SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
Someone may be able to figure out more about where it oringinated from by looking at this?
Large version - http://i.imgur.com/8UlUJbO.jpg
Large version - http://i.imgur.com/8UlUJbO.jpg
Well we all should know how dangerous LOX is around combustibles,if there was a build up of vapour OR a spray of RP1 from a leak then it's a very dangerous situation. Having said that with the avpin powered Sat sitting on top it was just asking for trouble, never thought they still used that stuff apart from emergency power generating systems...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9sIT6P_05I
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9sIT6P_05I
I find it strange when things go backwards. We've been launching rockets since the 1940s. 75 years on, we should be able to do it without things exploding. But then, I abjectly failed to top up my new Tesco phone today - the e-card was rejected, the phone can't be used first time, the website didn't accept my bank details. That's progress folks!
FurtiveFreddy said:
Remember - the universe tends towards disorder.
That's very true. Entropy/enthalpy etc. So we take simple things that work well and 'improve' them until they don't work any more. Rather than just take the due sum from my bank by DD, apparently I can contact them via Twitter. Whatever that is.The latest word from the pad (SLC-40) is that the damage is heavy. The strongback is a wreck and one of the four lightening towers has seen better days. Some of the plumbing, vehicles and storage tanks are totalled and debris was thrown all over the place; Some actually making it to pad 39a, which is about 3.5 miles away to the north.
Between those two pads there's pad LC-41 (1.1 miles from SLC-40), which currently has an Atlas V rocket with NASA's OSIRIS-REx spacecraft on board. Luckily they are undamaged and should hopefully launch on schedule next Thursday.
Quite an interesting mission in its own right. I hope it goes well.
https://twitter.com/OSIRISREx?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoog...
Between those two pads there's pad LC-41 (1.1 miles from SLC-40), which currently has an Atlas V rocket with NASA's OSIRIS-REx spacecraft on board. Luckily they are undamaged and should hopefully launch on schedule next Thursday.
Quite an interesting mission in its own right. I hope it goes well.
https://twitter.com/OSIRISREx?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoog...
SpaceX say the rocket exploded about 8 minutes before the scheduled test fire.
Looking at the normal Falcon 9 launch procedure, the lower stage would have had about 3 minutes more fuel loading to go, but the upper stage had been full of fuel for about 14 minutes.
They still think the problem was with the upper stage's liquid oxygen tank, which is located at the top of the stage. It would have been still been under external loading pressure until a couple of minutes before the test.
The countdown procedure is detailed here:
http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-ft-countdown-ti...
The investigators have about 3000 channels of telemetry and video data to look at.
They also confirmed that both Vandenberg and Pad 39A at Cape Canaveral are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches.
http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-upda...
Looking at the normal Falcon 9 launch procedure, the lower stage would have had about 3 minutes more fuel loading to go, but the upper stage had been full of fuel for about 14 minutes.
They still think the problem was with the upper stage's liquid oxygen tank, which is located at the top of the stage. It would have been still been under external loading pressure until a couple of minutes before the test.
The countdown procedure is detailed here:
http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-ft-countdown-ti...
The investigators have about 3000 channels of telemetry and video data to look at.
They also confirmed that both Vandenberg and Pad 39A at Cape Canaveral are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches.
http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-upda...
It's a complete dress rehearsal, including stage loading and pressurisation. They just cut the main engines after 5 seconds. It is supposed to be a re-usable rocket after all.
That said, I think a few more customers are going to insist their payload is not added until after the test in future.
That said, I think a few more customers are going to insist their payload is not added until after the test in future.
Ref...http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates
September 2, 6:45pm EDT
SpaceX has begun the careful and deliberate process of understanding the causes and fixes for yesterday's incident. We will continue to provide regular updates on our progress and findings, to the fullest extent we can share publicly.
