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

[Lars-J]

Yes complaints about debris landing on the base are nonsensical. No matter what rocket, there are situations where a problem will result in debris raining around the pad - no matter what flight termination system is used, or how it is triggered.

That's why pads and surrounding area are cleared for launches. And first launches are always going to be more risky.

[meekGee]

Yes complaints about debris landing on the base are nonsensical. No matter what rocket, there are situations where a problem will result in debris raining around the pad - no matter what flight termination system is used, or how it is triggered.

That's why pads and surrounding area are cleared for launches. And first launches are always going to be more risky.

I think the difference is that during launch, the debris zone is centered on the evacuated pad, whereas this wasn't.

If the FTS was activated before the rocket started spinning, there's a good chance that the heavy pieces would have gone more towards the IIP than scattered back into land.

[Lars-J]

Yes complaints about debris landing on the base are nonsensical. No matter what rocket, there are situations where a problem will result in debris raining around the pad - no matter what flight termination system is used, or how it is triggered.

That's why pads and surrounding area are cleared for launches. And first launches are always going to be more risky.

I think the difference is that during launch, the debris zone is centered on the evacuated pad, whereas this wasn't.

No. The IIP always starts on the pad and gradually moves off as the rocket gains altitude and starts its gravity turn. It is continuously moving. And then there are wind effects as well for lighter debris. But the rocket was in its allowed corridor until it lost control.

If the FTS was activated before the rocket started spinning, there's a good chance that the heavy pieces would have gone more towards the IIP than scattered back into land.

But before it started spinning it had not lost control yet.  Stop trying to make an issue out of nothing. There were obvious issues with the launch but the abort happening at the right spin angle is not one of them.

But range safety can't win. Either they aren't fast enough on the trigger (here), or people argue that the spinning rocketlab 2nd stage should be given a chance to recover itself.

[Redclaws]

This does point out a pretty significant designed-In limitation of the Firefly: with the cross-gimbaling configuration, loss of any of the four engines during ascent results in a mission failure, yes? Or am I missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does it have enough reserve for an engine out during a significant part of ascent anyway?  Other than F9, what operational rocket does?  Maybe electron?  Rockets that don’t have a bunch of engines generally don’t have much engine out capability.  I think most have none and I’m not even sure F9 could do it right off the pad.  (Note I’m not saying that lack of engine out capability makes low-engine-count rockets worse, it’s just a pick your poison thing, one of various trade offs between many-engine and few-engine designs.)

[rubicondsrv]

Lot's of different people for the base to be upset at too. Firefly for having these problems, the FAA for approving the AFTS and this flight inspite of the potential for debris coming down on land, and themselves for not thinking of these problems and for not classifying the upper level winds (which ended up carrying debris into residential areas miles away) as a problem.

did anything damaging fall outside of the designated hazard areas?  if not it is probable that nothing was done wrong here. 

the pad was undamaged, other user facilities were undamaged, and no injuries occurred, and as far as I know no large debris fell outside of the designated areas.  what is the issue here?   

[meekGee]

Yes complaints about debris landing on the base are nonsensical. No matter what rocket, there are situations where a problem will result in debris raining around the pad - no matter what flight termination system is used, or how it is triggered.

That's why pads and surrounding area are cleared for launches. And first launches are always going to be more risky.

I think the difference is that during launch, the debris zone is centered on the evacuated pad, whereas this wasn't.

No. The IIP always starts on the pad and gradually moves off as the rocket gains altitude and starts its gravity turn. It is continuously moving. And then there are wind effects as well for lighter debris. But the rocket was in its allowed corridor until it lost control.

If the FTS was activated before the rocket started spinning, there's a good chance that the heavy pieces would have gone more towards the IIP than scattered back into land.

But before it started spinning it had not lost control yet.  Stop trying to make an issue out of nothing. There were obvious issues with the launch but the abort happening at the right spin angle is not one of them.

But range safety can't win. Either they aren't fast enough on the trigger (here), or people argue that the spinning rocketlab 2nd stage should be given a chance to recover itself.

Why so confrontational?

I never made a big issue out of anything, just pointed out facts for why this was not the same as "the rocket may explode at t+20 right over the pad".

Normally, the debris zone starts out over the evacuated pad and then heads out as it grows, with the assumption that large objects won't get back to land which is why you don't evacuate the entire base.

An automated FTS doesn't have to wait until the rocket is spinning at 1/sec before activating.  An attitude deviation of some finite number (30 degrees?) is enough - they are not going to space that day.

They waited much longer for destruct, and as a result, heavy debris did make it to random locations on the base. I don't think that was in the plan.

