Author Topic: FAILURE: Firefly Alpha 1st flight - Vandenberg SLC-2W - 3 Sep 2021 (01:59 UTC)  (Read 88214 times)

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
Lose 1 out of 4 engines and its not making orbit so doesn't really matter if it loses control.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Yeah at that point the main hope is to get as far away from launch site so it won’t be a danger, burn as much fuel as possible.

I suspect that the existing failure state probably made it easy for range management to make the call to destroy the vehicle once the tumbling around Max-Q became visible in the trajectory.

Offline Ken the Bin

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3095
  • US Pacific Time Zone
    • @kenthebin@spacey.space
  • Liked: 5669
  • Likes Given: 6280
Press Release from Firefly Aerospace (dated yesterday but it only hit their RSS feed about a half-hour ago):

Firefly’s First Test Flight Lasts More Than Two Minutes, With Successful Liftoff and Progression to Supersonic Speed

Quote from: Firefly Aerospace
Firefly Aerospace First Test Flight – Official Statement

September 2, 2021 – Today we conducted the first-ever test flight of our Alpha rocket. Prior to the anomaly, we had a nominal countdown and lift off at 6:59 PM local time.  While we did not meet all of our mission objectives, we did achieve a number of them: successful first stage ignition, liftoff of the pad, progression to supersonic speed, and we obtained a substantial amount of flight data.

More than two minutes into the flight, Alpha experienced an anomaly resulting in an early end of the mission. At Firefly, our goal is to always look out for the safety of our employees, partners, and community. We are happy to report that there were no injuries associated with the anomaly.

While it’s too early to draw conclusions as to the root cause, we will be diligent in our investigation, in partnership with the FAA and Vandenberg Space Force Base. We will utilize the data we obtained from the test flight and apply it to future missions. Our engineers are currently combing through thousands of lines of ground and flight system telemetry in order to better understand what occurred.

We want to thank the teams at Vandenberg Space Force Base and Space Launch Delta 30 for their partnership in this launch and the FAA for their continued support. We will be providing further updates as more information becomes available.

ABOUT FIREFLY AEROSPACE

Firefly is developing a family of launch and in-space vehicles and services that provide industry-leading affordability, convenience, and reliability. Firefly’s launch vehicles utilize common technologies, manufacturing infrastructure and launch capabilities, providing LEO launch solutions for up to ten metric tons of payload at the lowest cost per kg in the small-launch class. Combined with Firefly’s in-space vehicles, such as the Space Utility Vehicle and Blue Ghost Lunar Lander, Firefly provides the space industry with a single source for missions from LEO to the surface of the Moon or beyond. Firefly is headquartered in Cedar Park, TX.

For more information please see: www.firefly.com

Filed Under: Uncategorized.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50668
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 85173
  • Likes Given: 38157
twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1433625298046652453

Quote
Congratulations to the Firefly team. Lots of good data gathered today.

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1433881336125689856

Quote
Thank you @Peter_J_Beck! This was a great step forward for Firefly, and we very much appreciate the tremendous good will from everyone in the space community!

twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1433892061204258817

Quote
Impressive first step and a lot accomplished. Keep going!

https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1433911394240401408

Quote
Thank you! We appreciate the incredible support from the entire space community!

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50668
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 85173
  • Likes Given: 38157
Scott Manley’s analysis of the failure:


Online ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8494
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2416
  • Likes Given: 2103
Slightly different angle + footage of a couple of lightweight-ish-looking pieces falling fairly close to the observers:



I was cracking up when I saw that guy hold up that piece of debris near the end.
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline rubicondsrv

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 0

They may need to reassess the range launch criteria if debris is falling that far away.  Orcutt is more than 10 miles from SLC-2 and the rocket was even further downrange.  Wind direction and speed for a possible debris cloud used to be part of the range launch criteria as I recall it.

as long as the debris is light enough not to cause damage and is not on fire when it lands I dont see a problem as long as firefly is willing to clean up any known debris. 

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12417
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 10137
  • Likes Given: 8474
Firefly Alpha First Flight w/ Explosion - Clean Audio

Credit:
Justin Foley

It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9104
  • Likes Given: 885

They may need to reassess the range launch criteria if debris is falling that far away.  Orcutt is more than 10 miles from SLC-2 and the rocket was even further downrange.  Wind direction and speed for a possible debris cloud used to be part of the range launch criteria as I recall it.

as long as the debris is light enough not to cause damage and is not on fire when it lands I dont see a problem as long as firefly is willing to clean up any known debris.

Yes, as stated in 14 CFR § 417.213: "(d) Designated debris impact limits. The analysis must establish designated impact limit lines to bound the area where debris with a ballistic coefficient of three or more is allowed to impact if the flight safety system functions properly."

Newer rule may have changed this, but the point is light debris outside the hazard area is not an issue.

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Liked: 1285
  • Likes Given: 2349
Is this the first failure of a large orbital carbon fiber rocket?  Meaning this is the first real data of these lightweight pieces fluttering to the ground?

I wonder if the FAA will impose a wind direction restriction on the next launch?  Or let it ride?

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39463
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33122
  • Likes Given: 8901
I wonder if the FAA will impose a wind direction restriction on the next launch?  Or let it ride?

