SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION

[Go4TLI]

There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.

I seriously doubt anyone is suggesting "grounding" the Falcon 9, at least anyone credible.  You should probably be careful about what you read on the internet and how you interpret it.

There is a huge difference in waiving something away and pretending it did not happen and doing the proper investigation to determine root cause, correcting the problem and making any changes (if necessary) one may need to make to production end items or design. 

With respect to the former, I can only presume that some want to have so much faith in anything that comes from SpaceX that anything *perceieved* as negative (even though it happened) causes an adverse defensive reaction. 

The latter is good engineering and good business and can likely be done within the normal time between launches.  If not, it slips a little.  It won't be the first time they have nor will it be the last.  It happens but customer satisfaction and demonstrating one is committed to product reliability goes a long way. 

[tigerade]

Some questions for anyone that wants to take a shot:

1. With the ORBCOMM satellite in the wrong orbit, will SpaceX have to payback money to ORBCOMM?
2. Would this have been the same problem even if this was V1.1 where both the first and second stages had more performance? 
3.  How much propellant is usually stored on a satellite like this OG2?  Do we realistically think it has enough to make big correction like this one?

[Go4TLI]

Some questions for anyone that wants to take a shot:

1. With the ORBCOMM satellite in the wrong orbit, will SpaceX have to payback money to ORBCOMM?
2. Would this have been the same problem even if this was V1.1 where both the first and second stages had more performance? 
3.  How much propellant is usually stored on a satellite like this OG2?  Do we realistically think it has enough to make big correction like this one?

1.  It really depends on the terms of the contract.  Most likely Orbcomm had insurance, which certainly took the launch vehicle into consideration.
2.  No one can really say, at least with good authority, without seeing or having knowledge of the downlinked data from this flight on what precisely happened and without knowing the exact differences on 1.1
3.  No

[Chris-A]

A few images from the Vozoff Presentation on February 11, 2010

[Norm38]

If one in every 40 aircraft engines failed in flights, I for one would not get on the plane until they had found out why, and done something about it.

That's poor statistics.  The failure rate isn't 1 in 40.  If a widget has a 1 in a million failure rate, it doesn't matter if the failure is in unit 1, 40, 7012, or 1 million, the rate is the same.  For all we know the next 800 Merlin 1Cs could fly without another incident.

Except there won't be another 800 1Cs, or even another 40.  So there is little reason to expect the next F9 flight of 10 engines will experience the same failure.  I agree it may make more fiscal sense to launch it anyway, pending review of course.

I do admit this failure does now highlight the second stage's single point of failure.  If engine #1 had been #10 instead, the second stage never makes orbit.  LOM.

But Jim you are correct that Flight 800 is a bad analogy.  And that's because dozens of 747s with thousands of lives on board had already taken off before a Boeing engineer could even consider if the failure could be systemic or not.  Given that level of cavalier, I really do not understand the politically driven slowdown I know is coming.

[Go4TLI]

If one in every 40 aircraft engines failed in flights, I for one would not get on the plane until they had found out why, and done something about it.

That's poor statistics.  The failure rate isn't 1 in 40.  If a widget has a 1 in a million failure rate, it doesn't matter if the failure is in unit 1, 40, 7012, or 1 million, the rate is the same.  For all we know the next 800 Merlin 1Cs could fly without another incident.

Except there won't be another 800 1Cs, or even another 40.  So there is little reason to expect the next F9 flight of 10 engines will experience the same failure.  I agree it may make more fiscal sense to launch it anyway, pending review of course.

I do admit this failure does now highlight the second stage's single point of failure.  If engine #1 had been #10 instead, the second stage never makes orbit.  LOM.

But Jim you are correct that Flight 800 is a bad analogy.  And that's because dozens of 747s with thousands of lives on board had already taken off before a Boeing engineer could even consider if the failure could be systemic or not.  Given that level of cavalier, I really do not understand the politically driven slowdown I know is coming.

What?  This is arm-waving pure and simple, at least when you are not contradicting yourself. 

What *you* were suggesting in one statement is cavalier by suggesting everyone should just move out and pretend this never happened.  In the next beat you suggest "pending review" and at least theorize what would have happened if this was the second stage engine.

Increadibly strange.

[Prober]

There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.

  You should probably be careful about what you read on the internet and how you interpret it.

thats good advice everyone should do......but sadly blogs are taken as facts now etc.

Was eating dinner and just about choked when I changed channels and heard the local news.

The SpaceX engine exploded says the news.  They showed the video frames on TV.

SpaceX time to turn ur PR people on overdrive.

[robertross]

There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.

  You should probably be careful about what you read on the internet and how you interpret it.

thats good advice everyone should do......but sadly blogs are taken as facts now etc.

Was eating dinner and just about choked when I changed channels and heard the local news.

The SpaceX engine exploded says the news.  They showed the video frames on TV.

SpaceX time to turn ur PR people on overdrive.

Given enough rope...

If PR jumped at every turn, it would become expected.
It's likely that once the Dragon berths, they'll answer all questiona at a presser (imo).

