E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSpaceX video of the Falcon 9 rocket's Oct. 7 ascent shows an engine anomaly at the 1:30 mark in the video, or T+00:01:19. A slow-motion version can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998
Although SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket successfully sent its Dragon cargo capsule toward the International Space Station, an engine failure and a less-than-nominal satellite deployment suggest that the company has some technical issues to resolve for future flights.
The California-based rocket company acknowledged soon after Sunday night's launch that one of the nine Merlin engines on the Falcon's first stage shut down, but the onboard computer recalculated the data for the other eight engines to get the Dragon in orbit and save the resupply mission.
Some observers pointed to SpaceX's long-range video of the ascent and pointed to what they thought was debris from an explosion. Today, SpaceX issued a statement saying that the engine didn't explode — but that protective panels were ejected because of the pressure loss associated with the shutdown:
"Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first-stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event.
"As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon's entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.
"Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do. Like the Saturn V (which experienced engine loss on two flights) and modern airliners, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine-out situation and still complete its mission. No other rocket currently flying has this ability.
"It is worth noting that Falcon 9 shuts down two of its engines to limit acceleration to 5 G's even on a fully nominal flight. The rocket could therefore have lost another engine and still completed its mission.
"We will continue to review all flight data in order to understand the cause of the anomaly, and will devote the resources necessary to identify the problem and apply those lessons to future flights. We will provide additional information as it becomes available.
"Dragon is expected to begin its approach to the station on October 10, where it will be grappled and berthed by Akihiko Hoshide of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and Expedition 33 Commander Sunita Williams of NASA. Over the following weeks, the crew will unload Dragon's payload and reload it with cargo to be returned to Earth. Splashdown is targeted for October 28."
There's a lingering question about the engine anomaly: What caused the sudden pressure loss?
Satellite in wrong orbit
Another question has yet to be fully resolved: What will happen to the Orbcomm OG2 telecommunication satellite, which rode into orbit as a secondary payload on the Falcon 9's second stage? The prototype satellite was supposed to be put into a highly inclined orbit after a second-stage restart, and serve as the first piece of a new 18-satellite telecom constellation.
On Sunday night, SpaceX said the satellite was "successfully deployed" — but Orbcomm acknowledged in a statement today that the satellite was deployed into the wrong orbit because of the engine anomaly. Here's the relevant excerpt:
"... Due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first-stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended. Orbcomm and Sierra Nevada Corp. engineers have been in contact with the satellite and are working to determine if and the extent to which the orbit can be raised to an operational orbit using the satellite’s on-board propulsion system.
"In mid-2013, Orbcomm plans to launch an additional eight OG2 satellites on a Falcon 9, which will be placed into orbits that are optimized to deliver the best coverage for the enhanced OG2 messaging services. The remainder of the constellation of 18 OG2 satellites is expected to be launched on a Falcon 9 in 2014. Orbcomm’s OG2 satellites will be the primary payload on both of these two planned launches to directly insert the OG2 satellites into the operational orbit."
Orbcomm's statement came after satellite-watcher Jonathan McDowell called attention to the fact that the satellite showed up in the Space-Track database as having a 203-by-323-kilometer orbit rather than the planned 350-by-750-kilometer orbit.
Looking on the bright side
Going forward, SpaceX should follow through on its pledge to "apply lessons to future flights," as it said in its statement. And skeptics should keep in mind that this is rocket science, which is "super-frickin'-damn-hard," to use SpaceX founder Elon Musk's words. It's a tribute to Musk's design that the Dragon's mission was unaffected by the loss of one rocket engine. On Sunday night, he pointed out in an email to NASA Watch that few if any other existing launch vehicles could have weathered that kind of problem: "I believe F9 is the only rocket flying today that, like a modern airliner, is capable of completing a flight successfully even after losing an engine."
What do you think? Does the Dragon's rise represent Falcon's finest hour, or do the problems point to a chink in SpaceX's armor? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
The $1.6 billion space journey is the first routine cargo delivery to the International Space Station by a private company. NBC's Brian Williams reports.
Update for 4:15 p.m. ET: I've updated SpaceX's previous update (which referred to an engine fairing) with the current update (which pointed to protective panels instead).
Update for 6:30 p.m. ET: I've added a link to the Orbcomm statement confirming that its OG2 satellite ended up in a lower-than-expected orbit.
More about commercial space:
- Dragon liftoff begins the new normal for NASA
- SpaceX flight gets its own mission patch
- Why SpaceX is setting the pace in space race
- Florida wants NASA land for commercial ventures
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
It's interesting that folks at SpaceX seem to know how the Saturn Rocket works... Still, it makes me wonder if they brought intellectual property or technical know-how to the project.
I happen to know a few folks over at United Launch Alliance, and one of them, a neighbor, on the Lockheed side of the house, developed software for satellite launches. His software is currently used, and was based on technical know-how from when he worked on the DEW Line and at Bell Laboratories. He's getting up in age.
My other neighbor helped to design a rover which was recently on The Discovery Channel, and is on Mars.
Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if there's infringement of intellectual property of some type, or more likely, they infringe on patents held by others needed to get satellites into proper orbit. It will be interesting if SpaceX decides to license those patent portfolios. A long-term licensing agreement (similar to the one offered by Steve Jobs to Samsung) would benefit others in the industry, and likely ensure satellites don't blow up, or have to be brought back to earth because they failed to reach proper orbit. This happened a few years ago with a SES Americom Satellite, and the insurance company had to pay for the mistake, and satellite being unable to reach proper orbit. It was a $100M+ mistake.
Nonetheless, it's interesting to see new entrants into the space, perhaps this Colorado Spaceport thing will take off, and SpaceX will be invited to meet some tenured individuals who launced all 66 GPS sattelites into orbit, without a single mishap.. They couldn't talk about that project because it was originally a DoD project. The program worked well, and was completely successful!
Nonsense. NASA and SpaceX and others have openly collaborated on technical information so as not to have to start America's space effort all over again. Sunday's launch and mishap shows brilliant planning and coordination. Without the collaboration, all of America's past efforts would have been wasted.
By Jim!
Don't get me wrong, collaboration within the industry is a good thing; however there are existing companies, with technical know-how that were contracted out by NASA to private companies as well, that also have rights, including intellectual property rights.
It will be interesting to see long term effects 5-10 years out, how private individuals, and public companies.
The biggest challenge, in my mind anyway, is that the office of SpaceX, on Rocket Road, next to the Jack Northrop Airport, in Hawthorne, lacks space for expansion. There's very little physical space for growth, or additional companies whom likely would prefer to collaborate. It seems like a hallmark location, likely a good location for final assembly, but definitely not worthwhile for an industry collaboration.
I've been there; it's right next to Compton.
Likely, long-term goals and ambitions of SpaceX might require relocation or additional space. My guess, as difficult as it is to admit, but with names like Dragon, that SpaceX may move to China, or (hopefully) some place with more land available.
Collaboration will likely continue, but certainly not physically at the current location! They chose a land-locked location which doesn't facilitate collaboration very well, difficult access for large rockets to get transported. I could be wrong but it seems that SpaceX appears to do everything in-house.
That would be very stupid of them as the ensuing politics would doom any chance of working with NASA.
Right. But remember NASA's role- it was to produce contracts, specifications, and paperwork for the industry it served. NASA didn't have much of a physical presence in California, most of the contracts were awarded by the Aerospace Corporation, for Airforce contracts. So it can create curiosity how NASA plays a role. Some of the contracts for the parts were won by companies in Anaheim CA. It isn't that hard. Just take a blank check to Rocketdyne, a Boeing Company.
Hopefully it's all based on Von Braun's research and development, and in the public domain.
Who knows, but I've been there, it's an interesting town, especially after midnight, the only time for transport on the highways is available.
@TheRocketMan You seem a bit confused over who make which rockets? Saturn V is the ages old rocket of the Apollo era, whereas Atlas V is the one used by ULA. And for what its worth, Boeing has the Delta IV.
SpaceX knows how the Saturn V worked? The only thing mentioned in the article about the Saturn V was that it had engine shutdowns on two Apollo flights - which is not only true, but common knowledge. Apollo 13's reaching orbit with a failed center engine is even shown in the Hollywood movie about it. Not exactly an infringement of IP there.
As for expansion, SpaceX is making major purchases in Brownsville, Texas to build a launch facility. No China required. Also, it would be much harder to outsource rocket tech than you make it out to be, as it's covered under munitions/weapons export restrictions.
well...at least it went up up and away...
In reply to "TheRocketMan", I have three remarks about SpaceX's "knowledge of how Saturn V worked" and any intellectual property ramifications:
1. The idea of using multiple engines to tolerate failures wasn't remotely new or innovative even at the time of S-V. It presents an interesting tradeoff though: You have to use more engines to tolerate the failure of any one, and doing so increases both the net likelihood of engine failure and cost. The cost issue and the fact that modern rocket engines like RS-68 and RD-180 are *highly* evolved and reliable is why Delta IV and Atlas 5 don't have such redundancy. I suspect that SpaceX went the redundant route because Merlin is a very immature engine compared to the others I just mentioned, and because Merlin is fairly cheap. Those two factors would make their tradeoff space look quite different from Boeing's, Lockheed's, or Energia's.
2. The fact that S-V was designed to survive the failure of one engine of 5 out from either the first or second stages is common knowledge. The fact that it happened on Apollo 6 (2 of 5 engines failed in the second stage - this was not a "guaranteed to work" case but it did anyway) and again on Apollo 13 (1 engine failure in second stage - Note that this was completely separate and independent from the more well-known service module failure that followed) has been published in a multitude of sources.
