Why it could be good news. My piece at Popular Mechanics.
17 thoughts on “SpaceX’s Engine Failure”
There’s no mention of the purported -two- engine-out capability or calculation of the probability of complete mission failure (-three- out). (Or was that Falcon Heavy?)
The probability of three engines out from separate causes seems … mighty remote based on the actual in-use data.
After reading the Orbcomm press release on the launch ( linked at Spacere.com), I am not so sure the second stage of Falcon failed. It may have in fact successfully sacrificed the Orbcomm satellite to avoid an orbital conflict with the ISS, had it proceeded with the second burn of stage 2. This will be one for the lawyers to see if SpaceX still gets paid.
It didn’t.
Stan,
Doesn’t matter. Since the root cause of it being in the wrong place at the wrong time was the engine failure on the booster SpaceX is still holding the bag for putting it in the wrong orbit. In terms of being paid it depends on the specific wording of their contract and if Orbcomm is able to use the satellite’s positioning thrusters to reach a usable orbit.
There may have been an earlier engine shutdown on a Falcon 9 flight. According to this Aviation Week article:
It is worth noting that this is not the first time Falcon 9 has experienced an engine anomaly. During a Dec. 8, 2010 launch that orbited a Dragon qualification unit for NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, one of the rocket’s engines experienced an “oxygen-rich shutdown,” according to Ken Bowersox, a retired NASA astronaut and former SpaceX vice president for astronaut safety and mission assurance. Bowersox revealed the anomaly in a September 2011 interview with Space News shortly before leaving the company.
This was the first time I’d heard of a prior shutdown.
That was not an inflight shutdown. It was during hold down. If I remember correctly.
That was interesting. First, it took almost 3 minutes for anything to happen when I tried to post that last comment. When it finally showed it, it was flagged as awaiting moderation. Never had that happen on this site before.
Rand, would you care to speculate why some kind of gas is condensing into the exhaust stream following the shutdown and the collapse of the fairing and/or engine bell? Is a purge of the combustion chamber common following a commanded shutdown, or is this anomalous?
I’m with Rand. This is great news. An anomaly occurred, they shut the engine down, the system adjusted, and the primary payload was delivered safely to the correct orbit.
Even the Orbcomm satellite would have been delivered okay, if NASA hadn’t nixed the second stage’s burn.
But boy, fixing the Orbcomm satellite’s current orbit sure would be a lot easier if we were a real space-faring civilization, with fuel depots, space tugs, and the like. I think the maritime equivalent of our current technology is a kayak.
With the kayak sitting on shore because too few can afford to put it to sea. Yes, this problem would have a simple solution if we were serious about space. Musk is not some superman. He’s just a man with both of the requirements. Vision and funds.
While I’m a big fan of space tugs and propellant depots, there are some very real limitations that would make it unlikely to be useful for saving every satellite launched. The first consideration is into what orbit do you place your propellant depots and tugs. If you put them in an orbit compatible with the ISS (RAAN and inclination), then you wouldn’t be in good position to put things into GTO or GEO. If you go to where the market is (GTO), then it’d take way too much energy to change the plane enough to rendezvous with a satellite in the Orbcomm’s orbit.
Plane changes require a lot of energy. You can do some fancy maneuvering to reduce the amount of propellant, such as raising the apogee to lower the delta-v required for a plane change and then use aerobraking to lower the orbit. Electric propulsion would use a lot less propellant but would take a long time to match orbits. To make it economically worthwhile, you’d want to go after really expensive satellites. This Orbcomm satellite appears to be fairly inexpensive by satellite standards. It’s unlikely you’d want to spend the money to save it. It’d be cheaper to launch a replacement.
All good points Larry, but there may be even less expensive methods of changing orbits. Just spitballing… With powerful lasers common in space (if ever) they may just heat a target on a very cheap tug propelled by something like mercury vapor. Better brains than mine may come up with something essentially free (solar sails? Some tethered whirlygig that encompasses different orbits? ???)
Hmm, sounds a bit like the reasoning in the Shuttle program. Just because the Shuttle orbiters were successfully returning from orbit with ET debris damage on the shielding a feeling of confidence emerged that the problem wasn’t as bad at it seemed. I hope this doesn’t create the same over confidence in the Falcon.
A secondary question is how many of the systems of the Merlin 1C are shared with the Merlin 1D and if the root cause was in those common systems. It will be interesting to watch this story developed.
I met a SpaceX representative at the 2011 Space Symposium in Colorado Springs and asked him about the roll issue on the first Falcon 9 flight. He said that one advantage of being so vertically integrated is that everyone knows it was a SpaceX issue that had to be addressed. There was no fingerpointing between different subcontractors looking to avoid being blamed. SpaceX knew it had a problem and they found a fix. The problem has not recurred so their fix must’ve worked.
This is also a SpaceX issue and I’m confident they’ll address it the same way. From what I’ve read, there’s a high degree of commonality between the Merlin C and D, so this is something that must get fixed right away.
Larry J,
Thanks! That is very encouraging to hear.
From what I’ve read, there’s a high degree of commonality between the Merlin C and D, so this is something that must get fixed right away.
I left a comment at NSF.com last night arguing the exact opposite. I said that the Merlin 1D was a completely different engine, so this problem with the 1C is no big deal. I was immediately called on it.
I don’t know where I got that idea.
