Business, Space, Technology and Society

The SpaceX Vehicle Loss

6 Comments

Apparently it was a blocked sensor port:

“I can tell you that it certainly looks like it was basically a single-point failure that existed on that test article that does not exist on the Falcon 9,” Reisman said. “We think it was a failure of a single sensor, and Falcon 9 has multiple sensors in its algorithm that it uses. So if the same failure occurred on the Falcon 9 it would not affect the mission in any way.”

The sensor failure in one of the three Merlin 1D engines on the Falcon 9R caused the vehicle to stray from its intended flight path, triggering an automatic self-destruct command to ensure it did not threaten nearby people and property.

Reisman said an operational Falcon 9 flight, which uses nine first stage engines, could overcome the loss of an engine. On the three-engine Falcon 9R, such redundancy does not exist.

But still no announcement of a new launch date for AsiaSat 6?

6 thoughts on “The SpaceX Vehicle Loss”

  1. People over there are blaming the cows, but I blame the spiders.

    They’re probably the same spiders that seem to enjoy clogging up the ports on fuel necks of Mazda and Suzuki sedans.

    1. Well, let’s face it; the cows have motive, means, and opportunity, so they are the natural suspects for sabotage.

  2. But still no announcement of a new launch date for AsiaSat 6?

    I suspect SpaceX will stall until the final CCDev awards are announced.

    If SpaceX launches before then and anything goes wrong, folks in Congress will immediately start talking about “two failures in a row,” at the worse possible time.

    No matter how unlikely such a mishap might be, it isn’t a risk SpaceX needs to take.

  3. This is a classic trade on a testbed: what level of redundancy for flight-critical systems? All boils down to the PLOC (probability of loss of control) requirement, which for a company-funded testbed is often a hand wave; although if you are using a government or 3rd party range, there may be a range requirement imposed on you. I’ve done single-string to dual to triplex testbeds, with the expected results; it still hurts to lose one, even when it’s a failure mode I explicitly neglected for cost and schedule reasons. But it sucks much less than a loss due to a control law problem!

Comments are closed.