SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28910812

by richardwigley • 12 years ago

143 87 12 years ago

bbc.co.uk

spacefight• 12 years ago

Better video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qv2VEX9iyI

SpaceX Statement: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/502976401729798144/photo/1

wfunction• 12 years ago

Is there any actual HD video? I find it really surprising I can't find any...

51Cards• 12 years ago

SpaceX will be in possession of some... Probably just not ready to release it yet.

richardwigley• 12 years ago

BBC Updated the video to the 'better video' in @spacefight's link (the original was taken from a more distant vantage point).

SpaceX Statement in full (copied from facebook page):

Earlier today, in McGregor, Texas, SpaceX conducted a test flight of a three engine version of the F9R test vehicle (successor to Grasshopper). During the flight, an anomaly was detected in the vehicle and the flight termination system automatically terminated the mission.

Throughout the test and subsequent flight termination, the vehicle remained in the designated flight area. There were no injuries or near injuries. An FAA representative was present at all times.

With research and development projects, detecting vehicle anomalies during the testing is the purpose of the program. Today’s test was particularly complex, pushing the limits of the vehicle further than any previous test. As is our practice, the company will be reviewing the flight record details to learn more about the performance of the vehicle prior to our next test.

SpaceX will provide another update when the flight data has been fully analyzed.

matt-attack• 12 years ago

An FAA representative was present at all times.

Well thank goodness. I was so worried that a government agent was not present. All is well. Hail the FAA.

kome2• 12 years ago

The Falcon 9 explodes again? ...While the European Vega rocket (aimed at the same size of payloads, but much more versatile of the Falcon 9[1]) is 3 success out of 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_rocket

The political will to create a private market for rockets is strong in US. So strong that a lot of American public money has been used to save SpaxeX from failure, multiple time.

But concretely, what's the point of it? NASA worked fairly well if well founded. Now for political reasons they prefer to give money to SpaceX, even if they have issues with their job...

[1] Vega launch satellites to Sun synchronous orbit, satellites here are earth observers and usually a few tonnes at most, the majority much smaller. Launches here are very infrequent, so matching spacecraft is difficult. Falcon 9 isn't currently equipped with an appropriate fairing to do dual launch like this without satellites built to stack (which most aren't). Falcon 9 might haul 9 tonnes, but you might not be able to find 9 tonnes of spacecraft to that orbit. Vega payloads are also kept in a clean environment and fairing, something SpaceX hasn't demonstrated. Horizontal integration can be an issue. ITAR issues... The list goes on.

oostevo• 12 years ago

The point of it is that the US government finds it politically inexpedient and costly having to pay Russia or United Launch Alliance[1] (who sometimes use Russian engines anyway[2]) in order to get people and equipment to space. SpaceX is an obvious path away from the Russia Space Agency / ULA.

For things that the government wants to launch from the US, having a second US-based option for space launch will get the US out of the bilateral monopoly that exists with ULA.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance [2] http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1408/20rd180delivery/

zizee2• 12 years ago

Are you trolling? Most rocket platforms have had a rate of failure. The ESA's Ariane 5 (predecessor of the VEGA rocket) had launch failures as well. SpaceX has had an amazing run in comparison to most other platforms.

But concretely, what's the point of it? NASA worked fairly well if well founded...

NASA doesn't build rockets. They have always outsourced the job to aerospace companies.

Now for political reasons they prefer to give money to SpaceX

I think you'll find that political reasons are keeping NASA from buying more launches from SpaceX.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/25/spacex-...

EDIT - changed my wording from "very checkered history" to "had launch failures as well" - in my rush to respond, I went from memory and checking the facts found my words too strong.

kome2• 12 years ago

The ESA's Ariane 5 (predecessor of the VEGA rocket) had a very checkered history.

Ariane 5 is not the predecessor of Vega. They are two very different project, for different payloads. And look at the table of success and failure rate of the Ariane 5 itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianne_5

SpaceX has had an amazing run in comparison to most other platforms.

Clearly that's not the case.

I think you'll find that political reasons are keeping NASA from buying more launches from SpaceX.

From that interview: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-and-spacex-elon-musks-indu...

Elon Musk: NASA called and told us that we'd won a $1.5 billion contract. And I couldn't even hold the phone, I just blurted out, "I love you guys."

Scott Pelley: They saved you.

Elon Musk: Yeah, they did.

wheaties• 12 years ago

Well actually NASA, like any beaurocracy, grew so large that rockets were costing billions of dollars to launch a new rocket. Without market forces to keep the costs in check, no one thought this a problem and contracts were issued based on paperwork driven development.

tcoppi• 12 years ago

This was an auto-destruct, it didn't just randomly explode due to engine failure. Some other parameters of the test launch were either incorrectly configured or went out of bounds and the flight computer destroyed it. Rockets are hard, sometimes you have to fail fast.

wolf550e• 12 years ago

The Falcon 9 never exploded. So far it has made 11 successful flights to orbit, it lost an engine mid-flight, once, Grasshopper made 8 successful hops, and G9R Dev1, a three engined first stage with grid fins, self-destructed on its 5th flight, probably while trying to do something no rocket has ever done. Note that SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell said last year that she feels the engineers are not pushing the reusability testing enough because there were no failures yet.

