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

[Prober]

couple of ?

Who was doing the audio for the NASA transmission?   Someone from SpaceX or NASA?

Did anyone capture the NASA tail end video of the replays?    Would enjoy watching that again.

[Chris Bergin]

Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/

[beancounter]

Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/

Thanks Chris.  As usual, great article.

[Kabloona]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

[meekGee]

Does anyone know if the Falcon 9 took off fully fueled? 

My concern is that an engine loss at 1:20 already caused enough extra propellant to be consumed so that there was not enough to loft the tiny orbcomm into the higher orbit - and this was a lightly loaded Dragon.

Maybe with the lighter load, they also did not top off the tanks. (Or also maybe the decision not to fire the second stage was due to a combination of factors (e.g. orbital position), and actually there was enough propellant.

Anyway, even if they did take off fully fueled, with the 1.1 coming up, I hope this gets resolved.

[darkenfast]

THIS is why this site is worth it! Good job, Chris!

[HMXHMX]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

Rand is a highly experienced "recovering" aerospace engineer who published a blog called Transterrestrial Musings (www.transterrestrial.com).  He is a thirty-plus year veteran of the industry.  Nothing he said in that article seem to me to contradict what Chris wrote.

[Kabloona]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

Rand is a highly experienced "recovering" aerospace engineer who published a blog called Transterrestrial Musings (www.transterrestrial.com).  He is a thirty-plus year veteran of the industry.  Nothing he said in that article seem to me to contradict what Chris wrote.

He said the powerhead remained "intact." Which sounded to me like a contradiction of Chris' article saying that the fuel dome fractured. I guess it depends on one's definition of "intact." Maybe he was just trying to say that the powerhead stayed mostly in one piece.

[meekGee]

It would be great if someone posted a picture of a Merlin showing where the fuel done is located and explaining where it fits in the plumbing

[Jason1701]

It would be great if someone posted a picture of a Merlin showing where the fuel done is located and explaining where it fits in the plumbing

L2

[HMXHMX]

It would be great if someone posted a picture of a Merlin showing where the fuel done is located and explaining where it fits in the plumbing

Here you go.

[HMXHMX]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

Rand is a highly experienced "recovering" aerospace engineer who published a blog called Transterrestrial Musings (www.transterrestrial.com).  He is a thirty-plus year veteran of the industry.  Nothing he said in that article seem to me to contradict what Chris wrote.

He said the powerhead remained "intact." Which sounded to me like a contradiction of Chris' article saying that the fuel dome fractured. I guess it depends on one's definition of "intact." Maybe he was just trying to say that the powerhead stayed mostly in one piece.

The powerhead is the pump and turbine plus GG.  If the dome failed, the TPA could have remained intact, easily.

[SpaceX_MS]

Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/

Thank you for being balanced Chris! Now for berthing!!

[edkyle99]

Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

In this case, I suspect that the Orbcomm people might agree with a failure listing.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/

 - Ed Kyle

[meekGee]

Here you go.

Thanks!

So do I understand correctly that it is the back-end of the combustion chamber, and so a rupture there would cause the outflow to be mixed and basically already ignited.

I'm trying to understand whether we have the outflow rapturing the fairing outwards, or the lack of proper engine output causing the airflow to rapture the fairing inwards.

Also - since it is at the top of the engine, it can fail due to something like metallurgy issue or internal engine event, or it can fail due to mechanical impact from the outside.  No indication on that yet, right?   Out of curiosity, how thick is it (roughly) and what metal is it made from?

[savuporo]

In this case, I suspect that the Orbcomm people might agree with a failure listing.

Here is Orbcomm press release

[Halidon]

Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

In this case, I suspect that the Orbcomm people might agree with a failure listing.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/

 - Ed Kyle

That's interesting, thanks for the input. Is this the first time a failure to reach the secondary payload orbit has caused a failure by those criteria?

[HMXHMX]

Here you go.

Thanks!

So do I understand correctly that it is the back-end of the combustion chamber, and so a rupture there would cause the outflow to be mixed and basically already ignited.

I'm trying to understand whether we have the outflow rapturing the fairing outwards, or the lack of proper engine output causing the airflow to rapture the fairing inwards.

Also - since it is at the top of the engine, it can fail due to something like metallurgy issue or internal engine event, or it can fail due to mechanical impact from the outside.  No indication on that yet, right?   Out of curiosity, how thick is it (roughly) and what metal is it made from?

I'd call it "head end" or "top end" not back end.  It's part of the combustion chamber/throat/nozzle assembly which is called a TCA ("thrust chamber assembly") in most publications.

The pressure inside the TCA, exhausted via the throat and through the nozzle, is what creates thrust.  Any opening or venting outside of the nozzle will lower combustion pressure, and that will be sensed as fault by the engine controller.  Presumably if that happened, the engine would command itself to shut down.

I don't have any details about the engine but the walls are likely fairly thin, perhaps only a few millimeters thick.  There are many failure modes, from burn-though, stress cracking, etc., that generally require analysis of the post-failure hardware to determine.  That may not be possible in this case.

But since there is only one (?) flight of Merlin 1C left, and then SpaceX transitions to the very different Merlin 1D, the failure has come at about the worst time in that version's manufacturing cycle.  SpaceX has a few hard decisions to make going forward (in my view).  While unlikely, they might wish to transition earlier to the F9v1.1 than they had planned...but that creates it own set of problems.  Tough call and I wish them the best.

[dunderwood]

Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

I think it's fairly obvious to the casual observer that this launch succeeded at its primary objective (deploy Dragon such that it can berth with the ISS) and failed at it's secondary objective (deploy OrbComm in it's proper orbit).

I understand the desire for a black and white pass/fail criteria, but saying this launch is a complete failure seems a bit much.  Did you mark down Falcon 9 Flight 1 as a failure since it failed to achieve a restart burn?

[mr. mark]

Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

I think it's fairly obvious to the casual observer that this launch succeeded at its primary objective (deploy Dragon such that it can berth with the ISS) and failed at it's secondary objective (deploy OrbComm in it's proper orbit).

I understand the desire for a black and white pass/fail criteria, but saying this launch is a complete failure seems a bit much.  Did you mark down Falcon 9 Flight 1 as a failure since it failed to achieve a restart burn?

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion as well. It was not the second stages fault that the command was not given to raise Orbcomm's satellite to it's proper orbit. NASA's parameters did not allow for it. I would classify the mission as a partial success and that is only if and when Dragon fulfills it's intended flight plan.