would really be happy if there are no flaws concerning
the Falcon1 that caused this accident and would gladly solve the procedual problem.
I am just realy interested what procedual error could cause a fire during lift-off....

[R&R]

Benny - 2/4/2006  2:27 PM

But isnīt it much more costly and time consuming to solve non-procedual
issues such as mechanical malfunction or others of that kind.

If there merely was an issue of someone not doing his job properly, this
should be adressed and solved in a rather short time.

I would think that SpaceX would really be happy if there are no flaws concerning
the Falcon1 that caused this accident and would gladly solve the procedual problem.
I am just realy interested what procedual error could cause a fire during lift-off....

In the grand scheme of things most of the time procedure work is cheaper but if the fix was as simple as a valve or fitting it may prove less costly than extensive testing and Wet Dress Rehearsals or Static Firings to prove the paper got it covered.  Maybe the rocket wasn't the problem but if a mere procedural slip broke it then it could be the rocket is not designed right.

The big rockets are more complex and costly in part because of the designs and the extensive engineering review, modeling, bench testing and post test review is there to prevent them from being easily broken.  Falcon has been significantly damaged twice before launch by procedural errors and upon launch this time if what they say is accurate.  They did blame the 1st Stage pre-launch break on a faulty valve which I can accept but why was there no redundancy?  Why didn't they have a contingency for that kind of a failure?  Was there a fail safe mode for that system?  These are the same kind of questions the government will ask and it can be very costly to get them the right answers.

There's something inherently wrong with their design if it's that easy to break.  They may be driven by the Government to make design changes whether they make sense or not before they allow them to launch again.  They’ve done this to the big launchers many times even without a launch failure.

I wish SpaceX good luck with what's coming.

[Chris Bergin]

Chonner - 1/4/2006  7:45 PM

Audio Interview with Gwen Shotwell

When I was on national radio back in my broadcasting days, the first lesson you learn is not to grunt agreement into the mic!

The second half of his interview is very offensive, looking for a reactionary soundbyte. Well done to Gwynne for not cutting the interview short, as she would have been within rights to do so. An interview is not judge and jury, so he should not have aimed to provoke information in that style.

[mvanbavel]

Benny - 1/4/2006  1:58 PM

a procedual problem....mmh...not being an engineer rather educated in
economic and business sciences I wonder what this could mean?

I am guessing there was a fuel valve that should have
been closed before launch.

Reading one of Von Braun's old books he talks about automatic checkouts
for the Saturn that were run by computer instead of by a human, so they were
quicker and more repeatable. I wonder if SpaceX uses an automatic checkout,
or is it all done by hand?

[braddock]

Does anyone here believe that the Government investigation is prohibiting SpaceX from releasing the crash photos?

As much as I hate to see Gwynne Shotwell assaulted on national radio, and as much more that I hate to see the rare broadcast time on SpaceX squandered, I think the reporter caught whiff of a half truth and followed his instincts.  

Ms. Shotwell is not some slick high-profile PR veteran who necessarily knows how to handle a rabid reporter; her background is in engineering, mathematics, and project management; she is now SpaceX VP of Business Development.  

The engineers rule at SpaceX, both for better and for worse.  Mostly for better I think; after all, I've seen Gwynne field technical questions that a PR spokeswoman with a liberal arts background wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.  That is why SpaceX puts her on the press calls and now NPR; to disseminate actual information, not to stay "on message".  Obviously this strategy has some risks.

SpaceX made the justifiable decision to not release footage that would certainly be aired on every news outlet behind the headline "Fiery Crash after the break", but they are gonna have to take some heat for being so self-conscious.

[Jim]

mvanbavel - 1/4/2006  10:11 PM

Benny - 1/4/2006  1:58 PMa procedual problem....mmh...not being an engineer rather educated in economic and business sciences I wonder what this could mean?

I am guessing there was a fuel valve that should have been closed before launch.Reading one of Von Braun's old books he talks about automatic checkoutsfor the Saturn that were run by computer instead of by a human, so they werequicker and more repeatable. I wonder if SpaceX uses an automatic checkout, or is it all done by hand?

Computers run the countdown, but there still are manual steps in the preps for launch

[dmc6960]

braddock - 2/4/2006  7:42 AM

Does anyone here believe that the Government investigation is prohibiting SpaceX from releasing the crash photos?

As much as I would like seeing the crash photos and definately that long range video of it coming back down, I can easily see them waiting until a successful launch of the Falcon 1 first.  If a company has a failure of a product during its development stage, they are pretty unlikely to talk about it until they can develop a working product and then laugh about the mistakes of the original prototype afterwards.  Now thats not exactly the situation here, but its one I could understand them choosing to do so.  If after 1 or 2 successful launches they still dont release any more photos or video of this first launch, then I'd be upset.  But not at this time yet.