Or perhaps instead of causing the vehicle to explode, cutoff the engines and let it land in one piece in the ocean.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline AirmanPika

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
  • Central Cali
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 0

They may need to reassess the range launch criteria if debris is falling that far away.  Orcutt is more than 10 miles from SLC-2 and the rocket was even further downrange.  Wind direction and speed for a possible debris cloud used to be part of the range launch criteria as I recall it.

as long as the debris is light enough not to cause damage and is not on fire when it lands I dont see a problem as long as firefly is willing to clean up any known debris.

So it really depends. I saw some of this debris coming down and it was basically like fluttering fabric. Wouldn't hurt anything stationary. That said...if I was in a car driving at 65mph (which I was at the time I saw it) it could be an issue if we happened to intersect. That's likely something the FAA will be considering down the line.

Also, that green flash at engine startup suggests that there might be some boranes in the vehicle that you wouldn't want anyone exposed to.
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 33

They may need to reassess the range launch criteria if debris is falling that far away.  Orcutt is more than 10 miles from SLC-2 and the rocket was even further downrange.  Wind direction and speed for a possible debris cloud used to be part of the range launch criteria as I recall it.

as long as the debris is light enough not to cause damage and is not on fire when it lands I dont see a problem as long as firefly is willing to clean up any known debris.
The smallest pieces are probably the biggest problem. CF really is not something you want to end up in your lungs.

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1785
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2252
  • Likes Given: 57
Is this the first failure of a large orbital carbon fiber rocket?  Meaning this is the first real data of these lightweight pieces fluttering to the ground?

I wonder if the FAA will impose a wind direction restriction on the next launch?  Or let it ride?

The other three failures would be It's a Test, Pics or It Didn't Happen, and Running Out Of Toes. But all three were second-stage failures that occurred after a nominal MECO, so probably downrange enough to not have debris blow back to the launch site.

Edit: Oh, I completely forgot LauncherOne's "Launch Demo" (e.g., first) mission, which failed shortly into the first-stage burn. That was already well off the coast long before engine ignition, though, and I think its FTS was non-explosive. So no small pieces, and if there were they'd be way too far from the coast to float all the way back.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2021 07:26 am by trimeta »

Offline TrevorMonty

With electric pump engines on RL and Astra's LVs they only need to blow power connection.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk


Offline Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 723
  • Likes Given: 6961
The video appears to have now been removed but Firefly posted a public video to YouTube that shows a video montage of the first flight. This video confirms that engine 2 shutdown early into flight and that the vehicle lost control during max Q as a result. I've included screenshots of the detailed video description.

Quote
Firefly conducted the first test of our Apha vehicle on September 2, 2021. Although the vehicle did not make it to orbit, the day marked a major advancement for the Firefly team, as we demonstrated that we "arrived" as a company capable of building and launching rockets. We also acquired a wealth of flight data that will greatly enhance the likelihood of Alpha achieving orbit during its second flight. In short, we had a very successful first flight.

Here are a few specific notes about the flight:

The vehicle released and cleared the pad correctly. The various connections and moving mechanisms connected to the rocket all worked correctly. The vehicle controlled itself perfectly off the pad, with thrust vectoring eliminating all tipping or rotation, and the vehicle increased in speed at the exact rate that was predicted in modelling.

About 15 seconds into the flight, engine 2 (there are four Reaver engines on the first stage) shut down. It was an uneventful shutdown - the engine didn't fail -- the propellant main valves on the engine supply simply closed and thrust terminated from engine 2.

The vehicle continued to climb and maintain control for a total of about 145 seconds, whereas nominal first stage burn duration is about 165 seconds. However, due to missing the thrust of 1 of 4 engines the climb rate was slow, and the vehicle was challenged to maintain control without the thrust vectoring of engine 2. Alpha was able to compensate at subsonic speeds, but as it moved through transonic and into supersonic flight, where control is most challenging, the three engine thrust vector control was insufficient and the vehicle tumbled out of control. The range terminated the flight using the explosive Flight Termination System (FTS). The rocket did not explode on its own.

Firefly has commenced a thorough anomaly investigation to gain understanding of why engine 2 shutdown early, and uncover any other relevant unexpected events during flight. We will report root cause of the anomaly at the end of this investigation. In collaboration with the FAA and our partners at Space Launch Delta 30, we will return to conduct the second Alpha flight as soon as possible.

This video montage shows the entire mission from a variety of camera angles. Enjoy.
« Last Edit: 09/05/2021 05:45 pm by Navier–Stokes »

Offline Mandella

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Liked: 802
  • Likes Given: 2673
Note that the above has a typo of "values" for "valves."

If that is accurate, I'm taking it as good news for the Reaver engines at least. No reason was given for the valves closing prematurely, but that could be a wiring problem, or sensor or software or some other "easily" correctable issue.

Better to have a plumbing problem than to find at this late stage the engine cannot do a full burn reliably.

Offline Fmedici

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Italy
  • Liked: 446
  • Likes Given: 316

Offline Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 723
  • Likes Given: 6961
Note that the above has a typo of "values" for "valves."

If that is accurate, I'm taking it as good news for the Reaver engines at least. No reason was given for the valves closing prematurely, but that could be a wiring problem, or sensor or software or some other "easily" correctable issue.

Better to have a plumbing problem than to find at this late stage the engine cannot do a full burn reliably.

Thanks. I had to manually transcribe the description. Corrected the typo.

Offline Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 723
  • Likes Given: 6961
This should be the video:

https://twitter.com/DELTA_V/status/1434566557426982915
That is indeed the beginning of the video. The full length, however, was 2:53. I only got watch another ~20 seconds beyond the Twitter video before Firefly delisted the video. Hopefully they'll repost it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0