It may be bad for Orbcomms position, but as previosuly mentioned, Dragon still made it to orbit - which says a LOT for their system design. I'm actually impressed it kept on chugging along considering the damage.

(though imagine if it was an inboard engine!)

[system9]

I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.

[robertross]

I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.

I think you will find a resounding YES to that question 
I've not heard anything new on the fire, but good to bring that up (though I'm sure it's a minor issue, perhaps a hose failure)

Welcome to the site!

[notsorandom]

About the damage done by the accident, did someone noticed that the view we have of the octopus manifold shows no signs of damage ?
It's few inches away from the engines.

I did notice, was going to make the same post. Looks remarkably clean in there, doesn't it?

When I saw it live (and knowing nothing of the anomaly yet) I thought to myself: "there's a lot less exhaust circulating in here than last time".

Now I'm thinking it's that way because either the kevlar shields and thermal protection work really well...or the engine compartment has extra "ventilation".

I am pretty sure, but correct me if I am wrong, that that view is from the top of the first stage looking up at the Mvac.

[Robotbeat]

Could be just a grass fire, too.

[system9]

I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.

I think you will find a resounding YES to that question 
I've not heard anything new on the fire, but good to bring that up (though I'm sure it's a minor issue, perhaps a hose failure)

Welcome to the site!

Here is one of my videos. (My Father shot this one.) Youtube is still processing it so the quality may improve later but for now...

I think the event occurs at 5:16

[Norm38]

What *you* were suggesting in one statement is cavalier by suggesting everyone should just move out and pretend this never happened.

Except I didn't say that.  I fully expect SpaceX to conduct a full review.  If they scrap the 1C and never fly it again based on their engineering judgement, great.  But if they review the data and say they're flying again unchanged, it's justified.

Because all it takes is the notion that the IC is failure prone or dangerous, and suddenly the failure of the next flight is all but assured and the next flight is in 2014 with 500 extra pounds of diagnostics.

I can't balance that level of risk adversity against how airliner crashes are reacted to.  I trust SpaceX to be inteligent about this, I don't trust the politicians.

[Prober]

I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.

I think you will find a resounding YES to that question 
I've not heard anything new on the fire, but good to bring that up (though I'm sure it's a minor issue, perhaps a hose failure)

Welcome to the site!

Here is one of my videos. (My Father shot this one.) Youtube is still processing it so the quality may improve later but for now...

I think the event occurs at 5:16

nice video.....like the sun comes out during a night launch.

[rickl]

I said last night that I think this proves the overall robust design of the Falcon 9.  Whatever the cause, it suffered a pretty violent loss of an engine and still made it to orbit. 

As others have pointed out, the 747 analogy isn't good, since that plane had made thousands of safe flights before TWA 800.  But I don't see much reason for SpaceX to unduly delay the next flight, since the Falcon 9 v1.0 and Merlin 1C are about to be discontinued.  I guess SpaceX has to weigh the cost/benefit between risking LOM on CRS-2 vs. spending time and money to fix this problem.

As I understand it, Merlin 1D is a completely different engine, and Falcon 9 v1.1 has a different arrangement of engines (a circle instead of a square).  So the v1.1 will have different engines as well as different fairings.

Obviously, they will want to learn as much as possible about this failure, particularly as regards to any parts that may be common between the Merlin 1C and 1D.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that there has to be much of a delay in the next cargo flight.

I think it's great that they are flying a dozen cargo flights, in addition to satellite launches, before they attempt to launch a human crew.  That should give them ample time to work out all the major bugs in the F9.

[Jim]

  Given that level of cavalier, I really do not understand the politically driven slowdown I know is coming.

It is not politically driven.  It is smart engineering and common sense.

[Jim]

What *you* were suggesting in one statement is cavalier by suggesting everyone should just move out and pretend this never happened.

Except I didn't say that.  I fully expect SpaceX to conduct a full review.  If they scrap the 1C and never fly it again based on their engineering judgement, great.  But if they review the data and say they're flying again unchanged, it's justified.

Because all it takes is the notion that the IC is failure prone or dangerous, and suddenly the failure of the next flight is all but assured and the next flight is in 2014 with 500 extra pounds of diagnostics.

I can't balance that level of risk adversity against how airliner crashes are reacted to.  I trust SpaceX to be inteligent about this, I don't trust the politicians.

huh?  politicians have nothing to do with this.  No, it has nothing to do with notions.  I am glad you are not the one to balance that level of risk adversity.  You don't understand what is going one. There could be many legitimate reasons for the next flight to be 2014 with 500 extra pounds of diagnostics.

[Jim]

since the Falcon 9 v1.0 and Merlin 1C are about to be discontinued....

As I understand it, Merlin 1D is a completely different engine, and Falcon 9 v1.1 has a different arrangement of engines (a circle instead of a square).  So the v1.1 will have different engines as well as different fairings.

Obviously, they will want to learn as much as possible about this failure, particularly as regards to any parts that may be common between the Merlin 1C and 1D.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that there has to be much of a delay in the next cargo flight.

Wrong, there are more similarities than differences.

[Go4TLI]

I trust SpaceX to be inteligent about this, I don't trust the politicians.

I would think they would be so what the hell do politicians have to do with this?