NASA is a terrible rocket design bureau good only for pork barrel, which is what is has been doing for decades. NASA had to admit that developing Falcon 9 (100% privately funded by SpaceX and private investors) would have cost more than twice if it was done by NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf).

demallien• 12 years ago

You uh, do realize that this was a test-bed rocket right? Designed to do experimental things?

Also, I was not aware of any Falcon 9 exploding previously. What on earth are you talking about?

anoopmunshi• 12 years ago

Even I agree this might just be a experimental? for which they might not have permission for. or may be i am speculating

lutorm6• 12 years ago

This is so incorrect it's almost funny. For the record:

First: Falcon 9 so far has 11/11 successful launches. This was not a Falcon 9, this was a test flight of a sub-orbital development vehicle (F9R-"Dev").

Second: "Vega rocket (aimed at the same size of payloads...". Your Wikipedia link says maximum payload to LEO is 1,963 kg, while Wikipedia quotes Falcon9's maximum payload to LEO is 13,150 kg.

And how much do they charge for those 1963kg? Wikipedia quotes 32 million euros per launch, or $42M, corresponding to $21,000/kg, for the Vega, and $4,109/kg for the F9...

lafar6502• 12 years ago

I almost expect a statement that this was a successful test of the self-destruct mechanism. ... Oops, looks like they really did it.

AVTizzle• 12 years ago

>The unmanned rocket was destroyed when its self-destruct system was triggered after an unexplained malfunction.

It's interesting these rockets are equipped with self-destruct systems. What scenario would warrant a rocket purposely self-destruct?

mariuolo• 12 years ago

It's interesting these rockets are equipped with self-destruct systems. What scenario would warrant a rocket purposely self-destruct?

When they're out of control and could hit someone.

gus_massa• 12 years ago

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disast...

The more robustly constructed crew cabin also survived the breakup of the launch vehicle; while the SRBs were subsequently destroyed remotely by the Range Safety Officer, the detached cabin continued along a ballistic trajectory and was observed exiting the cloud of gases at T+75.237.

In the images, you can see the solid rocket booster (SRB) following a random path after the explosion.

tim333• 12 years ago

Because if they lose guidance but the motor keeps running the thing could hit a populated area.

electromagnetic• 12 years ago

Honestly, play KSP. Once you flip a rocket, its nearly unrecoverable and it just accelerates into the ground.

sjtrny• 12 years ago

I wonder if the reusable rockets from SpaceX could recover from a flipped position during re-entry?

washedup• 12 years ago

Not only that, but it accelerates at a higher rate because the thrust vector and gravitational pull are pointing in the same direction.

serf• 12 years ago

probably isn't such a difficult system to add when you're adding that capability to a massive tank of pressurized fuel.

One can imagine all sorts of instances where it'd be preferable to litter the area with debris rather than missle-ing the rocket into a densely populated area.

ceejayoz4• 12 years ago

Not only do these rockets have them, but manned craft like the Space Shuttle are destructible from the ground (one hopes the encryption keys are well-protected). You don't want an out-of-control bomb heading towards Orlando.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety#Range_safety_in_US...

LaGrange• 12 years ago

Actually, your link states that the orbiter wasn't destructible.

shabble• 12 years ago

Any number of reasons. Test ranges are usually in remote areas to avoid any immediate danger, but if the guidance or control systems malfunction, it can go somewhere unfortunate rather quickly.

I can't seem to find any good numbers, but it seems like the F9 rocket should have somewhere around 200 tons of fuel & oxidiser (kerosene & liquid oxygen). That, in addition to the few other hundred tons of rocket landing anywhere public is probably not going to end well.

IIRC, most rockets over a certain size are required to have some form of 'range safety package'[1] which may include a self-destruct capability for exactly these reasons.

In the course of the Challenger shuttle accident, the Solid Rocket Boosters were remotely destroyed by the range safety officer[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety

[2] http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch9.htm

wlesieutre• 12 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 comes to mind as an example of when you'd want a failed launch to self-destruct. It went off course and landed in a village.

jpatokal• 12 years ago

Avoidance of cases like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708

pingburg• 12 years ago

A video link to the actual launch failure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfMbGPf4r9g

Mvandenbergh• 12 years ago

Interestingly the Russian space program never used range safety systems, but then they had an empty part of Kazakhstan to launch in.

mikeash4• 12 years ago

Great video of an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo

Then imagine if it was headed for somebody's house (or a city). You'd want to blow it up in the air before it reached the ground.

kryptiskt• 12 years ago

On the other hand, they had a system on their unmanned spacecraft that blew them up with TNT if there was a chance of them coming down outside the USSR. It was regularly triggered during their heyday in the 60's. There was a lot of gnashing of teeth from the engineers when that prevented them from collecting data on failed missions.

