FAILURE: Relativity Terran 1 Test Flight : CCSFS SLC-16 : 23 Mar 2023 03:25 UTC

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1638854149537411073

First live launch I’ve ever seen raw with my own two eyes 👀 I told myself when I founded @relativityspace that my first launch viewing would be our own rocket, as motivation to make it there, and here we are. What a sight to behold, feel, and hear - indescribably awe inspiring.

[LouScheffer]

Not to be a party pooper, but when was the last time ANY rocket failed at Max-Q?  Everyone calls it out, but everyone seems to pass through it without issue.

The forces seem pretty straightforward to compute, and/or measure in a wind tunnel, and surely the ground structural test reproduces those forces quite closely (as opposed to other events that can only be replicated in flight, like second engine ignition after staging).  So the margins should be known as well.

So I'm sure it still makes the structural folks nervous, but the odds of failure due to forces at Max-Q seem pretty low (and especially after the first flight, after all the forces and vehicle responses are measure in practice).  It seems as if it's there for historical reasons (everyone else mentions it) and it helps the hosts fill the air time between launch and staging.

[Ruaridhmc]

Not to be a party pooper, but when was the last time ANY rocket failed at Max-Q?  Everyone calls it out, but everyone seems to pass through it without issue.

Didn't Firefly's first launch attempt fail at Max-Q just last year? Off the top of my head the aeroforces overcame the engine's gimbal authority after that engine out on take off

[RocketLover0119]

The webcast host losing it at MaxQ and screaming into the mic was beautiful and brought a tear to my eye! Love the passion and excitement of their team!

I could not disagree more. It was both unprofessional and annoying. Sure pipe in some audio from a happy team, but maintain some professionalism by the hosts. It was an excellent webcast (and a very successful test) ruined by the hosts. Suppose it's an American thing.

I’m sorry people who likely worked months if not years on this thing are expressing their excitement to the world. These hosts did amazing, and you hating on them shows how little you probably care for people behind the scenes. Get some respect.

[M.E.T.]

Not to be a party pooper, but when was the last time ANY rocket failed at Max-Q?  Everyone calls it out, but everyone seems to pass through it without issue.

The forces seem pretty straightforward to compute, and/or measure in a wind tunnel, and surely the ground structural test reproduces those forces quite closely (as opposed to other events that can only be replicated in flight, like second engine ignition after staging).  So the margins should be known as well.

So I'm sure it still makes the structural folks nervous, but the odds of failure due to forces at Max-Q seem pretty low (and especially after the first flight, after all the forces and vehicle responses are measure in practice).  It seems as if it's there for historical reasons (everyone else mentions it) and it helps the hosts fill the air time between launch and staging.

There will be a time to start raising reality checks. I suspect the thread, the site (and most of Space Twitter) is not quite ready for it just yet. Not keen for the torches and  pitchforks to come out. So probably best to hold off for now.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1638889143718789120

Here's my first take on Relativity Space's (excellent) launch last night. I'm starting to wonder whether its Terran 1 and done ...

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/relativity-space-has-a-successful-failure-with-the-debut-of-terran-1/

[brussell]

Not to be a party pooper, but when was the last time ANY rocket failed at Max-Q?  Everyone calls it out, but everyone seems to pass through it without issue.

The forces seem pretty straightforward to compute, and/or measure in a wind tunnel, and surely the ground structural test reproduces those forces quite closely (as opposed to other events that can only be replicated in flight, like second engine ignition after staging).  So the margins should be known as well.

So I'm sure it still makes the structural folks nervous, but the odds of failure due to forces at Max-Q seem pretty low (and especially after the first flight, after all the forces and vehicle responses are measure in practice).  It seems as if it's there for historical reasons (everyone else mentions it) and it helps the hosts fill the air time between launch and staging.

Firefly. Well the structural folks and GNC folks (did we model those margins correctly?)

[Zed_Noir]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1638889143718789120

Here's my first take on Relativity Space's (excellent) launch last night. I'm starting to wonder whether its Terran 1 and done ...

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/relativity-space-has-a-successful-failure-with-the-debut-of-terran-1/

There will be a second Terran-1 launch to confirm that Relativity Space have a working upper stage, IMO.

Likely the Terran-1 would be a one-shot launcher had it achieved orbit on it's first launch attempt.

[edzieba]

Relativity previously proposed a mid-life Terran 1 upgrade to a single Aeon-R first stage engine. Terran 1 still has some internal value even just as a flying engine test bed - and since the tooling for building Terran 1 and the tooling for building Terran R are one and the same, the schedule penalty from continuing to fly is less than if it required maintaining two separate production lines.

[mn]

Didn't look like the 2nd stage engine started

It looked like it did to me.
Or at least, something ignited.

Looked like prestart into the start box and then near immediate engine abort command during startup checkout window.

Why would a 2nd stage engine have an abort command?

You have info from a sensor indicating a problem so you can either command an abort and definitely lose the mission, or keep going and maybe just maybe you'll succeed?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

 

https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1638907985081651201

Edit to add:

twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1638909056244129795

So honored to have the privilege to capture this. Wondering when I’ll wake up from the dream❤️‍🔥🤩🔥

[Kaputnik]

Didn't look like the 2nd stage engine started

It looked like it did to me.
Or at least, something ignited.

Looked like prestart into the start box and then near immediate engine abort command during startup checkout window.

Why would a 2nd stage engine have an abort command?

You have info from a sensor indicating a problem so you can either command an abort and definitely lose the mission, or keep going and maybe just maybe you'll succeed?

