Author Topic: Pad Failure: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - Sept 3 2016 - UPDATES (Read 157813 times)

Ilikeboosterrockets · « **Reply #80 on:** 09/09/2016 02:51 pm »

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/774257337221517312

Elon Musk says they can't find indications of struts failing on vehicle sensors

Johnnyhinbos · « **Reply #81 on:** 09/09/2016 02:54 pm »

Elon's tweet was in response to this question:

jpo234 · « **Reply #82 on:** 09/09/2016 03:06 pm »

SpaceX is now officially asking the public for footage from the anomaly.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #83 on:** 09/09/2016 11:21 pm »

Not really an update as such, but as a site this is a "where things stand" via a feature on 39A....

Feature article by Chris Gebhardt:

SpaceX looks to historic Pad 39A for Falcon 9 flight operations
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/09/spacex-historic-pad-39a-falcon-9/

---

Reason we did a feature on 39A and didn't just go wild with Elon's tweets as the focus is explained here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41015.msg1581515#msg1581515

Scylla · « **Reply #84 on:** 09/10/2016 01:32 pm »

Emergency management: A behind the scenes look on the Eastern Range
By Lt. Col. Greg Lindsey, 45th Mission Support Group commander Detachment 1, / Published September 08, 2016
http://www.patrick.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/938481/emergency-management-a-behind-the-scenes-look-on-the-eastern-range

toruonu · « **Reply #85 on:** 09/13/2016 02:29 pm »

From P.B. de Selding:

Quote

SpaceX President Shotwell: We anticipate return to flight in November, meaning down for three months. Next flight from CCAFS, then to VAFB.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/775702299402526720

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #86 on:** 09/13/2016 02:53 pm »

Quote

Peter B. de Selding ‏@pbdes 4m4 minutes ago

SpaceX's Shotwell: We have been told that the Sept. 1 anomaly will not affect Falcon 9's insurance rates. So we expect no impact.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/775707555444252673

Kryten · « **Reply #87 on:** 09/13/2016 03:25 pm »

Quote

Peter B. de Selding ‏@pbdes 4m4 minutes ago
SpaceX's Shotwell: Nov return to flight is our best hope. We still haven't isolated the cause or whether its origin was rocket or ground.

Jdeshetler · « **Reply #88 on:** 09/13/2016 07:27 pm »

Video of SpaceX-President on Falcon 9 accident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYs2h1ek6HM&feature=youtu.be

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #89 on:** 09/21/2016 01:09 am »

Just in case folk are wondering why this thread is quiet and the discussion thread is racing....it's because people are posting in the correct thread.

The update is only that they are still working the root cause path in a very complicated investigation process (as you know, but it's still the case as of this week). They have candidates, but no actual cause yet. That's why there isn't a recent update to their last official status post.

So yeah, that's no help to you, I know, but some people were posting "anything?" in this thread, so I thought I better post here.

As you've all been doing, please continue discussion in the discussion thread (obviously

)

somepitch · « **Reply #90 on:** 09/23/2016 05:42 pm »

From http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

September 23, 1:00pm EDT

Three weeks ago, SpaceX experienced an anomaly at our Launch Complex 40 (LC-40) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. This resulted in the loss of one of our Falcon 9 rockets and its payload.

The Accident Investigation Team (AIT), composed of SpaceX, the FAA, NASA, the U.S. Air Force, and industry experts, are currently scouring through approximately 3,000 channels of engineering data along with video, audio and imagery. The timeline of the event is extremely short – from first signs of an anomaly to loss of data is about 93 milliseconds or less than 1/10th of a second. The majority of debris from the incident has been recovered, photographed, labeled and catalogued, and is now in a hangar for inspection and use during the investigation.

At this stage of the investigation, preliminary review of the data and debris suggests that a large breach in the cryogenic helium system of the second stage liquid oxygen tank took place. All plausible causes are being tracked in an extensive fault tree and carefully investigated. Through the fault tree and data review process, we have exonerated any connection with last year’s CRS-7 mishap.

The teams have continued inspections of LC-40 and the surrounding facilities. While substantial areas of the pad systems were affected, the Falcon Support Building adjacent to the pad was unaffected, and per standard procedure was unoccupied at the time of the anomaly. The new liquid oxygen farm – e.g. the tanks and plumbing that hold our super-chilled liquid oxygen – was unaffected and remains in good working order. The RP-1 (kerosene) fuel farm was also largely unaffected. The pad’s control systems are also in relatively good condition.