Whether it's a big deal or not depends on your risk acceptance level.  It's a large base with lots of empty spaces.  But it also has populated areas and sensitive equipment.

That last aspect, I'm not making a statement about.

[catdlr]

Firefly Aerospace Ready for its First Alpha Launch Attempt

[Jeff Bingham]

Just a thought. Go back and look at the Space Shuttle Challenger accident footage. I was watching it on TV in real time. As memory serves (and I'm old, so it might not, precisely),in that circumstance the right Solid Rocket Booster experienced a compromised seal in a segment joint near the rear attach point which allowed a direct flame to propagate from the side of the booster and impinged on the attachment structure, which then failed and the SRB, still attached at the forward end, tipped into the External Tank, resulting in the catastrophic breakup in which the entire stack was destroyed and scattered by the explosive flame of the exposed fuel. The Orbiter was torn apart largely from the aerodynamic forces it experienced when broken free from the ET, simultaneously with the eruption of the fuel. Both boosters separated from that burst, still under power, and began excursions not unlike those seen by the core of Alpha in this case, and seemingly for almost as long, before they were destroyed by the range. Point being, in that case, at least, it took those few seconds to understand that the boosters had been separated and, being still under power from solid propellant, but in an uncontrolled trajectory, posed a potential threat and at that point the range reacted. Similar circumstance might account for the "delay" some seemed to suggest occurred here, though probably more are suggesting the trigger was pulled too soon. Not sure any of that means anything or furthers the discussion but it occurred to me as interesting so I thought I'd raise it.

Another thing that strikes me as perhaps important from this scenario is the issue of the specifics of integration of the FTS with the subject vehicle, including its internal tankage and plumbing, and the degree to which any aspect of that integration could, or may have in this case, brought about a possibly larger and more powerful explosive response, thus contributing to a greater degree of initial ballistic dispersal of debris from the point of explosion. The engine truss definitely appeared to me as shooting out of that detonation on a substantial upward and lateral path in a direction that may or may not have been based on inertia as much as explosive redirection that "might" account for it's eventual impact point being where it was. (?) And maybe that was a result of the actual dynamics of the explosion(s) initiated by the range.

As efforts continue to develop a "generic" Automated Flight Termination System for a range of vehicles, operating out of a variety of launch sites, spaceports, etc., in diverse geographic settings, it seems this is worth some serious discussion among those involved in those developments in NASA and associated certifying entities, along with those responsible for range safety. I'm not smart enough to know if this is a "real" issue or not, but it's something else that occurred to me while seeing the various videos of debris falling and reports of debris impacts as well as following the discussion here and elsewhere. Just "foddering away" here a bit, because I do have an "official" interest as someone involved with spaceport management issues.

[Yggdrasill]

Even assuming the vehicle didn't explode (let's say its tumbling slowed it down enough such that its max q stresses were survivable), wouldn't it still have landed on the base? It doesn't really make sense to me that with explosive FTS, the engines landed 3/4 miles away from the launch site, but without it, the whole thing would have made it off the coast.

Of course, in that hypothetical the whole thing would have landed in one piece, rather than scattering carbon fiber fragments to the wind, but it seems like the engines were the most dangerous debris in any event.

It makes sense to me that it would have made it off the coast if the FTS hadn't been activated and it hadn't been torn apart. The thing is that once the vehicle is destroyed, all the seperate pieces have their own direction and speed. If the spin of the vehicle is high enough, one end of the rocket could be headed back to the pad, while the other end of the rocket is headed out to the sea very fast. While when the vehicle is intact, what matters is the *average* velocity of the rocket, and that is pointed out to sea.

This is a bit like how SpaceX spreads out their Starlink satellites. When they release them, they spread out, because they are all headed in slightly different directions and have slightly different momentum. They don't stick together.

[Lars-J]

Even assuming the vehicle didn't explode (let's say its tumbling slowed it down enough such that its max q stresses were survivable), wouldn't it still have landed on the base? It doesn't really make sense to me that with explosive FTS, the engines landed 3/4 miles away from the launch site, but without it, the whole thing would have made it off the coast.

Of course, in that hypothetical the whole thing would have landed in one piece, rather than scattering carbon fiber fragments to the wind, but it seems like the engines were the most dangerous debris in any event.

It makes sense to me that it would have made it off the coast if the FTS hadn't been activated and it hadn't been torn apart.

But the dangerous element here is that is was spinning out of control *under thrust*, and it could have stabilized and headed somewhere. If it is out of control and still under thrust they HAVE TO activate it. You can’t bet on it continuing in its current general direction, certainly when just a little horizontal motion could send it in any direction. (As it was just barely crossing Mach 1 going mostly vertical)

I still don’t understand why people insist on finding fault in the use of the flight termination system here. The flight was doomed when the engine shut down, they were hoping it could make it as far down range as possible… which turned out to be not very far.

[Yggdrasill]

But the dangerous element here is that is was spinning out of control *under thrust*, and it could have stabilized and headed somewhere. If it is out of control and still under thrust they HAVE TO activate it. You can’t bet on it continuing in its current general direction, certainly when just a little horizontal motion could send it in any direction. (As it was just barely crossing Mach 1 going mostly vertical)

I still don’t understand why people insist on finding fault in the use of the flight termination system here. The flight was doomed when the engine shut down, they were hoping it could make it as far down range as possible… which turned out to be not very far.

Oh, I'm not criticizing the function of the FTS or it's activation. I just find the physics interesting. The FTS did it's job, no one was hurt and there was no property damage.

However, it does show that there are pros and cons to explosive FTS vs non-explosive FTS. I would guess that when it comes to property damage and cleanup operations, explosive FTS is better until the vehicle has sufficient velocity to make it to the water, and after that a non-explosive FTS is better. The ideal FTS would really have both of these modes, depending on the circumstances. That way you avoid the situations where a fully loaded vehicle drops down on your pad, but you also avoid spreading debris over a wide area for no reason.

[edzieba]

They waited much longer for destruct, and as a result, heavy debris did make it to random locations on the base. I don't think that was in the plan.

Heavy debris fell after the FTS was triggered in the area cleared of personnel and delicate nonreplaceable equipment in the event the FTS was triggered and heavy debris fell.
Some light debris was blown further than desirable due to high level winds, and that may be a new launch criteria added going forward if there are concerns of harm from that light debris beyond littering, but all the heavy bits fell in the designated "heavy bits may fall here, keep out, do not leave fine china or Fabergé eggs lying around" area.

[meekGee]

They waited much longer for destruct, and as a result, heavy debris did make it to random locations on the base. I don't think that was in the plan.

Heavy debris fell after the FTS was triggered in the area cleared of personnel and delicate nonreplaceable equipment in the event the FTS was triggered and heavy debris fell.
Some light debris was blown further than desirable due to high level winds, and that may be a new launch criteria added going forward if there are concerns of harm from that light debris beyond littering, but all the heavy bits fell in the designated "heavy bits may fall here, keep out, do not leave fine china or Fabergé eggs lying around" area.

I may have missed the map then.

[edzieba]

They waited much longer for destruct, and as a result, heavy debris did make it to random locations on the base. I don't think that was in the plan.

Heavy debris fell after the FTS was triggered in the area cleared of personnel and delicate nonreplaceable equipment in the event the FTS was triggered and heavy debris fell.
Some light debris was blown further than desirable due to high level winds, and that may be a new launch criteria added going forward if there are concerns of harm from that light debris beyond littering, but all the heavy bits fell in the designated "heavy bits may fall here, keep out, do not leave fine china or Fabergé eggs lying around" area.

I may have missed the map then.

I do not believe those are public, as the public exclusion area is simply "Vandenberg Space Force Base".

[meekGee]

They waited much longer for destruct, and as a result, heavy debris did make it to random locations on the base. I don't think that was in the plan.

Heavy debris fell after the FTS was triggered in the area cleared of personnel and delicate nonreplaceable equipment in the event the FTS was triggered and heavy debris fell.
Some light debris was blown further than desirable due to high level winds, and that may be a new launch criteria added going forward if there are concerns of harm from that light debris beyond littering, but all the heavy bits fell in the designated "heavy bits may fall here, keep out, do not leave fine china or Fabergé eggs lying around" area.

I may have missed the map then.

I do not believe those are public, as the public exclusion area is simply "Vandenberg Space Force Base".

Ok, but on base, they of course evacuated the launch pad, but not other installations nearby, right?

I think there's an assumption that the zone in which heavy debris may come down never intersects those other installations.

Without making it into a giant deal, there's a possibility this flight went outside that prediction, and FTS behavior is part of the reason why.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1436337246668566529

Firefly Aerospace continues to investigate its inaugural Alpha launch, with early indications showing an electric issue shut down one of the Reaver engines.

The company's second Alpha rocket is currently being integrated for flight in Texas.

Launch photos courtesy of Firefly:

Edit to add:

https://firefly.com/firefly-aerospace-conducts-first-test-launch-of-alpha-launch-vehicle/

Firefly Aerospace Conducts First Test Launch of Alpha Launch Vehicle

CEDAR PARK, Texas, September 10, 2021 – On September 2nd, Firefly Aerospace Inc., an emerging provider of economical and dependable launch vehicles, spacecraft, and in-space service conducted the maiden flight of its Alpha launch vehicle from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.

“Firefly has conducted the first test flight of our Alpha vehicle. 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,” said Tom Markusic, CEO of Firefly Aerospace. “Although the vehicle did not reach orbit, we 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.”

The test began with a nominal countdown and lift off at 6:59 PM PDT and achieved a successful first stage ignition, liftoff from the pad, and progression to supersonic speed. During the flight, the launch vehicle experienced an anomaly that resulted in a safe termination of flight by the Range using the Flight Termination System (FTS). Initial review of flight data indicates that an electrical issue caused the shutdown of one of the four first stage Reaver engines. Firefly is conducting a thorough anomaly investigation and will report root cause of the anomaly at the end of this investigation.

As stated on September 2nd by Space Launch Delta 30 the Alpha rocket was terminated “over the Pacific Ocean at 7:01 p.m. Pacific Time after a successful liftoff at 6:59 p.m. …. There were no injuries associated with the anomaly.”

During the two minutes and twenty-five seconds of flight, Firefly obtained a substantial amount of flight data that will be utilized to improve the design of future Alpha launch vehicles, including the second flight vehicle, which is currently being integrated for flight at their Briggs, Texas manufacturing and test facility.

Markusic also stated, “Firefly has been incredibly fortunate to have partners that share our vision and passion. The most difficult and perilous days of Firefly Aerospace were funded by Noosphere Ventures, founded by Max Polyakov. Early on, Max and I created the technological and business development roadmap – the first launch of Alpha being a hard-fought landmark achievement for the entire team.” He continued, “The Alpha launch vehicle was developed by a world-class group of talented and dedicated technical directors. Firefly’s Flight and Test Operations Department, led by Anne Chinnery, Brad Obrocto, and Sean Reilly, built Firefly’s launch facility and successfully conducted the first launch.”

Dr. Max Polyakov, Firefly’s Co-Founder said, “Alpha’s first launch was a historic day for Firefly. I salute and thank the team that has worked so hard to make the vision of Firefly a reality. In just four years, Firefly has developed and flown an orbital class launch vehicle and is building our Blue Ghost lunar lander to go to the Moon in 2023 — incredible accomplishments for such a short time!”

Firefly also thanks their partners at DADA Holdings, Astera Institute, Canon Ball LLC, Reuben Brothers Limited, SMS Capital Investment LLC, Raven One Ventures, XBTO Ventures, Republic Capital, and other investors for their support.

Firefly acknowledges the outstanding support provided by the United States Space Force through Space Launch Delta 30 at Vandenberg Space Force Base and by the FAA. Alpha Flight 1 was a great example of private-public partnership.

Media Contact:

Kim Jennett

[email protected]

[1]

At the risk of bringing "those guys" into the discussion, this might be a good time to remind everyone about the Dragon inflight abort test. The F9 was not commanded to unzip; but to simply shut down its engines right around the max-q regime. The vehicle started tumbling, broke apart, and exploded anyway. As expected.

Well, except for the second stage, which smashed back into the ocean intact and then exploded.

Now, had F9 followed a firefly-like 'doomed-from-the-start' trajectory rather than a nominal trajectory, the engine compartment and some tufts of carbon fiber are the least of your worries. You could easily have had a fully fueled second stage come crashing down somewhere on your facilities.

In my eyes, this is very simple. There were no casualties, nor loss of property that I know of. Thus, the RSO did their job competently and properly. If the range makes a process change of some kind, I'll consider it an improvement for the future; not indicative of something they should have done differently in the past. YMMV.

[JEF_300]

The most noteworthy part, to me, is that none of this would have happened if they had merely shut the engines off instead of blowing the thing up.

Wrong on both accounts.  The vehicle would have still broken up and exploded send parts everywhere.
Can't say it would still be stable after max q.  You have no data to support that claim.

I'm saying that they should have terminated the flight by shutting down the engines, not blowing the vehicle to smithereens. When the range decided to terminate the flight, the vehicle was at-or-just-past max-Q, and was already two tumbles into a spin, with three engines still on, and it hadn't broken up! What in the world makes you think it would encounter a situation after all of that, without the engines on, where it would be under more stress, and thus break up?

[brussell]

Currently on my ni.com front page. I don't mean to troll but the coincidence was kind of funny.

[punder]

Currently on my ni.com front page. I don't mean to troll but the coincidence was kind of funny.

Ha! I used to work there!

“Failure is not an option” is a phrase that should never be used by marketing folks. They don’t know the original context, and probably don’t care.