A BBC reporter is reporting that the Orbcomm was deployed into a wrong orbit, as a result of a failure of the upper stage to restart. More at New Space Watch. This is actually a more serious problem than the first-stage failure, from a business standpoint, since it was actually a mission failure for the secondary payload. Next question: is Dragon in an orbit that can still rendezvous with the ISS? How much propellant reserve do they have?
[Update a while later]
SpaceX is sticking by their story that the engine didn’t explode, and that it was a fairing rupture after a controlled shutdown (though there was no initial discussion of the fairing issue). I have no reason to doubt it.
Interesting that the newsletter makes no mention other either…
The Falcon 9 rocket, powered by nine Merlin engines, performed nominally today during every phase of its approach to orbit, including two stage separations, solar array deployment, and the final push of Dragon into its intended orbit.
The Dragon is not dependent on a 2nd stage restart, so unless the stages did not compensate properly for the blown engine, it should be in the right orbit. On the other hand, maybe after the blown engine they didn’t want to try reigniting the 2nd stage motor. Maybe they figured that until the cause of the motor failure is certain, leaving Orbcomm in a lower orbit is better than the (unlikely) prospect of blowing it up if the 2nd stage engine failed on restart.
That would imply that it’s in a “good enough” orbit. If not, it would be better to chance destruction and try to get it into the right one. Did they release it in the wrong orbit, or do they still have an opportunity to deliver it properly, after analysis?
A commenter on NASAspaceflight.com (who I believe is a space station guy) says the Dragon deployed into an acceptable orbit. It will require a larger out-of-plane burn than planned, but it is within the Dragon’s capability.
Link
Since the upper stage necessarily deployed the Dragon into a near-space-station orbit, they may not have wanted to risk a collision with the station by restarting the engine in an off-nominal situation.
The other possibility is they used so much upper-stage fuel compensating for the lost engine that they didn’t have enough to hit the proper Orbcomm orbit.
Many possibilities.
Has anyone heard about whether the GNC door deployment was successful?
SpaceX have just confirmed that the GNC door has opened.
OK, so despite overall compensation for the engine failure on stage 1, they could not put it in _quite_ they same orbit as a nominal case?
Yes, but it’s not clear whether this is a first-stage or second-stage issue.
Via ARS Technica:
SpaceX has released the following statement:
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 immediately. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted 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, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission.
Can the OrbComm vehicle compensate for the less than optimal orbit with its own maneuvering thrusters and propellant reserves?
The Orbcomm issue is frustrating for lack of information. I have not seen any information on how SpaceX releases secondary payloads. I am not an expert, but I can’t see how it could be released from the Dragon unpressurized trunk and achieved a much higher orbit without a propulsion stage. if it was left attached to the second stage, a second burn is required after Dragon separation. SpaceX has been mum on the second burn, and the primary source for the wrong orbit story (a satellite watcher) seem plausible and credible in his assertion that there was no second burn, and the satellite is in the wrong orbit.
1. You didn’t wait for the press release from Orbcomm before complaining about the lack of information.
2. All these cowboy journalists put out their stories without even bothering to ring Orbcomm and ask them if they’ll be putting out a press release.
The space community is a bunch of whining children.
Slack please :-). Your suggesting some sincere questions or observations driven by curiosity are somehow out of place here? I enjoy Rand’s blog here because I find the opinions of the people commenting ( you included)to be generally well informed and thoughtfull. Even when there are disagreements. Everyone here speculates somewhat. If I just wanted to read press releases, there would be no point reading anything here.
Orbcomm’s website states that their satellites lack propulsion. That means staying attached to the second stage, and hence an additional burn post dragon separation, should be required for an orbit with the apogee indicated for a successful mission.
So basically all the Orbcomm Vehicle has is attitude control?
This actually isn’t all that uncommon for LEO satellites that aren’t intended to last a long time. The old Soviet/Russian MPCS* (multiple payload communications system) -1 and -2 satellites didn’t have propulsion systems either. They were launched into orbits high enough that they wouldn’t decay before the satellites’ end of life. Makes for a simplier, lighter and cheaper satellite.
*I’m reasonably certain their Single Payload Communication System (SPCS) satellites also lacked propulsion systems. It was a dead SPCS satellite that collided with that Iridium satellite a few years ago. These are simple store-dump satellites.
Just read the link on Spaceref to Orbcomms statement. Very interesting information. It looks like this Orbcomm satellite may have some limited ability to adjust its orbit, so maybe it will still give some utility. Of more interest is that they are saying the Falcon Rocket did not put it into the correct orbit because the first stage event would have resulted in placing the satellite into a conflict orbit with the ISS. So not only did the flight computer guiding Falcon recompute the trajectory for Dragon, it also was programmed in such a way to realize deploying the Orbcomm would put it into conflict with the ISS orbit. It then correctly sacrificed the Orbcomm. If correct, this demonstrates very effective failure mode analysis and fault tree logic on the part of SpaceX. My next speculative question ( sorry Trent ) is if SpaceX anticipated this event In the launch contract with Orbcomm, and will they get paid? Critics of SpaceX will look even more desperate if they point to the stranded Orbcomm when placing into the desired orbit would have conflicted with the ISS.
Once again, Space X fails a customer.
To paraphrase Nat King Cole: “Unreliable. That’s what you are….”