We deeply regret the loss of AMOS-6, and safely and reliably returning to flight to meet the demands of our customers is our chief priority. SpaceX's business is robust, with approximately 70 missions on our manifest worth over $10 billion. In the aftermath of yesterday's events, we are grateful for the continued support and unwavering confidence that our commercial customers as well as NASA and the United States Air Force have placed in us.
Overview of the incident:
- Yesterday, at SpaceX's Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, an anomaly took place about eight minutes in advance of a scheduled test firing of a Falcon 9 rocket.
- The anomaly on the pad resulted in the loss of the vehicle.
- This was part of a standard pre-launch static fire to demonstrate the health of the vehicle prior to an eventual launch.
- At the time of the loss, the launch vehicle was vertical and in the process of being fueled for the test. At this time, the data indicates the anomaly originated around the upper stage liquid oxygen tank. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad. There were no injuries.
To identify the root cause of the anomaly, SpaceX began its investigation immediately after the loss, consistent with accident investigation plans prepared for such a contingency. These plans include the preservation of all possible evidence and the assembly of an Accident Investigation Team, with oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration and participation by NASA, the United States Air Force and other industry experts. We are currently in the early process of reviewing approximately 3000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55 milliseconds.
As for the Launch Pad itself, our teams are now investigating the status of SLC-40. The pad clearly incurred damage, but the scope has yet to be fully determined. We will share more data as it becomes available. SpaceX currently operates 3 launch pads – 2 in Florida and 1 in California at Vandenberg Air Force Base. SpaceX's other launch sites were not affected by yesterday's events. Space Launch Complex 4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base is in the final stages of an operational upgrade and Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center remains on schedule to be operational in November. Both pads are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. We are confident the two launch pads can support our return to flight and fulfill our upcoming manifest needs.
Again, our number one priority is to safely and reliably return to flight for our customers, as well as to take all the necessary steps to ensure the highest possible levels of safety for future crewed missions with the Falcon 9. We will carefully and thoroughly investigate and address this issue.
September 2, 9:00am EDT
Statement from SpaceX President and COO, Gwynne Shotwell:
“We deeply regret the loss of Amos-6. Our number one priority is to safely and reliably return to flight for our customers, and we will carefully investigate and address this issue. We are grateful for the continued support that our customers have expressed to us.”
September 2, 6:45pm EDT
SpaceX has begun the careful and deliberate process of understanding the causes and fixes for yesterday's incident. We will continue to provide regular updates on our progress and findings, to the fullest extent we can share publicly.
We deeply regret the loss of AMOS-6, and safely and reliably returning to flight to meet the demands of our customers is our chief priority. SpaceX's business is robust, with approximately 70 missions on our manifest worth over $10 billion. In the aftermath of yesterday's events, we are grateful for the continued support and unwavering confidence that our commercial customers as well as NASA and the United States Air Force have placed in us.
Overview of the incident:
- Yesterday, at SpaceX's Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, an anomaly took place about eight minutes in advance of a scheduled test firing of a Falcon 9 rocket.
- The anomaly on the pad resulted in the loss of the vehicle.
- This was part of a standard pre-launch static fire to demonstrate the health of the vehicle prior to an eventual launch.
- At the time of the loss, the launch vehicle was vertical and in the process of being fueled for the test. At this time, the data indicates the anomaly originated around the upper stage liquid oxygen tank. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad. There were no injuries.
To identify the root cause of the anomaly, SpaceX began its investigation immediately after the loss, consistent with accident investigation plans prepared for such a contingency. These plans include the preservation of all possible evidence and the assembly of an Accident Investigation Team, with oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration and participation by NASA, the United States Air Force and other industry experts. We are currently in the early process of reviewing approximately 3000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55 milliseconds.
As for the Launch Pad itself, our teams are now investigating the status of SLC-40. The pad clearly incurred damage, but the scope has yet to be fully determined. We will share more data as it becomes available. SpaceX currently operates 3 launch pads – 2 in Florida and 1 in California at Vandenberg Air Force Base. SpaceX's other launch sites were not affected by yesterday's events. Space Launch Complex 4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base is in the final stages of an operational upgrade and Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center remains on schedule to be operational in November. Both pads are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. We are confident the two launch pads can support our return to flight and fulfill our upcoming manifest needs.