3. Utility Patents last 20 years from initial application (and I believe they lasted a few years less back in the Apollo era). S-V first flew in 1967, so any associated IP would have entered the public domain in 1987. There is nothing for SpaceX to license. It's all there for anybody that wants it.
4. Saturn-V was developed using public funding, and if I recall correctly there were restrictions on the degree to which the contractors could protect/enforce resulting intellectual property. Basically if you develop something under contract to the government, the contract will typically give the government certain rights to decide what you do with the IP. As a concrete example, that's why Pratt&Whitney had to teach GE how to build competitive military turbofans back in the 80s. If you don't like those terms, don't take the contract!
I look forward to the greater transparency of technical issues coming from these new private companies than we ever got from government run NASA in the past /sarc/. I'm sure that we will see a future where space travel has an almost 100% success rate from these private companies...and they will provide their own tailored data to prove it!
Indeed. DFARS and FARS restrictions present challenges.
As for Texas, I suppose that would work, but will likely be a bit interesting. A number of companies are in Texas that supported NASA.
Most recently, VASIMR rocket technology is being developed in Texas at the Ad Astra Rocket Company. They won a NASA contract. Living-wise, well, tax incentives offered (no state tax) is another incentive, and it seems to lend well to the overall direction of the industry direction of "Horizontal Spacecraft". But everyone I know that moved there for work, pretty much left.
Another person mentioned the Challenger Disaster. This was researched by Dr. Richard Feynman YEARS ago.. I think it developed an industry stigma, and might be difficult to insure previous cargo unless the VASMIR technology is properly proven. VASIMR Plasma rocketry is pretty cool tech, which likely solves some challenges. But it's fuel is electrical power. Perhaps a battery can be developed to produce enough electrical power, which may need to be close to that of a nuclear power facility. Who knows.
But judging from California's recent gas increase prices, which it seems were partially blamed by the amount of electrical power needed to run the refineries, and rolling blackouts, Texas would be better, they seem to manage resources better.
It's just that SpaceX is doing it by itself, it doesn't seem to lend well for an industry collaboration. It's neat though to see a private company, backed by the former CEO of Paypal solved a problem of getting to space. Once his business is proven it will likely open up new funding opportunities for others in the industry. Exciting times.
I'm always amazed at the extent to which so many people, in the media and the general population, who are only too eager to thrown projects like this under the bus when something goes wrong. This really is rocket science, and things will go wrong. I'd be more worried if nothing went wrong. When did we become such nervous nellies in this country that we lost sight of the fact that we learn from the occasional failure especially when we are pushing the envelope. Apparently some people get such a rush from pointing fingers and saying "nyah-nyah" they stop thinking clearly and refuse to understand what is really happening. Making the perfect the enemy of the good is a recipe for failure.
I await the day when articles such as this approach events of this type from the perspective that what occurred is to be expected, those who are complaining about it are uninformed or just plain willfully ignorant, and that part of increasing our knowledge and expertise in science and technology is the ability to operating with a clear head at the cutting edge of possibility - which means things will fail from time to time, people will die, and we'll keep pushing for more knowledge regardless of that reality.
We live in a media era where any piece of information that can be spun into something people can hear themselves discuss as if there is meaning to be found, does so.
Anyone interested can read the terms of COTS online and the terms for knowledge transfer, IP, and national security issues. Here is a link.
http://bit.ly/SZ8vEL
Anyone bringing up "moving to China" is new to this topic and doesn't know the actors or issues involved and should do some more reading. Or their just trolling.
I think that is shows the concerns of commercial operations vs. government run ones that the Falcon9 was designed so that it could tolerate an engine failure without compromising mission success. For NASA to have a launch failure costs the taxpayer, but has little impact on NASA as a whole. For SpaceX to have a failure at this stage of the game could jeopardize the future health of the company. SpaceX did a very intelligent thing in designing their system to tolerate a failure like this and still complete the mission. I do not see this failure as a negative, but rather a demonstration of the positive aspects of this design from an overall mission reliability standpoint. As the old saying goes, @!$%# happens, and the fact that SpaceX recognized this from the start of their design and built in the tolerance to allow for it shows great foresight on the part of their design team. If anything, the fact that this failure occurred and yet the Dragon still made it into orbit as planned gives me a lot of confidence in them moving forward as they develop the human certified version of the Dragon capsule. This built in fault tolerance means that it is far less likely that we will have a catastrophe and lose astronauts when they are going into orbit on top of a Falcon9 rocket. Hopefully they can identify what caused this failure so it does not happen again, but there is a certain comfort in knowing that there is this fault tolerance in the system. It is also comforting that the design included the pressure relief panels in order to prevent an explosion in the case of an engine shutdown like this.
Rocketman...
Just an FYI...the Dragon name origin is well known to be related to Puff the Magic Dragon and has zero relationship to China.
Space-X has designed the vehicle to be human spaceflight certified and hence has built in all the redundancy. As they themselves acknowledged it is similar to the redundancy in aircraft which can fly on a single engine, so it is not revolutionary in any way. What is revolutionary is that they have been able to bring down the cost enough that in-spite of the redundancy they can still launch a payload for less than Lockheed Martin or Boeing.
JD:
For NASA to have a launch failure costs the taxpayer, but has little impact on NASA as a whole.
This is inversed to some degree. NASA's costs of failure to the operation are much higher. Taxpayers demand a several year break in operation and billions are spent just to get a report saying: space flight is dangerous. SpaceX can experience a failure and go out and try again the very next day. Additionally, NASA's rockets had similar capabilities to this. The shuttle had one and two engine out capabilities, and these capabilities have nothing to do with loss of life, only completion of the mission. The real reason the F9 is safer is because it uses only liquid fuel (you may repeat this to your heart's content to other people).
Also, and be honest with me, do you understand who is paying SpaceX's contract right now?
To be clear, I am not arguing against spaceX or using private companies. I just think you are their worst cheerleader.
"Likely, long-term goals and ambitions of SpaceX might require relocation or additional space. My guess, as difficult as it is to admit, but with names like Dragon, that SpaceX may move to China..."
1. That would never be allowed under ITAR. Never. Pure and simple.
2. 'Dragon' is also a European concept (pre-launch, the commentators acknowledged it was a nod to 'Puff, The Magic Dragon'), and the logo looks exactly like one, not the snake-like Asian dragons...
"...or (hopefully) some place with more land available."
Texas? It's no secret that their looking. (Georgia is making offers, too). They mostly need to not be bound by Air Force launch schedule restrictions. The needn't completely leave the US for that.
Let's see, the United States launches rockets, Russia launches rockets, China launches rockets, France, Japan. yep, and also Elon Musk!!
Redundancies, Redundancies, Redundancies, good on SpaceX for insuring a successful launch even with a partial engine failure. Bets says that the Satellite, can be repositioned as well.
It was a flawed mission.
Food will get delivered.
Multi-million dollar satellite not so much.
.
Launching a rocket is a COMPLEX endeavor (no pun intended) even with the advances in today's technology. The stresses on the materials alone can result in failure across many systems. Look at how many major failures NASA/the US has had since starting rocket research through the shuttles, about 1 for 1 actually if you count design days. It took quite a few years for the US to get it's first launch off the ground and these guys have replicated past success quickly by piggy backing off of prior knowledge. Kudos to SpaceX for making it as successful as they have thus far. If some other company can do it better and cheaper then they need to get cracking. Some Rocket envy on here.. lol
Excellent article, Alan. By any measure, the demonstrated backup system technology which allowed SpaceX to recover from an engine anomally and successfully put the Dragon capsule in the correct orbit to intercept the ISS shows that SpaceX is already in the major league of refined space technology. Kuddos again to Elon Musk and the engineers and scientists at SpaceX. This is an exciting young company that is making the American space program FUN and INTERESTING again!
Anything accomplished by the Space-X program is a win in my book-- For one, we are getting data that will improve space travel, and we are not risking human lives in cargo/payload delivery. I also like the fact it is a USA based program. The more we learn, the faster we improve technologies. For all practical purposes, this is research and development in space, navigation, robotics, low level AI, electronics, and engine technologies. This does not mean I think this should replace NASA, as as matter of fact I think NASA should have a budget increase, and grow as well.
It's all part of the learning curve in orbital and engine technology. The good news is that they used a multi-engine strategy so that there is no dependency on a single engine and the vehicle can adjust in cases where an engine malfunctions. They proved that it works. The real test will be to see if reliability improves with future flights.
Agreed. You still don't want this happening, but in this case, it seems that things worked exactly as they should.
Amateurs...
There now exist enough doubt that I would not be willing to fly in a toy that BARELY got to space. parts flying off were ejected eh? That is very hard for me to believe. The Eye Witnesses think (Not mentioned in the "Article" Above) They saw fire and smoke. They also have a Satellite in the wrong orbit and heh the Amateurs called it a successful launch.
Amateurs!!!
And thats my opinion.
Magnum, would you consider the Saturn V a "toy that BARELY got to space"? It had the same problems. Parts on rockets are designed to come off for the safety of the system in a malfunction. And of course they saw fire and smoke, it's a ROCKET for gods sake. It runs via combustion! It was considered a success because the satellite was NOT the primary mission. The primary mission was resupplying the space station, which can still be accomplished.
The Saturn V was struck by lightning on Apollo 12. Bits of it didn't fly off. Apollo 13's Saturn V performed admirably on 4/5 engines (the Command/Service Module is where the problem was). I have to wonder if the Falcon 9 would perform so well when struck by lightening.
Hate to tell you but it's not as easy as Astronaut Farmer made it seem in the movies. Real rockets take real science and even more effort, along with many failures before getting it right.
Pragmatic - As was explained in the article (if you'd care to read it BEFORE commenting), the parts that flew off were panels that are meant to pop off in the case of an engine failure to relieve pressure on the system. Rest assured, I'm sure the astronautical engineers (you know, the gals and guys that do this stuff for a living) that built the rocket thought of the possibility of lightning strikes, even though they try to launch only in favorable weather.
From Space X's website:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
"...parts flying off were ejected eh?"
Magnum, three words:
External Tank insulation...
The stuff on Falcon did no damage on the way out.
"They also have a Satellite in the wrong orbit and heh the Amateurs called it a successful launch."
Depends. Are you asking Orbcomm, or NASA?
Magnum,
Primary mission: launch Dragon to ISS. Successful.
Secondary mission: put Orbcomm satellite in orbit. Failed, improper orbit.
1 out of 2 completed successfully. Add to that the perfect demo flight mission.
And, dare I say, check out the comical first attempts by the US to launch rockets into space.
What is YOUR percentage of orbital launch success?
Future collaboration with the private sector will be vital in achieving our space exploration goals. This is merely the beginning and although the stakes are very high we all know that mistakes will happen. It just so happens that this endeavor carries a very pricey learning curve with it. I think the whole thing is fantastic, and Musk is going to go down in history as one of the great inventors of the early 21st century.
I was pretty sure the satellite was riding in the unpressurized part of dragon. So there would be no reason for the second stage to have to restart because dragon (and the satellite would have already been separated from the second stage.
Maybe I missed something but something doesn't sound right with McDowell's assessment.
No, the satellite wasn't in the Dragon Trunk, it was attached to the second stage. - Jonathan McDowell
You are incorrect - the satellite was attached to the second stage, not the Dragon trunk.
- Jonathan McDowell
It might be time to search any floating debris from the launch and sending out some ROVS to locate and examine the remains of the Falcon 9 booster on the seafloor.
Seems like a win to me, I was watching at school when the solid fuel booster on Challenger exploded and have felt ever since that maned flight on solid rockets was insane. Falcon 9 is a far superior vehicle, its engines can detect issues and shut down safely. Even if all 9 engines shut down the wont ignite the liquid Oxygen and Kerosene in the fuel tanks. The crew can then eject the capsule from the second stage and use its booster and attitude control liquid fueled engines to boost away, pivot the capsule for breaking, and then deploy the landing parachute. So much safer when the engines are feed liquid propellant which can be throttled and even shut down, vs just lighting the gas tank on fire like in a solid fuel rocket.
I really hope the satellites orbit is OK or can be corrected, this is very important to continued multi service missions and making each launch as economically profitable as possible.
Rock on SpaceX, your inspiring us all.
SRB's make me think of Wiley Coyote and Acme.
Given the advantages of liquid fuel systems you just stated (and some of the catastrophic incidents with solid fuel propulsion in the past), why do any spaceflight rockets use solid fuel? What's the tradeoff?
Solid fuel boosters require less mechanics to operate. A liquid fueled rocket has more moving parts, valves, switches, igniters and so on. So saying liquid fueled rockets are more reliable is a bit off.
Solid fuel rockets have a better power to weight ratio as well. Each solid rocket booster on the shuttle produced 80% more thrust than the Saturn v's f1 liquid fueled rocket, the most powerful liquid rocket engine. That makes solid fuel rockets more efficient.
As an engineer, I would say that both systems are equally dangerous. Both contain explosive propellants and both can fail. The reason solid fuel rockets are not as safe is there is no backup. If the SF rocket fails your power to weight ratio is lost and so is your space craft. If a liquid fueled rocket is lost, as happened in the space x launch, fuel can be diverted to the remaining engines to boost their power output and continue the mission.
I think space-x is on the right track, however there are more efficient ways to move cargo into space that nobody has tried. Magnetic launch stations would be far more efficient and reusable than multi stage boosters. If we are serious about building our presence in space devices like this should be considered.
http://spacemonitor.blogspot.com/2007/03/magnetic-launch-system.html
You forgot something else. A liquid fueled rocket can be stopped or throttled down easily.
Stopping a liquid fuel rocket in flight is as much of a problem as if a solid fuel rocket engine stops burning. In either case, you can't just pull to the side of the road and fix the problem. Your rocket crashes or best case goes to the wrong orbit. But it is a lot less likely for a solid rocket to stop burning. That's because it is a much simpler and more robust system. All of our ICBMs switched to solid fuel decades ago because of this much higher reliability. Solids are also always ready to go, just fire and watch it go.
If you need engine out capability, with either solids or liquids, use more engines. That provides redundancy at the cost of complexity, lots less complexity if the engines are solid fueled, of course.
The point of the liquid fueled rocket is that is much SAFER than a solid booster design. That combined with the dragon capsule's planned built-in launch abort systems will make this one of the safest designs for launching humans to space to date.
Also, Space X has simplified their designs to eliminate some of the moving parts that were in previous liquid-fueled rockets. Read about that at their website:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
I hope the ice cream stayed frozen!
I always knew astronauts didn't eat that astronaut ice cream!
It was just styrofoam, anyway.
We always learn most from our failures. To have a failure with all the feedback and learning that takes place, and still complete the mission, seems quite commendable to me.
This is awesome. end of story. Man has been staring upwards longingly since time began - finally some solid steps towards the beginning of the future. Hopefully liability issues won't hamstring the privatization of space. There are risks and there will be accidents - but those participating want to be part of something. Musk, while a complete jerk of a guy (like Steve Jobs), is a visionary - and there is a hole group of people in silicon valley who made billions during the tech boom who are going to push the dream forward. I am excited.
Sounds good. Glad Dragon is on track, and let's hope there is a way to get the other satellite into the correct orbit, if it is, in fact, off.
It's depressing ...
we used to be able to develop state-of-the-art space technology and say "we own that" ...
we used to be able to put men in space and say "we did that" ...
now the state-of-the-art space technology belongs to some jerk and all we can say is "we paid for that".
When the jerks have privatized all of our national endeavors, what's left for ordinary Americans to take pride in?
....
Apple, Disney, and McDonald's.
I agree with you that cuts to NASA's programs should have been increased, not decreased.
While it is unfortunate that the cuts were made, thank goodness somebody else is able to continue the work on our behalf.
But this is exactly how the system should work: the government makes huge investitures driving basic research that is too expensive or too risky for a private company, then when the technology is sufficiently advanced, they step back and let the private sector drive an entirely new industry. This is how the large majority of science and technology is developed in the US. The human genome project was driven primarily by government grants, commercial air flight was made possible by military R&D, and now space exploration is being privatized by the amazing work done by NASA. Using commercial air flight as a model, can you imagine the kinds of tax revenues and job creation that an entirely private space exploration industry could generate?
You can push the back of your kid's bike seat when he's learning to ride, but at some point you realize you can let go and he'll keep going. I'm going to guess that most people are proud when that happens.
I beg the difer with you. I look at that and look what American ingenuity can do. NASA was necessary to get us goin but NASA should have gone away right after we landed on the moon. I wish that we had 20 Space-X companies competing with one another. we most likely would have already been to Mars and had some sort of endeavor going, The government has no business doing space anymore , anymore than they should own the Airlines or anything else. competition is what make the world go around. The government being in any business ia like a giant sluggish anchor being dragged around. NASA's last great feat was putting a man on the moon and since that time Space has been dying. Their next two major endeavors the Space Shuttle and the ISS have been the biggest waste and burning of taxpayer money in years. now the geniuses have come up with the next great man in space thing being 1969 technology "Orion". NASA being gutted of funds has killed their ability to think and have vision. Now Obama has them outreaching to Muslims. what the hell does NASA have to do with Muslims? Worst thing is that congress is going along with it. No buddy you got it wrong about Space-X. That is a huge achievement and if NASA would get out of the way and let these companies share in the known technology space travel would be booming. Boeing, martin Marietta, Lockheed, etc should be building and flying these ships not NASA. Then we woul dhave something we could really be proud of.
We can say, "I own a share of stock in that."
"outreaching to Muslims" Isn't that code for "put some satelites over their heads that may or may not be armed"?
Well, if DARPA hadn't been there, I think it would have taken a lot longer to get the Internet up. I worked a period of time with that agency and we had it going before 1991. Then we sent it public.
The government always has a place in R&D. Without it, the costs become prohibitive and private companies can't make the necessaries it takes.
I will apologize on behalf of present and future progress in the exploration of space, FEDFL:
I'm truly sorry that you've been stripped of the pride you arbitrarily feel from your miniscule contribution to somebody else's research and production going to a government agency rather than a private one. I have no idea what difference it should make to you, but empathy was never my strong point.
Because, you know, even when it was at NASA, WE didn't build or own anything. The government did, and the government is not the country or its people. We just paid for it, exactly the same as we're doing now.
The Outer Space Treaty, to which the US is a signatory, forbids placing weapons of mass destruction in space. No matter whom they're pointed at.
Besides, the problem with orbital weapon platforms is they're always in...orbit. They don't just hover. Just as there are specific launch windows to reach something in orbit, there are specific times you can de-orbit to come down at a desired point. A satellite that can send a warhead down on Tehran at predictable times, only twice a day, is if limited use. You'd need dozens in orbit to have it (or any other target) always in range of one of them now or in, say, the next five minutes. (the same applies to recon satellites....cover up your secret stuff, when you know it's above your horizon)
SLBMs, cruise missiles and bombers...they can come at unpredictable times, from mostly unpredictable directions.
Warheads in orbit are not the world-dominating menace that some would have you believe, especially compared to what already exists.
If your weapons platform is at geosync, then it DOES always hover over one spot on Earth. That isn't necessarily a plus, though, depending on the particular tactical situation. A FOB system gives your enemy less warning, and less of a possibility of intercepting your attack.
In most cases it would be even better to have the bombardment platform on the Moon. It can be dug in against hostile strikes, has a long warning of pending attacks (3 days) to prepare an intercept solution, and can drop rocks on Earth any time and any where it likes for as long as it likes. A large kinetic impactor coming in at 7 miles a second is devastating, and nearly impossible to defend against. Since it is non-nuclear, there would be less reason to refrain from using it because of the lack of extensive fallout beyond the battlefield.
"If your weapons platform is at geosync, then it DOES always hover over one spot on Earth."
Yes, if that spot is somewhere on the equator. Now you have an object that is that much easier to track and observe. So, how long does it take to de-orbit an object from geostationary to a ground target? Long enough for the opposition to start taking action against your ground assets?
"In most cases it would be even better to have the bombardment platform on the Moon."
Now you have to launch out of another gravity well, and take days to get something back here, and at a higher entry velocity...we're getting farther and farther from useful first-strike weapons.
"has a long warning of pending attacks (3 days) to prepare an intercept solution"
See above. That cuts both ways.
The rest of your proposal, while technically possible, is seriously expensive. ICBMs and cruise missiles are just plain cheaper.
With two flights, they are just starting to put together their quality control matrix, perfection is a worthy goal, but it takes time and experience to improve. They are off to an exceptionally good start.
We need a reporting score card to compare public vs private performance
How many dollars has NASA spend to put x pounds into space vs private?
How many lives has NASA lost vs Private?
What if NASA had stayed with the Saturn V with further upgrades the ISS would have been one or two flights to assemble.
NASA is old, slow and tired and should be shown the door.
So far SpaceX or any other private rocket enterprise has not launched any humans that I know of.
Sh*t happens, after all it "Is rocket science."
My aren't you cynical. Nasa continues to make great contributions to science which no commercial enterprise can do.
A couple major issues:
How precisely do you figure it would have taken "one or two" flights to assemble ISS using a rocket that is not available and has not been manufactured since the early 1970's? Saturn V had a Payload to LEO rate of about 260,000 pounds, while the Shuttle had about 52,000 pounds. Considering it required 26 Shuttle flights, in addition to a few Russian Proton rockets, the numbers don't look good for "one or two" Saturn V's, IF they were even available.
Considering NASA has missions monitoring weather on Earth, monitoring space weather, three rovers on Mars, new Horizons enroute to Pluto, Dawn exploring the asteroid belt and legacy program like Voyager still kicking around, how exactly is NASA "old, slow and tired and should be shown the door"? If anything, NASA should be shown a much larger budget.
Seriously? Do you seriously think that commercial enterprises can't make great contributions to science?
You either have a extremely high standard for "great contributions", or are seriously deluded.
My aren't you cynical. Nasa continues to make great contributions to science which no commercial enterprise can do.===== ==SpaceX is resupplying our space station.... something Nasa is incapable/incompetent to do...Nasa spent $20 billion on it's failed/canceled Constellation effort... while SpaceX produced far superior boosters/capsules for only $300 billion..... before that, Nasa promised a 'cheap, safe, reliable access to space' Shuttle for $7 million/flight... then delivered a $1.5 billion/flight boondoggle which killed 2 crew and had several multi-year service outages... the most bankrupting unaffordable/unsustainable, dangerous, unreliable space vehicle in history.. In the 40 years and $500 billion spent on manned space since Apollo, Nasa hasn't gotten a single American beyond low earth orbit..
You are cynical for implying that private enterprise spirit, innovation, efficiency cannot do better than our wasteful, pork driven Federal Govt.
That's not really cynicism. He's probably just a statist. So it's more like bias, or willful ignorance.
Aside from comsat launches paid for by telcom companies, every US launch to date has been a NASA (or military) launch in the sense that NASA (or military) has paid some private aerospace company to build a rocket to launch some payload for the government. NASA writes the contracts and pays the bills while private contractors do the work. This hasn't changed.
Just one word Outstanding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope they didn't melt the ice cream on board that is on it's way to the space station!
I am personally thrilled that the American space program has found a way to survive the government cuts.
They got it done, warts and all.
Pretty cool that the lost engine was compensated for in the programming. I am sure they will learn and grow from this event. It is the nature of working in space. Keep flying!
Sh*t's gonna happen. NASA lost it's share of spacecraft and people over the years. Sounds like SpaceX had a good contingency plan in place and it worked for the most part.
