As others have pointed out, the Falcon did exactly what it was supposed to do under the circumstances — it was a successful abort. It’s too bad that they have the three-day constraint for the next attempt. Hopefully there’s nothing wrong with the engine itself. They didn’t see this problem in the test firing a few days ago. But I wonder if there’s something about the geometry that causes the center engine to be a little higher pressure than the outer ones. If I were them, I’d be going back and looking at the pressures from previous flights and tests. If that’s the case, then the solution to this problem might be to just allow a slightly higher pressure on it.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Here’s the story from Spaceflight Now. Looks like if they have another scrub on Tuesday, they won’t have to wait another three days — they can try on Wednesday. If they launch Tuesday, that means a docking attempt on Friday, right in the middle of the ISDC.
And it’s more experience for the ground crew making the rocket safe. The F9 is actually designed to survive one engine out from launch and the other engines are suppose to survive a RUD event. Not that you’d want that to happen but it would be good to find out if their precautions actually worked. Engine five might be the best test of that as well being in the center next to all eight other engines. If they’d had a bigger launch window they might have just adjusted the parameters for the flight to go. Which makes a RUD event a bit more likely.
Probably better that they never find out.
“As others have pointed out, the Falcon did exactly what it was supposed to do under the circumstances — it was a successful abort.”
I am trying to picture an attempted launch of either the Ares I or Ares V where a similar event occurred. Then you calling it “a successful abort”, so far I am not having much luck.
Have a nice weekend.
That’s your problem, not mine.
Of course, it wouldn’t be possible for Ares I to have done that, because once you light the first stage, it’s going to go somewhere.
Are you suggesting it wasn’t a successful abort (we know you’re suggesting bias without any actual… what’s it called? Evidence.)
They had the sensors to tell them one of nine engines was over pressure. They could have saved themselves that money (and been penny wise and pound foolish.) That qualifies as a success. Potentially they saved themselves the value of the rocket at the cost a small delay. That sounds like success to me as well.
You seem to have a very narrow definition of success.
The Shuttle did a launch abort 5 times. It functioned as designed – an anomaly was detected and the engines shut down before any damage was done. Those were all successful aborts.
This also happened with the Mercury Redstone 1 launch attempt and the Gemini Titan 6 flight. Those were also successful aborts.
Is it only when it happens to SpaceX that you think a launch abort is bad?
A first stage problem with Ares I would have been a kaboom-type event that could have demolished a pad. So yeah, it’s not surprising you can’t think of a successful Ares I abort.
I am trying to picture an event that would have had you jumping for joy. Luck aside, it’s not hard to do at all.
I’m trying to picture an Ares I or Ares V launch at all…. or did I miss something?
I recall something called the Ares I-X that launched once upon a time, which was essentially a glorified SRB with a modified payload and missing the rest of the Space Shuttle. It also has a shorter launch history than the Falcon 9, as hard as that is to imagine and never even made the trip into orbit at all.
Seriously, if there is a secret classified history of the program at Area 51, I’d love to know about it.
Fox News (web) is running a hit piece today on how much commercial crew is costing us and how much money has been “given away” to various companies. Yeah, like it will cost more than a NASA-normal program.
A hit piece defined as something with which you disagree.
Care to provide a link?
Joe, quit digging. A hit piece as in what he told you. Costs must always be compared.
Since you’re apparently too lazy to go to the Fox News website and look for it yourself, here’s the link. Should you actually make the effort and read the article, you might notice that no mention is made of the $5 billion that NASA has paid for the Orion capsule alone with no flight likely for years, the billions wasted on Constellation before it was canceled, or the billions being spent on the Stupid Launch System (the rocket to nowhere). Other than that, it’s a balanced article.
Thank you for the link.
Have a nice weekend.
So far SpaceX has a good track record of fixing problems so they don’t repeat. Lets hope they keep it intact.
They’ve had their share of good luck as well. I think in retrospect it’s a good thing they used aluminum nuts that corroded on the F1 causing a launch failure. It’s also a good thing they had this one second launch window.
You do make your own luck, but it’s nice to have a bit extra thrown in as well.