Again, our number one priority is to safely and reliably return to flight for our customers, as well as to take all the necessary steps to ensure the highest possible levels of safety for future crewed missions with the Falcon 9. We will carefully and thoroughly investigate and address this issue.
September 2, 9:00am EDT
Statement from SpaceX President and COO, Gwynne Shotwell:
“We deeply regret the loss of Amos-6. Our number one priority is to safely and reliably return to flight for our customers, and we will carefully investigate and address this issue. We are grateful for the continued support that our customers have expressed to us.”
We live in a world of marketing and corporate spin, 3000 lines of data, well you can probably cut out most of them as it was the upper stage Anomaly sounds nice like collateral damage .
It Blew up lost $200M+ and they are looking for the root cause of the Explosion nice neat words about safety of future manned flights etc, This is another reason why there needs to be a real step change in launch technology or maybe we just have to except every X launches these things will Blow up.
Just a thought here but given the value of the non human cargo shouldn't it have an escape rocket on top like a manned flight? its may have just saved $150M worth of hardware.
It Blew up lost $200M+ and they are looking for the root cause of the Explosion nice neat words about safety of future manned flights etc, This is another reason why there needs to be a real step change in launch technology or maybe we just have to except every X launches these things will Blow up.
Just a thought here but given the value of the non human cargo shouldn't it have an escape rocket on top like a manned flight? its may have just saved $150M worth of hardware.
I'm sure they know what they're doing. The investigation will include people from the FAA, NASA, SpaceX and the US Air Force.
The cause could be an issue with the ground equipment at this point, which would likely be quicker to rectify.
Fair to say the pad will be out of action until well into next year. They probably can't even begin to clear up and do a proper damage assessment until the investigation team gives them the OK. Perhaps they'll rebuild it to accommodate the Falcon 9 Heavy while they're at it.
On the bright side, nearby Launch Complex 39A is on schedule to be operational this November.
Oh, and ULA, who launch Delta IV rockets from LC-37 to the south of this one, say their pad is OK. I did hear they had a couple of windows broken in their support buildings though.
The cause could be an issue with the ground equipment at this point, which would likely be quicker to rectify.
Fair to say the pad will be out of action until well into next year. They probably can't even begin to clear up and do a proper damage assessment until the investigation team gives them the OK. Perhaps they'll rebuild it to accommodate the Falcon 9 Heavy while they're at it.
On the bright side, nearby Launch Complex 39A is on schedule to be operational this November.
Oh, and ULA, who launch Delta IV rockets from LC-37 to the south of this one, say their pad is OK. I did hear they had a couple of windows broken in their support buildings though.
Toaster said:
This is another reason why there needs to be a real step change in launch technology or maybe we just have to except every X launches these things will Blow up.
Just a thought here but given the value of the non human cargo shouldn't it have an escape rocket on top like a manned flight? its may have just saved $150M worth of hardware.
I wondered that too.Just a thought here but given the value of the non human cargo shouldn't it have an escape rocket on top like a manned flight? its may have just saved $150M worth of hardware.
As for a 'step change in launch technology', well, we could do it pretty well in the 1960s. There may be a case for saying that's when mankind hit his technological peak, and it's been downhill since then.
Simpo Two said:
Toaster said:
This is another reason why there needs to be a real step change in launch technology or maybe we just have to except every X launches these things will Blow up.
Just a thought here but given the value of the non human cargo shouldn't it have an escape rocket on top like a manned flight? its may have just saved $150M worth of hardware.
I wondered that too.Just a thought here but given the value of the non human cargo shouldn't it have an escape rocket on top like a manned flight? its may have just saved $150M worth of hardware.
As for a 'step change in launch technology', well, we could do it pretty well in the 1960s. There may be a case for saying that's when mankind hit his technological peak, and it's been downhill since then.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff