Re: SpaceX armchair quarterbacking

On 26 Mar 2006 19:52:41 -0800, "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I noticed on the video replay that flames appered almost
as soon as the rocket left the pad.

Or you could have read the SpaceX official release including a photo
clearly showing a fire right following lift-off. :-]

One of several possibile
explanations for this would be that a propellant or helium
feedline failed to cleanly disconnect at T-0, hanging up on
the launcher and damaging some plumbing as the rocket
lifted off.

Sounds like a long shot to me, but a fuel leak from the feedline
igniting on the hot rocket motor seems equally possible.

I don't know the unbilical layout, so I'm wildly
guessing here, but that would explain why this problem has
not been seen in static tests.

You would think that this would have been well tested, but then I
cannot say.

Another possibility would be debris rebounding and hitting
the rocket.

You mean the first stage insulation, when just about everything else
should be firmly secured down, even if that insulation did not quite
detach as planned.

A third possibility would be damage from an
acoustic overload.

SpaceX have well tested their engine; both in the test chamber and on
the launch pad. So it does seem quite unexpected to have this fire
appearing right following launch.

Fate plays a mean game of poker...

There are other possibilities, including
previously unknown vibration modes, I suppose.

That is one option.

This particular failure looks fixable to me, but it might only
get Falcon up to the next undiscovered failure mode,
probably at Max-Q. The next round might get it to staging,
etc.

Some good news out today is that SpaceX are going to work with the US
Government (NASA?) to locate and resolve this fault. You could say
that more than a few people see SpaceX failing as an unacceptable
ending. So it seems in SpaceX's best interest to accept whatever
"higher power" external assistance is offered and ideally to
completely review and debug their entire launch system to maximise the
odds of success with their second launch.

You are quite correct in saying that this early failure did not allow
them a live test of how all the other bits should work, even if we can
hope that there are no other fatal issues.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ares V to require construction of a new "super crawler"?
    ... constructing the launcher in the VAB and transporting it to the pad. ... "occupied pad" model with a rocket on it being built on it may be a better ... That's pretty definitely what you'd do, for that launch volume, if you ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
    ... > I doubt that a rocket explosion would do a good job in cracking an RTG ... impact early in launch. ... of the AC-5 Atlas Centaur pad explosion? ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • SpaceX Falcon I Hold-Down Firing Scheduled
    ... The first flight-ready Falcon I is on its pad at ... will do everything but blast off from Vandenberg Air Force Base. ... SpaceX has set up shop on an abandoned ... launch pad, Space Launch Complex-3 West, on south Vandenberg." ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • For Star Trek Fans--Scotty Doesnt Make Orbit
    ... Falcon 1 suffers another setback ... SpaceX, a private company seeking to revolutionize the space business, ... suffered their third launch failure in three tries during a Saturday ... cut a video feed from a downward-facing on-board rocket camera. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: New Horizons RTG ramble
    ... > Divers would head out into the Atlantic, recover the RTG and sent it ... > These things are designed to withstand launch accidents. ... The worst case would have been if the rocket had ... blown up on the pad just prior to launch. ...
    (sci.space.history)
Loading