• Update: SpaceX Return to Flight Thread - 16th @ 20:36 GMT
    136 replies, posted
[QUOTE][highlight]Return to flight[/highlight] [media]https://twitter.com/IridiumComm/status/804301527720534016[/media] [URL="https://twitter.com/IridiumComm/status/804301527720534016"]link[/QUOTE][/URL] [QUOTE][highlight]ANOMALY UPDATE[/highlight] [B]October 28, 4:00pm EDT[/B] 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, [B]SpaceX has shown that it can re-create a COPV failure entirely through helium loading conditions.[/B] 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. [URL]http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates[/URL][/QUOTE] [highlight]Update:[/highlight] [QUOTE=Morgen;51199180]Latest update from Musk at the NRO: We are close to figuring it out. It might have been formation of solid oxygen in the carbon over-wrap of one of the bottles in the upper stage tanks. If it was liquid it would have been squeezed out but under pressure it could have ignited with the carbon. This is the leading theory right now, but it is subject to confirmation. The other thing we discovered is that we can exactly replicate what happened on the launch pad if someone shoots the rocket. We don’t think that is likely this time around, but we are definitely going to have to take precautions against that in the future. We looked at who would want to blow up a SpaceX rocket. That turned out to be a long list. I think it is unlikely this time, but it is something we need to recognize as a real possibility in the future. Addressing return to flight: The plan is to get back to launch in early December and that will be from pad 39A at the Cape and we will be launching around the same time from Vandenberg as well. Pad 40 will probably be back in action around March or April next year. Probably around May or so is when we will launch Falcon Heavy. We are going to re-fly the first returned core December or January. We have test fired one of the returned cores 8 times and it looks good. That is promising for testing re-flight. [URL]https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/57balr/details_from_elons_speech_at_the_nro/?st=iu8r48s3&sh=1220d77b[/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][t]http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50605771/slack-imgs.com.0.0.jpeg[/t] SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, meant to launch a satellite this weekend, exploded on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Reports suggest the explosion occurred during a static fire test of the rocket's engines. Source: [URL]http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/1/12748752/spacex-launch-site-explosion-cape-canaveral-florida[/URL][/QUOTE] [URL]https://twitter.com/verge/status/771339341696274432[/URL]
Apparently this thing made a pretty sizable explosion when it went off. I wonder what will happen with the Saturday launch.
Well shit, I wonder what caused it. Hope nobody got hurt.
this is why we test these things
[QUOTE=Revenge282;50983574]Apparently this thing made a pretty sizable explosion when it went off. I wonder what will happen with the Saturday launch.[/QUOTE] This was the booster stage for Saturdays launch - it's definitely not happening at this stage - and hopefully it won't create another 6 month hiatus like the catastrophic failure of CRS-7. That said, within the last 24hours, the a Chinese rocket RUD'd not long after lift off, so at least SpaceX doesn't get the first full scale rocket failure of 2016.
[QUOTE=Sukor;50983579]Well shit. Hope nobody got hurt.[/QUOTE] No reports of injuries yet. Just a shit load of smoke.
Well, at least the payload is okay. And no reports of injuries yet, which is even better. I'd heard the launch might be delayed because of a tropical storm. Guess it's delayed now because they have to bring in a new rocket.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;50983584]This was the booster stage for Saturdays launch - it's definitely not happening at this stage - and hopefully it won't create another 6 month hiatus like the catastrophic failure of CRS-7. That said, within the last 24hours, the a Chinese rocket RUD'd not long after lift off, so at least SpaceX doesn't get the first full scale rocket failure of 2016.[/QUOTE] I haven't heard much news of the Chinese rocket. I doubt that I'll be hearing anything about it on local news, SpaceX will probably get the brunt of the news coverage. Especially since the news is just fielding calls from residents complaining about the explosion knocking picture frames off the wall from their homes 30 miles away from the Cape... :what:
Was this the reused booster?
Hope this doesn't put things behind schedule.
Did they lose the satellite as well? Only a few days before launch the satellite is usually already attached. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=gman003-main;50983595]Well, at least the payload is okay. [/QUOTE] Ah.
[QUOTE=scratch (nl);50983599]Was this the reused booster?[/QUOTE] If it was for Saturday's planned launch, no, it was a brand-new booster. Possible that it was a booster for a different launch being tested, in which case it might have been a reused one. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=download;50983602]Did they lose the satellite as well? Only a few days before launch the satellite is usually already attached. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] Ah.[/QUOTE] I was just assuming that they don't have the payload attached during test-fires, because things like this could happen. As far as I know the payload isn't attached until after all test-firing is done.
[QUOTE=scratch (nl);50983599]Was this the reused booster?[/QUOTE] No, this was a launch for AMOS-6, a brand new core. SES-10 is the re-used core that will launch in October (hopefully at this stage).. depending on enquiries and damage to facilities I guess.
I'm just really hoping this doesn't throw a wrench into the works for the Mars architecture Musk's announcing this month, or things like Falcon Heavy/Red Dragon.
[QUOTE=ScriptKitt3h;50983613]I'm just really hoping this doesn't throw a wrench into the works for the Mars architecture Musk's announcing this month, or things like Falcon Heavy/Red Dragon.[/QUOTE] I was really hoping for a perfect run before the symposium this month, so it can be held in a higher regard - I'm sure there will be a lot more pessimistic questions asked regarding this failure. [QUOTE=gman003-main;50983606]I was just assuming that they don't have the payload attached during test-fires, because things like this could happen. As far as I know the payload isn't attached until after all test-firing is done.[/QUOTE] To the best of my knowledge, they only have the first and second stage when doing the initial test firing, so the AMOS satellite should be fine - they merely test the launch performance and associated data of the launch vehicle.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;50983574]Apparently this thing made a pretty sizable explosion when it went off. [B]I wonder what will happen with the Saturday launch.[/B][/QUOTE] I dont, there wont be a Saturday launch... [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=download;50983602]Did they lose the satellite as well? Only a few days before launch the satellite is usually already attached.[/QUOTE] false. adding payload is the last thing they do before fueling up the intermediate stages. its usually done the day before launch or the day before that.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50983653]I dont, there wont be a Saturday launch... [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] false. adding payload is the last thing they do before fueling up the intermediate stages. its usually done the day before launch or the day before that.[/QUOTE] I think you're cutting it a bit close there. They like to test everything in the payload on the launch pad to test for transport damage. I don't think they can do that in two days let alone one. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] Plus actually attaching it and connecting everything.
That is Elon Musk, who gives tight (impossible) deadlines and tells engineers to compromise.
[QUOTE=download;50983696]I think you're cutting it a bit close there. They like to test everything in the payload on the launch pad to test for transport damage. I don't think they can do that in two days let alone one. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] Plus actually attaching it and connecting everything.[/QUOTE] Yes, but they also dont want payload loss when something goes wrong, hence they wait until the last possible chance. The payload is a self contained module for this singular reason.
[QUOTE=Fourier;50983708]That is Elon Musk, who gives tight (impossible) deadlines and tells engineers to compromise.[/QUOTE] and this is also a company that's putting ULA out of business so i think it might be worth it
[QUOTE=Fourier;50983708]That is Elon Musk, who gives tight (impossible) deadlines and tells engineers to compromise.[/QUOTE] He also accomplishes goals that have been dreamed about for over half a century and realised through such methods. He may over work staff (documented to death), but he doesn't cut corners, and by keeping most of the manufacturing in house they can tune almost any aspect of the rocket with little reliance on secondary/tertiary suppliers - not to mention some their breakthrough engineering work arounds for problems.
The payload was attached and lost. The explosion occurred at t-3 mins rather than durinf the static fire. So it's a prop handling issue at the pad rather than a f9 issue.
I guess we can expect many issues for one of the most dangerous engineering innovations on the planet, pushing the boundaries further than ever before, but the devil in the rocketry industry is that most failures are catastrophic and huge setbacks. SpaceX will need huge resilience to get through this shit [i]again[/i]. Hopefully LC39A will be up and running soon and they won't accidentally demolish that, too, with all of the history it holds. Also hopefully F9H doesn't pull this shit every half-dozen flights as well because that would do considerably more damage.
Yeah, sounds like an issue with the pad and/or propellant-loading systems... In addition- [media]https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771356505119522816[/media] The payload was indeed lost, it seems. Shame, especially when it's looking much more likely that the rocket itself was not the cause of the explosion. EDIT: I keep hearing some sources talking about the possibility of it being a hydrazine explosion on the pad- would they have even been loading hydrazine fuel onto the F9 for some reason (perhaps the sat's propulsion system)?
This might get more media attention given that it was to be used by Facebook. As stated above, it appears that the payload was on the booster and second stage during the test. What a travesty. :(
Well LC-40 will probably be offline for awhile... Wonder if LC-39a will be up before it now.. [media]https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771357538738577408[/media]
[QUOTE=Morgen;50983762]The payload was attached and lost. The explosion occurred at t-3 mins rather than durinf the static fire. So it's a prop handling issue at the pad rather than a f9 issue.[/QUOTE] Thank fucking christ. That's the best outcome of this situation, the last thing SpaceX needs is another fault from the launch vehicle (CRS-7)
Some speculation that it was the hydrazine on the satellite that exploded due to damage at the top of the strong back and visible secondary explosions on stage one.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50983894]Some speculation that it was the hydrazine on the satellite that exploded due to damage at the top of the strong back and visible secondary explosions on stage one.[/QUOTE] Do you have a source about the Hydrazine?
[QUOTE=OvB;50983942]Do you have a source about the Hydrazine?[/QUOTE] afaik its just a rumor at the moment also pic of damage to strongback: [t]https://i.imgur.com/8gnO6Ko.png[/t]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.