SpaceX’s other facilities, from the Payload Processing Facility at the Cape, to the pad and hangar at LC-39A, are located several miles from LC-40 and were unaffected as well. Work continues at Pad 39A in preparation for bringing it online in November. The teams have been in contact with our Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center partners and neighbors and have found no evidence of debris leaving the immediate area of LC-40.

At SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, CA, our manufacturing and production is continuing in a methodical manner, with teams continuing to build engines, tanks, and other systems as they are exonerated from the investigation. We will work to resume our manifest as quickly as responsible once the cause of the anomaly has been identified by the Accident Investigation Team. Pending the results of the investigation, we anticipate returning to flight as early as the November timeframe.

Other efforts, including the Commercial Crew Program with NASA, are continuing to progress. Getting back to flight safely and reliably is our top priority, and the data gathered from the present investigation will result in an even safer and more reliable vehicle for our customers and partners.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #91 on:** 09/23/2016 10:45 pm »

And just a write up of the current status:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/09/spacex-press-amos-6-failure-root-cause/

MarekCyzio · « **Reply #92 on:** 09/26/2016 02:54 pm »

Per SpaceX:
[Updated 09/24: At this time, the cause of the potential breach remains unknown.]
Source: http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

Rocket Science · « **Reply #93 on:** 09/26/2016 03:01 pm »

Quote from: rdale on 09/26/2016 02:56 pm

Quote from: MarekCyzio on 09/26/2016 02:54 pm
Per SpaceX:
[Updated 09/24: At this time, the cause of the potential breach remains unknown.]
Source: http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

Is that a bad link? I don't see any 9/24 update (and I'm surprised they did one on a Saturday anyways?)

looks like they updated a 9/23 with an addition... Have a look if I'm reading it correctly....
[Updated 09/24: At this time, the cause of the potential breach remains unknown.]
http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

jpo234 · « **Reply #94 on:** 09/26/2016 03:02 pm »

Quote from: rdale on 09/26/2016 02:56 pm

Quote from: MarekCyzio on 09/26/2016 02:54 pm
Per SpaceX:
[Updated 09/24: At this time, the cause of the potential breach remains unknown.]
Source: http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

Is that a bad link? I don't see any 9/24 update (and I'm surprised they did one on a Saturday anyways?)

jpo234 · « **Reply #95 on:** 09/28/2016 09:26 am »

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/780893099501326336

Quote

Musk: F9 anomaly investigation still top priority; “most vexing and difficult thing.” Ruled out all the obvious possibilities. #IAC2016

Also from Jeff Foust: "Musk says Falcon 9 investigation remains SpaceX’s top priority"

Quote

“We’ve eliminated all of the obvious possibilities” for the anomaly, he said. “So what remains are less probable.”

Edit: Add link to actual article by Jeff Foust

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #96 on:** 10/04/2016 03:53 pm »

For what it's worth, SpaceX PAO pass this on to the media just now.

----
All –

Given your prior coverage, I wanted to pass along this letter a bipartisan group of 24 Members of Congress sent to the Administrator of the FAA, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Administrator of NASA concerning the investigation into the Sept 1 anomaly at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

http://flores.house.gov/uploadedfiles/faa-usaf-nasa-letter-20160930.pdf

---snip

(PS Remember, update only thread, discuss this in the discussion section).

Dante80 · « **Reply #97 on:** 10/05/2016 02:20 pm »

Shotwell on the Amos-6 mishap.
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-shotwell-on-falcon-9-inquiry-discounts-for-reused-rockets-and-silicon-valleys-test-and-fail-ethos/

The Falcon 9 rocket failure last year was tied to a failed strut. You found a strut in inventory that failed. How do you know that it was a strut that caused the failure and not simply a coincidence and that the cause lies elsewhere?
You have to look at the preponderance of evidence in order to know for sure. Knowing for sure would mean more video cameras in the tanks, which we are doing, actually. We’re going to put more video in the tanks. We currently have video on the tanks. We weren’t downloading the stream on the one that had that particular camera on this most recent event a month ago.
Based on accelerometer data we knew exactly where the failure occurred. And the only thing in that area was a strut and we also had some of these purchased components in inventory and they did not pass screening. So: Do you know 100 percent? No. Do you know 99.9 percent? Yes. I believe the Air Force and NASA agreed with us, I’m pretty sure.

Could you address a recent story that SpaceX suspected that a nefarious actor might have been a contributor to the Sept. 1 failure. I know you can’t eliminate anything in an inquiry, but…
That’s right: You cannot eliminate anything, especially if there are some data points that say it’s possible, but not likely. The more than likely — the overwhelmingly likely — explanation is that we did something to that rocket. And we’re going to find it and we’re going to fix it.

So the idea that an outside force might have intervened to cause the failure is not high on your list of thoughts?
Absolutely not high on my list of thoughts.

If I recall correctly, the NASA report on the June 2015 failure said the strut issue was a probable cause, but not a definitive root cause. You said it wasn’t 100 percent sure, but 99 percent sure. Is it possible that the second-stage composite helium bottle, immersed in the LOX tank, might have been an actor in the 2015 failure and again in what happened on September 1?
Until we complete the investigation and get through all the data, and all the scenarios, you can’t say it wasn’t this or it wasn’t that. I can tell you that the signature for this particular failure was substantially different from the one we saw last June. It’s incredibly unlikely that the scenario that we saw last June was the same as this one. It’s extremely low on the possibility list right now.

What’s the possibility that there’s a design issue with that helium bottle?
I don’t think it’s a design issue with the bottle. I think it probably is more focused on the operations, which is one of the reasons we believe we can get back to flight so quickly.
But we have to finish the investigation. We’re not going to fly until we’re ready to fly.

When you say it’s more focused on operations, you mean filling of the helium tank, or the filling of the LOX tank, or what?
All of it. We’re going to look at all of it.

On Sept. 1 it wasn’t clear whether the cause lay in the ground support equipment, or inside the rocket. You have made the determination that it was inside the rocket and not some procedure during preparation for the static test?
We believe that the composite over wrapped pressure vessel [the helium bottle], known as a COPv, let go in the tank. What caused it, the exact reason it let go, we’re still investigating. I don’t believe it was a ground system cause, but we’re still looking at the data.

So it’s too soon to say you’re going to be back this year or to give any date?
I do believe we’re going to get back this year. We’re running a lot of tests at our test facility in Texas and we’re learning an awful lot. It’s not impossible for us to fly this year.

Lars-J · « **Reply #98 on:** 10/28/2016 08:41 pm »

SpaceX just posted an update - seems like they are making progress and can at least partially reproduce what happened:

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

October 28, 4:00pm EDT

The Accident Investigation Team continues to make progress in examining the anomaly on September 1 that led to the loss of a Falcon 9 and its payload at Launch Complex 40 (LC-40), Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

Since the incident, investigators from SpaceX, the FAA, NASA, the US Air Force and industry experts have been working methodically through an extensive fault tree to investigate all plausible causes. As part of this, we have conducted tests at our facility in McGregor, Texas, attempting to replicate as closely as possible the conditions that may have led to the mishap.

The investigation team has made significant progress on the fault tree. Previously, we announced the investigation was focusing on a breach in the cryogenic helium system of the second stage liquid oxygen tank. The root cause of the breach has not yet been confirmed, but attention has continued to narrow to one of the three composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) inside the LOX tank. Through extensive testing in Texas, SpaceX has shown that it can re-create a COPV failure entirely through helium loading conditions. These conditions are mainly affected by the temperature and pressure of the helium being loaded.

SpaceX’s efforts are now focused on two areas – finding the exact root cause, and developing improved helium loading conditions that allow SpaceX to reliably load Falcon 9. With the advanced state of the investigation, we also plan to resume stage testing in Texas in the coming days, while continuing to focus on completion of the investigation. This is an important milestone on the path to returning to flight.

Pending the results of the investigation, we continue to work towards returning to flight before the end of the year. Our launch sites at Kennedy Space Center, Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, remain on track to be operational in this timeframe.

toruonu · « **Reply #99 on:** 11/03/2016 11:23 am »

According to Peter B. de Selding's tweet to this article:

http://spacenews.com/inmarsat-juggling-two-launches-says-spacex-to-return-to-flight-in-december/

SpaceX has found the root cause and is returning to flight in December.

Quote

“SpaceX has obviously spent some time investigating the reasons behind their recent launch failure,” Inmarsat Chief Executive Rupert Pearce said in a conference call with investors. “We believe they now have found a root cause that is fixable quite easily and quite quickly. So they should be able to return to flight in December.”