[hangs head in shame]
[turns in space geek badge]
Ah Rickl, you’ll always be a geek to us… meaning we plan to keep our chickens away from ya. 🙂
There’s no mention of the purported -two- engine-out capability or calculation of the probability of complete mission failure (-three- out). (Or was that Falcon Heavy?)
The probability of three engines out from separate causes seems … mighty remote based on the actual in-use data.
After reading the Orbcomm press release on the launch ( linked at Spacere.com), I am not so sure the second stage of Falcon failed. It may have in fact successfully sacrificed the Orbcomm satellite to avoid an orbital conflict with the ISS, had it proceeded with the second burn of stage 2. This will be one for the lawyers to see if SpaceX still gets paid.
It didn’t.
Stan,
Doesn’t matter. Since the root cause of it being in the wrong place at the wrong time was the engine failure on the booster SpaceX is still holding the bag for putting it in the wrong orbit. In terms of being paid it depends on the specific wording of their contract and if Orbcomm is able to use the satellite’s positioning thrusters to reach a usable orbit.
There may have been an earlier engine shutdown on a Falcon 9 flight. According to this Aviation Week article:
It is worth noting that this is not the first time Falcon 9 has experienced an engine anomaly. During a Dec. 8, 2010 launch that orbited a Dragon qualification unit for NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, one of the rocket’s engines experienced an “oxygen-rich shutdown,” according to Ken Bowersox, a retired NASA astronaut and former SpaceX vice president for astronaut safety and mission assurance. Bowersox revealed the anomaly in a September 2011 interview with Space News shortly before leaving the company.
This was the first time I’d heard of a prior shutdown.
That was not an inflight shutdown. It was during hold down. If I remember correctly.
That was interesting. First, it took almost 3 minutes for anything to happen when I tried to post that last comment. When it finally showed it, it was flagged as awaiting moderation. Never had that happen on this site before.
Rand, would you care to speculate why some kind of gas is condensing into the exhaust stream following the shutdown and the collapse of the fairing and/or engine bell? Is a purge of the combustion chamber common following a commanded shutdown, or is this anomalous?
I’m with Rand. This is great news. An anomaly occurred, they shut the engine down, the system adjusted, and the primary payload was delivered safely to the correct orbit.
Even the Orbcomm satellite would have been delivered okay, if NASA hadn’t nixed the second stage’s burn.
But boy, fixing the Orbcomm satellite’s current orbit sure would be a lot easier if we were a real space-faring civilization, with fuel depots, space tugs, and the like. I think the maritime equivalent of our current technology is a kayak.
With the kayak sitting on shore because too few can afford to put it to sea. Yes, this problem would have a simple solution if we were serious about space. Musk is not some superman. He’s just a man with both of the requirements. Vision and funds.
While I’m a big fan of space tugs and propellant depots, there are some very real limitations that would make it unlikely to be useful for saving every satellite launched. The first consideration is into what orbit do you place your propellant depots and tugs. If you put them in an orbit compatible with the ISS (RAAN and inclination), then you wouldn’t be in good position to put things into GTO or GEO. If you go to where the market is (GTO), then it’d take way too much energy to change the plane enough to rendezvous with a satellite in the Orbcomm’s orbit.
Plane changes require a lot of energy. You can do some fancy maneuvering to reduce the amount of propellant, such as raising the apogee to lower the delta-v required for a plane change and then use aerobraking to lower the orbit. Electric propulsion would use a lot less propellant but would take a long time to match orbits. To make it economically worthwhile, you’d want to go after really expensive satellites. This Orbcomm satellite appears to be fairly inexpensive by satellite standards. It’s unlikely you’d want to spend the money to save it. It’d be cheaper to launch a replacement.
All good points Larry, but there may be even less expensive methods of changing orbits. Just spitballing… With powerful lasers common in space (if ever) they may just heat a target on a very cheap tug propelled by something like mercury vapor. Better brains than mine may come up with something essentially free (solar sails? Some tethered whirlygig that encompasses different orbits? ???)
Hmm, sounds a bit like the reasoning in the Shuttle program. Just because the Shuttle orbiters were successfully returning from orbit with ET debris damage on the shielding a feeling of confidence emerged that the problem wasn’t as bad at it seemed. I hope this doesn’t create the same over confidence in the Falcon.
A secondary question is how many of the systems of the Merlin 1C are shared with the Merlin 1D and if the root cause was in those common systems. It will be interesting to watch this story developed.
I met a SpaceX representative at the 2011 Space Symposium in Colorado Springs and asked him about the roll issue on the first Falcon 9 flight. He said that one advantage of being so vertically integrated is that everyone knows it was a SpaceX issue that had to be addressed. There was no fingerpointing between different subcontractors looking to avoid being blamed. SpaceX knew it had a problem and they found a fix. The problem has not recurred so their fix must’ve worked.
This is also a SpaceX issue and I’m confident they’ll address it the same way. From what I’ve read, there’s a high degree of commonality between the Merlin C and D, so this is something that must get fixed right away.
Larry J,
Thanks! That is very encouraging to hear.
From what I’ve read, there’s a high degree of commonality between the Merlin C and D, so this is something that must get fixed right away.
I left a comment at NSF.com last night arguing the exact opposite. I said that the Merlin 1D was a completely different engine, so this problem with the 1C is no big deal. I was immediately called on it.
I don’t know where I got that idea.
[hangs head in shame]
[turns in space geek badge]
Ah Rickl, you’ll always be a geek to us… meaning we plan to keep our chickens away from ya. 🙂