[dmc6960]

Jim - 2/4/2006  8:34 AM

Computers run the countdown, but there still are manual steps in the preps for launch

Such as closing manual vent valves on LOX tanks.

[Flightstar]

braddock - 2/4/2006  7:42 AM

Does anyone here believe that the Government investigation is prohibiting SpaceX from releasing the crash photos?

Well, given it came down pretty much where it launched from, publically showing the video might give undue concerns to the good people of the Western range, which in turn would set them back for Vandenberg. It could have a little something to do with that too.

[Jim]

Flightstar - 2/4/2006  1:16 PM

braddock - 2/4/2006  7:42 AMDoes anyone here believe that the Government investigation is prohibiting SpaceX from releasing the crash photos?

Well, given it came down pretty much where it launched from, publically showing the video might give undue concerns to the good people of the Western range, which in turn would set them back for Vandenberg. It could have a little something to do with that too.

They will see the data whether it is public or not

[ABlair]

I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I noticed something weird during the countdown that bothered me on launch day.  After hearing the failure was caused by a procedural problem I thought I'd post and see if anyone else noticed it.

During the launch countdown at about T-45 seconds, a guy came on and asked for a valve to be opened.  This sounded like the routine LOX valve opening/closing  requests that they had been doing at intervals during the count (I assume to keep the tank pressurized and topped off).  A woman controller responded with something close to "Ok, but I'm going to be very busy soon".  I never heard a follow-up request to close the valve.  Unfortunately the launch video posted doesn't start that early.  If anyone else noticed, do you know what valve was being opened?  

-Alan

[JesseD]

During the launch countdown at about T-45 seconds, a guy came on and asked for a valve to be opened. This sounded like the routine LOX valve opening/closing requests that they had been doing at intervals during the count (I assume to keep the tank pressurized and topped off). A woman controller responded with something close to "Ok, but I'm going to be very busy soon". I never heard a follow-up request to close the valve.

You know, I have just been wondering about that very thing?  I also noticed that.  I don't know if it could have caused the fire we saw, or not, though.  I believe that request is to vent the LOX tank pressure?  I noted that when they did the vent procedure the gases vented from the small pipe/exhaust at the base of the rocket.  well below the chamber, down by the nozzle.
As such, I doubt that simply forgetting to close that valve again could cause a fire as high on the engine as you can see in the pictures.  that is, of course, unless it caused a flashback fire resulting in a break in the line and subsequent doom.

I also can't believe their systems would allow a launch with a vent valve open.  or without at least an automatic valve closing apparatus.

[aero313]

JesseD - 3/4/2006  10:58 AM

You know, I have just been wondering about that very thing?  I also noticed that.  I don't know if it could have caused the fire we saw, or not, though.  I believe that request is to vent the LOX tank pressure?  

Well, SpaceX says it was a fuel fire, which means a kerosene leak

I noted that when they did the vent procedure the gases vented from the small pipe/exhaust at the base of the rocket.  well below the chamber, down by the nozzle. As such, I doubt that simply forgetting to close that valve again could cause a fire as high on the engine as you can see in the pictures.  that is, of course, unless it caused a flashback fire resulting in a break in the line and subsequent doom.

The "vent" below the thrust chamber should be the turbine exhaust for the turbopump.  They also gimbal this small nozzle to provide roll control.  A better bet for the leak is from the quick disconnects used for on-pad fueling at the base of the tank.  RP and LOX enter the first stage tanks from quick disconnects somewhere at the top of the launch mount.  Usually there would be a shutoff valve upstream of the QD as a positive seal.  Failing to close this valve could lead to a fuel leak, probably in the location of the fire.  Also, if their rocket is like most LOX/RP vehicles, they probably use RP as the hydraulic fluid in the actuators for the first stage TVC.  They would probably need a ground hydraulic connection to test the TVC on the pad before fueling, so there may be another fuel leak source there.

I also can't believe their systems would allow a launch with a vent valve open.  or without at least an automatic valve closing apparatus.

Yeah, well I wouldn't believe that their systems would allow a tank to suck itself inside out during a draining procedure, either.  That's three procedural mistakes in four launch attempts - at least two that we know of were mishandled valves.  Boy, I'm sure glad they have that Futron "study" to prove they have the most reliable vehicle in the history of spaceflight...

[Jim]

they do use the RP-1 as hydraulic fluid