I read about it in Boris Chertok's memoirs (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/feb/HQ_12-054_Chertok_R...), which are huge and sprawling, he was there from the beginning, from the mission to get V2 stuff from Germany after WW2, through the Soviet Union's fall.

negamax• 12 years ago

A rocket going far off the designated trajectory. It would be a catastrophe for a space launch rocket to fall into a civilian area.

rasz_pl• 12 years ago

Alien on board comes to mind.

zerr• 12 years ago

Shit happens. Especially when you have a requirement for US citizenship for your employees...

adventured• 12 years ago

Because nearly exclusively using US citizens has turned out so terribly for NASA the last 50 years.

RD-180• 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180#History

lutorm6• 12 years ago

That is factually incorrect. You do not have to be a US citizen to work there. You do, however, with few exceptions, have to be a US permanent resident.

And those rules are the US government's, not SpaceX's.

smoyer• 12 years ago

I hope there's a way to disable the self-destruct mechanism when they start doing manned flights!

ceejayoz4• 12 years ago

Very unlikely. The Space Shuttle also had this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety#Range_safety_in_US...

daeken• 12 years ago

There won't be. If the self-destruct triggers, then the rocket is 1) already going to cause their deaths, and 2) going to potentially save the lives of people on the ground.

Now, that said, this is why we have escape towers on pods (and the escape rockets around the sides of the Dragon 2). In the case of an emergency, those eject the pod from the rocket so that it can be returned safely, even as the rocket is destroyed.

ejr2• 12 years ago

The shuttle had its own variant although that was manual, not automatic http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479

I believe it doesn't matter what the craft is, there is always some manner of self-destruct to ensure a larger population isn't threatened by debris from an exploding rocket.

libria2• 12 years ago

It does matter. I doubt you'll load 300 willing passengers on a 747 if it was widely known it had a self destruct.

I would guess each case has to weigh its pros and cons for inclusion of a system. There is such thing as acceptable risk to population. If FAA mandated them carte blanche, Michael Bay movies would become documentaries.

speeq2• 12 years ago

Dragon V2 will have a Launch Escape System, which is used to quickly separate the crew module from the rest of the rocket in case of an emergency.

http://www.collectspace.com/review/spacex_las01.jpg

mikeash4• 12 years ago

The capsule sits on top of the rocket, and has the ability to quickly fly away if something goes wrong, whether it's the rocket exploding because it broke or because it's commanded to. There's nothing really incompatible with a manned rocket having a self-destruct system.

speeq2• 12 years ago

"We've got to tunnel one of these vehicles into the ground by trying something really hard." - Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX

ddorian43• 12 years ago

please explain

ceejayoz4• 12 years ago

As an experimental vehicle, you're generally supposed to be pushing the limits of what it can do to find those limits. Essentially, they're saying "no accidents means we aren't trying hard enough to break the thing".

robert_tweed• 12 years ago

This puts "move fast and break things" into a whole new perspective.

I'm glad I can joke about this because nobody was hurt. Saw the headline at the top of the frontage and it immediately brought back memories of seeing Challenger on the news when I was 9, which rather changed my perspective on space travel at the time.

waps• 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708

How NOT to do it. Not that China even bothered to check how many died, apparently.

dclowd9901• 12 years ago

Indeed, but when I move fast and break things, my website goes down, and maybe costs a few thousand in lost sales. In terms of man hours and construction, this broken thing must cost tens of millions! That's some agile.

alexobenauer• 12 years ago

"the flight termination system automatically terminated the mission"... by blowing itself up?

MichaelApproved• 12 years ago

How else would you terminate an active rocket flying through the air?

maccard• 12 years ago

Land it safely on the ground 20 or 30 feet from where it took off, obviously

mikeash4• 12 years ago

Yes, "flight termination system" refers to a bunch of explosives and a widget to blow them up on command.

bane• 12 years ago

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/502974683864518657

isaacV• 12 years ago

I also almost got a job there, and toured that facility during the final interview. Their testing at that site involves firing rockets that are secured to the ground, and monitoring the results from an underground bunker. I lived in that area up until this year, and I've never seen them launch anything from that site. I didn't even know they had that infrastructure there! There are also houses all around that facility, so I am surprised to see them launch this thing.

chmullig• 12 years ago

They've done lots of launches of the Grasshopper and F9R landing tests there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwwS4YOTbbw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjWqQPWmsY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

githulhu• 12 years ago

Huh. Why did the explosion produce two distinct, different-colored smoke clouds?

Also, what's the environmental impact of this kind of accident?

lutorm6• 12 years ago

The rocket has two tanks, one with kerosene, one with liquid oxygen. I bet the black fireball is the kerosene burning, the white cloud is the liquid oxygen vaporizing.

Environmental impact is likely small, the kerosene would have burned anyway and there are little other hazardous chemicals on board. (Unlike for example the Proton failure linked by kryptisk above which is fueled with really nasty hypergolic fuels.)

AustinDev• 12 years ago

To add to that. I'm sure Space X attempts to collect all the debris that falls to the ground.

utefan001• 12 years ago

http://global3.memecdn.com/ksp-in-a-nutshell_o_2453969.jpg http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/082/8/8/ksp_secondary...

SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

Related Stories