I loved the quote "And skeptics should keep in mind that this is rocket science, which is "super-frickin'-damn-hard,"
Murphy's law is the most respected law in science; whatever can go wrong will do so at the worst time possible. So it is not only amazing but absolutely necessary that the flight vehicle be able to re-calibrate in flight as one or two engines fail. Something to be proud of.
Let me start by saying I am a big fan of SpaceX and I think that Elon's drive, technical aptitude and the team he has working on the Falcon, Dragon, Merlin, Kestral and Raptor designs are fantastic. Go SpaceX!
In their first three flights of the Falcon 1 SpaceX did learn lessons that had been learned previously.
My recollection is that the failure of flight 1 was caused by the fracture of an Aluminum nut on the first stage engine line (due to corrosion in the saltly mid-Pacific air) caused a fire that resulted in the engine shutting down. Lesson Learned--use Stainless Steel for that part, it's corrosion resistant and less expensive, if somewhat heavier.
Flight two had an incorrect flight profile loaded into the flight computer, resulting in staging at a lower than intended altitude. The first stage pitched up due to the airstream, struck the 2nd stage engine bell, pitching the 2nd stage. The 2nd stage engine pivoted hard to compensate, started up, and corrected back onto the planned trajectory. The 2nd stage tanks did not have slosh baffles, and the kick from the first stage striking the 2nd stage started an oscillation that resulted in the fuel sloshing away from the sump. --Solution, install slosh baffles in the tanks.
The third flight featured the new Merlin engine with regenerative cooling. After MECO of the first stage the 2nd stage was pushed by SpaceX's spring loaded separation system almost immediately. Unfortunately the first stage engines were still producing a bit of thrust due to the fuel still in the regenerative cooling loop being expelled. This amount of thrust had not been detected on the pad test firings. the first stage accelerated into the 2nd stage (man the video of that was just like watching a fender bender) and bashed the 2nd stage engine bell. When the 2nd stage engine ignited, it's an understatement to say that there was a loss of control authority. --solution, allow several seconds for the first stage engine to completely stop producing thrust before staging separation.
I have read that if SpaceX had gone into the NASA archives they would have found these same failures had occurred previously. But not even NASA seems to use those archives consistently, and ends up fixing the same problems that were documented decades before.
SpaceX has put a lot of thought into their systems--I think the blowout panels for the first stage engine arrangement is brilliant. They definitely had a bunch of 'what if this goes wrong' sessions, so Kudos!
Well said Ellon.
Ask the Russians about failed launches. It's amazing after an engine failure (which would been a disaster for most launches) and the loss of it's cowling, it continued on and was able obtain it's tragectory point. It's a testment to careful planning and design regardless of what some critics may say. Even NASA has had some failed lauches in the past with far worse outcomes.
To answer the question: YES. Yes they had a component failure that shows there is an issue. Yes, they showed they had a robust design capable of handling a significant component failure. I have never been involved in the space program, but I was in the submarine service. And the overall design philosophy is similar. Engineer individual components to NOT fail, but design the SYSTEM to be redundant and capable of compensating for individual component failures. In fact, after Challenger, NASA studied the Navy's submarine quality control system "Sub-Safe".
Good design. Need to do some evaluating of the engine failure and redesign it to ensure it doesn't happen for the next 1,000 launches. That would be a GREAT rocket. 1/1,000 failure rate in the rocket science world is pretty damn good.
Who "owned" the Saturn V? Normally in all government projects there are deliverables; in this case, the rocket itself (with then existing technical documentation) was the deliverable. From wikipedia, it seems as though each stage was built by a different lead with the Von Braun team doing the required systems engineering design. Which once again leads me to ask the question - what intellectual property?
It seems as though you are trying to make the argument that SpaceX does not have the competency to do what they do without relying on "patents" or intellectual property from the big, established companies. However, those companies have been either incapable or unwilling to push rocket design beyond the 1970s without using Russian technology (which I would imagine has its own intellectual property problems) and/or charging Uncle Sam (pardon the pun) 'astronomical' prices, crowing about it being produced by "(Your name here) corporation" and sticking a corporate logo on the side. For all the promotion it does, SpaceX was chosen because it wanted to do something the defense corporations didn't - make access to space reliable and affordable.
To claim they did so by infringing on the rights of other corporations or other disparaging remarks borders on slander. This launch has been a great accomplishment - especially with the failure. Hopefully SpaceX and other companies will learn and apply their findings to even better future delivery systems!
We should all be proud of SpaceX for their advanced planning for issues such as this. My hat's off to SpaceX. They are doing and will do one heck of a job for themselves and NASA...
The " what if " happened. But it went "POOF" and kept right on going. How many rockets can do that? That Falcon rocket is a beast!! Nice work, SpaceX!
Awesome to see the first private resupply flight (non-demo mode) finally liftoff. Fair winds and following seas Dragon!