It will have an abort command if there is any risk of departing the flight corridor

[LouScheffer]

Not to be a party pooper, but when was the last time ANY rocket failed at Max-Q?  Everyone calls it out, but everyone seems to pass through it without issue.

Didn't Firefly's first launch attempt fail at Max-Q just last year? Off the top of my head the aeroforces overcame the engine's gimbal authority after that engine out on take off

This is verging on semantics, but if Firefly was designed to pass through Max-Q with an engine out (ala Falcon 9 ), then the failure was caused by inadequate consideration of Max-Q.  If not, then the failure was caused by an engine out.  I was thinking of the case where the rocket was working normally, but the Max-Q stresses caused a failure.   I'm sure this happened early in rocketry, but I can't recall any recent examples.

[whitelancer64]

Not to be a party pooper, but when was the last time ANY rocket failed at Max-Q?  Everyone calls it out, but everyone seems to pass through it without issue.

The forces seem pretty straightforward to compute, and/or measure in a wind tunnel, and surely the ground structural test reproduces those forces quite closely (as opposed to other events that can only be replicated in flight, like second engine ignition after staging).  So the margins should be known as well.

So I'm sure it still makes the structural folks nervous, but the odds of failure due to forces at Max-Q seem pretty low (and especially after the first flight, after all the forces and vehicle responses are measure in practice).  It seems as if it's there for historical reasons (everyone else mentions it) and it helps the hosts fill the air time between launch and staging.

Max Q is very important historically. When Von Braun, et al., were working on the V2 rocket, they kept having rockets fail in flight and they didn't understand why because all the ground testing seemed fine. Von Braun and a few others went into the danger zone downrange to watch a rocket launch with binoculars - they managed to see the sides of the rocket buckle in flight, which was completely unexpected. They figured out that it was the dynamic pressure crushing the sides of the rocket as it flew faster through the air. They strengthened the exterior skin of the rocket and after that the survival rate of the V2 went way up.

Dynamic forces were very hard to model back then and Max Q remained an issue for a few decades. It's still a call-out now because if you're going to have structural failure of a rocket in flight, it's most likely going to happen at Max Q. Computer modeling informing rocket design helps a lot, but when you have a rocket like Terran, which is not made of metal panels and could be more vulnerable to dynamic pressure on its exterior, successfully passing Max Q is something of an achievement.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1638923188439777280

Nine Aeon 1 engines power Terran 1 off the pad for its debut launch last night. Beautiful and colorful flames!

https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1638924956816883717

Few more shots: Terran 1 takes flight from Cape Canaveral, Florida last night, the debut launch for @relativityspace. Congrats to the team!

[Tangilinear Interjar]

The webcast host losing it at MaxQ and screaming into the mic was beautiful and brought a tear to my eye! Love the passion and excitement of their team!

I could not disagree more. It was both unprofessional and annoying. Sure pipe in some audio from a happy team, but maintain some professionalism by the hosts. It was an excellent webcast (and a very successful test) ruined by the hosts. Suppose it's an American thing.

I’m sorry people who likely worked months if not years on this thing are expressing their excitement to the world. These hosts did amazing, and you hating on them shows how little you probably care for people behind the scenes. Get some respect.

Two highly educated and deeply involved female engineers screaming like little girls on the playground as their rocket pushes past Max-Q!

I can't imagine a better image for a company that is completely reimagining what it is to be a successful aerospace company.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1638934327105843202

Liftoff of Terran 1! Methalox is here to stay.

📸Relativity / Michael Baylor

[lightleviathan]

Not to be a party pooper, but when was the last time ANY rocket failed at Max-Q?  Everyone calls it out, but everyone seems to pass through it without issue.

Didn't Firefly's first launch attempt fail at Max-Q just last year? Off the top of my head the aeroforces overcame the engine's gimbal authority after that engine out on take off

This is verging on semantics, but if Firefly was designed to pass through Max-Q with an engine out (ala Falcon 9 ), then the failure was caused by inadequate consideration of Max-Q.  If not, then the failure was caused by an engine out.  I was thinking of the case where the rocket was working normally, but the Max-Q stresses caused a failure.   I'm sure this happened early in rocketry, but I can't recall any recent examples.

Alpha lost control authority after it went supersonic, so the flight was terminated.

[mn]

Didn't look like the 2nd stage engine started

It looked like it did to me.
Or at least, something ignited.

Looked like prestart into the start box and then near immediate engine abort command during startup checkout window.

Why would a 2nd stage engine have an abort command?

You have info from a sensor indicating a problem so you can either command an abort and definitely lose the mission, or keep going and maybe just maybe you'll succeed?

It will have an abort command if there is any risk of departing the flight corridor

As they say 'There's an app for that', app being FTS.

[meekGee]

Not to be a party pooper, but when was the last time ANY rocket failed at Max-Q?  Everyone calls it out, but everyone seems to pass through it without issue.

The forces seem pretty straightforward to compute, and/or measure in a wind tunnel, and surely the ground structural test reproduces those forces quite closely (as opposed to other events that can only be replicated in flight, like second engine ignition after staging).  So the margins should be known as well.

So I'm sure it still makes the structural folks nervous, but the odds of failure due to forces at Max-Q seem pretty low (and especially after the first flight, after all the forces and vehicle responses are measure in practice).  It seems as if it's there for historical reasons (everyone else mentions it) and it helps the hosts fill the air time between launch and staging.

Of course they don't...  There's no ghoul at max-Q, it's just that the ghouls start becoming smaller after it, and so if the rocket didn't fail by then, the odds of subsequent failures are lower (though clearly not zero, as proven by SpaceX)