Falcon9 Failures

tahanson43206 · 2024-08-28 14:12:58

Falcon9 Failures are so rare they deserve their own topic.

GW reported a failure on landing, which is even more rare.

This topic is offered for NewMars members who might be looking for a topic to post news items, or to comment.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-08-28 14:13:40

This post is reserved for an index to posts that may be contributed by NewMars members over time.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-08-28 14:14:01

This post is a quote from GW Johnson...

GW Johnson wrote:

I did not know where to really post this. Concerns a Falcon-9/Starlink launch.
Apparently the last Starlink launch succeeded except for not recovering the booster. The stage landed on the drone ship, but its bottom was immediately enveloped in fire, and it toppled over and exploded.
The fire seemed to have a greenish tinge to it. I would SPECULATE the green was copper being oxidized. That might (might !!!) mean some sort of engine burn-through or explosion, as it touched down, breaching a kerosene tank or line and creating a big fire. It toppled slowly, as if one of the landing legs gave way in the heat.
GW
Update minutes later: a story on CBS News says the FAA has grounded all Falcon-9's until this booster landing crash gets figured out and any corrective actions approved and taken. On the surface, that seems like overkill, since it worked right up to the landing. I think there may be more to this than meets the eye. We'll see in coming days.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-08-29 07:51:05

This quote is from a report that appeared in the Yahoo news feed today, August 29, 2024...

The FAA said it would require an investigation, effectively grounding SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets — including the Polaris Dawn booster — until the probe is complete and corrective actions are approved.
"A return to flight of the Falcon 9 booster rocket is based on the FAA determining that any system, process or procedure related to the anomaly does not affect public safety," the FAA said in a statement.
"In addition, SpaceX may need to request and receive approval from the FAA to modify its license that incorporates any corrective actions and meet all other licensing requirements," the agency said.
Late Tuesday, SpaceX delayed Wednesday's planned launch of the Polaris Dawn mission, a commercial flight featuring what will be the first non-government spacewalk, to Friday at the earliest because of predicted end-of-mission splashdown weather. The launching now is on indefinite hold pending the landing mishap investigation.
The landing failure ended a string of 267 successful booster recoveries in a row dating back to February 2021. The Falcon 9's second stage, however, successfully carried 21 Starlink internet satellites to their planned orbit.

CBS News
FAA grounds SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets after rare crash-landing
William Harwood
Updated Wed, August 28, 2024 at 7:29 PM EDT·3 min read

(th)

Void · 2024-08-29 10:02:28

It is good to study to gain improvements, but I remember, when SpaceX repeatedly crashed on platforms, during the development of the ability to land.

The paranoid section of my mind anticipates sabotage. A Falcon fails to deliver cargo, then Blue Origin, and now this crash.

Dark Forces?

Done

tahanson43206 · 2024-08-29 10:15:13

For Void....

This was the 23rd landing attempt for this first stage. (corrected from 32nd on 2024/08/31)

It was worn out! The goal is to achieve 40 safe landings. The machine is not yet able to land 23 times.

It ** was ** able to land 22 times, but the inspection team failed to spot the part that was about to fail.

The stage went into the drink so first hand evidence is not readily available. Hopefully telemetry will provide useful clues.

There is no need to imagine forces at work other than Ma Nature doing all She can to defeat Humans at every turn.

(th)

Void · 2024-08-29 10:33:04

OK, that is fair, and I guess that is what the FAA will look into. But you have to consider many possibilities. There are a lot of politics around certain figures at this point, and there are always those who for various reasons might see an advantage in a dark action. And if any exists, then hopefully that can be identified.

Done

kbd512 · 2024-08-29 16:36:59

Void,

GW thinks it's an engine problem. He could be right. Ordinarily, groundings are not political in nature, but we're now living in an excessively-political nation because one political party thinks the entire world should revolve around their ideology. Falcon 9 has quite a bit of telemetry data attached to it, perhaps more than any other currently flying rocket at this point, all of which are single-use. The booster engines are critical to ascent. If the FAA saw anything in the flight telemetry data that made them think the engines aren't holding up, then they're going to want a parts replacement or an inspection. This happens quite frequently in the world of civil aviation, so it could be entirely justified. On balance of probabilities, given everything else going on in the country right now, I highly suspect it's politically-motivated. Nobody from SpaceX or FAA has said a word, though, which is not very reassuring.

Void · 2024-08-29 18:57:22

I think you very well could be correct.

End

tahanson43206 · 2024-08-30 18:33:00

From a CNN new report:

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket cleared to fly again with two high-profile missions ahead
Jackie Wattles, CNN
Fri, August 30, 2024 at 7:35 PM EDT·3 min read

Joe Skipper/Reuters
Sign up for CNN’s Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more
The world’s most prolific rocket — the SpaceX Falcon 9 — is cleared to fly again, federal regulators announced Friday evening, putting the vehicle back on track for two high-profile human spaceflight missions.
The Federal Aviation Administration, which licenses commercial rocket launches, grounded SpaceX’s rocket on August 28, after part of a Falcon 9 rocket booster exploded while attempting to land. Just two days later, the agency said it has cleared the rocket to return to flight.
“The SpaceX Falcon 9 vehicle may return to flight operations while the overall investigation of the anomaly during (Wednesday’s) mission remains open, provided all other license requirements are met,” the agency said in an emailed statement. “SpaceX made the return to flight request on Aug. 29 and the FAA gave approval on Aug. 30.”
Falcon 9’s clearance comes as SpaceX has two pivotal missions on its manifest. The company is slated to launch a mission called Polaris Dawn that will carry a crew of civilian space travelers on an ambitious journey to attempt the first commercial spacewalk. The launch has already been delayed due to a ground systems issue and forecasts of inclement weather.
And as soon as late September, SpaceX is set to launch two NASA astronauts to the International Space Station on Crew-9, a mission that — after a monthslong rotation — aims to ultimately bring home Boeing Starliner’s test flight crew in 2025.
NASA astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore have been in limbo on the orbiting laboratory since their Starliner flight in early June.
Falcon 9’s rare failures
Failed Falcon 9 booster landing attempts — such as the one that occurred on Wednesday — do not affect the overall success of a SpaceX mission. The company attempts the maneuver solely so it can refurbish and reuse the rocket boosters, a practice that brings down the cost of each flight, according to SpaceX.
About a decade ago, SpaceX routinely tried and failed to land its boosters after flight. The company even shared a gag reel of the explosions in 2017.
In recent years, however, Falcon 9 boosters routinely have found their footing upon return to Earth.
The Falcon 9 booster that exploded August 28 had been refurbished and flown 22 times before it crash-landed. The mission it launched the day of the mishap, however, was ultimately successful, delivering a batch of internet-beaming Starlink satellites into orbit.
But that explosion marked the second time in two months that an anomaly prompted the FAA to open an investigation into the Falcon 9, which also has a history of hundreds of flights that have gone off entirely without issue.
In July, however, as a Falcon 9 was delivering another set of Starlink satellites into orbit, the upper stage of the rocket — which is distinct from the bottommost booster — failed abruptly mid-flight.
The satellites did not enter their intended orbit, and the overall mission was a failure.
SpaceX later revealed that an oxygen leak occurred while the second stage of the rocket was in flight. (Liquid oxygen, or LOX, is a commonly used as an oxidizer or propellant for rockets.) The leak led to what SpaceX CEO Elon Musk described at one point as an “RUD” — or “rapid unscheduled disassembly,” a phrase the company typically uses to refer to an explosion.
Within about two weeks of that explosion, the FAA determined there were “no public safety issues” involved and permitted SpaceX’s Falcon 9 to return to flight. Nevertheless, the FAA’s investigation into the mishap is still ongoing, the agency told CNN on Friday. That review is not related to the probe into the failed August 28 booster landing, meaning two investigations into separate Falcon 9 incidents are underway.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
View comments

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-09-02 12:24:18

As I wrote in a different thread, I think there was more to this grounding than met the public eye. The rapid re-approval sort-of confirms that, in the sense that whatever was "wrong" was so easily fixed.

This may or may not have had something to do with a Merlin engine failure. It may have had a lot more to do with something Musk said or did that pissed off the FAA.

He's gotten a lot of notoriety lately for his public misbehaviors. Including getting his precious X banned in Brazil.

GW

Calliban · 2024-09-02 13:01:47

GW Johnson wrote:

He's gotten a lot of notoriety lately for his public misbehaviors. Including getting his precious X banned in Brazil.
GW

A rather questionable opinion. In what way is standing up for freedom of speech a misbehaviour? The way I see it, Musk generously put up hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money to ensure that people can talk and recieve information without government censorship. Having lived under the boot of the British government my entire life, I appreciate the value of such freedom. I bet you would too if you had witnessed freinds and co-workers dragged off to jail for some offhand comment they made online. Musk is smart enough to know that freedom to express oneself is almost as important as eating.

kbd512 · 2024-09-02 21:40:31

Calliban,

What some people call "misbehavior", others merely call freedom of speech that someone else doesn't like. Humanity doesn't need "Thought Police". We desperately need sensible and factually true arguments for why we should do or not do any particular thing. Elon Musk is a perceived threat to the power of certain people who are fresh out of intellectual arguments for why they should continue to retain power. These people think their best course of action for maintaining power is to silence their critics, rather than to address the criticism in a constructive way. Historically, that's never been a successful long-term strategy for maintaining political power.

When you have no arguments more persuasive than "give me power because I think I deserve to wield it", you're no longer dealing with rational actors capable of pursuing interests beyond their own self-interests. The moment the power to outright lie to the public without public denunciation is finally broken, so too is the tyranny. All tyrants really hate being told to their faces that they're liars and thieves, but that is what these people are. They're skilled manipulators, especially when it comes to pitting brother against brother, but their constructive creativity is waning or absent entirely. This is a clear signal to rational thinkers that giving these people power has outlived its public utility.

GW Johnson · 2024-09-03 09:56:54

Free speech is NOT an absolute right, despite what Musk and several others claim. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, there had bloody well better well be a fire in there, or you are going to jail for endangering the public. The critical elements are (1) truth, and (2) public danger.

Musk's version of X is rife with lies, racist crap, neo-nazi crap, and much disinformation. The disinformation can incite violence, which is why it is a public danger. Why is anyone surprised when a legal system would disallow such things?

Musk is operating within another country, which means he has to obey their rules to operate within it. If he fails to obey their rules, he must take the consequences of that failure.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-03 10:09:15

This topic was set up to collect and report information about the recent Falcon 9 landing failure.

It has been appropriated by members who wish to discuss other matters.

I am respectfully asking that all future contributions to this topic be about the subject.

Speculations about motive are NOT appropriate in ** this ** topic.

For years now, SpaceNut has provided topics where members can speculate to their heart's content.

This topic is NOT a good match for that kind of discussion.

If someone finds news about what was discovered about the mode of failure and what (if anything) is being done about it, I would like to see that here.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-09-03 10:25:55

Tahanson 43206 is correct. Back to topic.

There was the recent second stage failure that left Starlinks too low to survive. I know there was a cold cryo-propellant leak, because of the ice seen in the on-board video footage, not seen in prior launches. It had to be the oxygen, because kerosene is not a cryogen.

They had the leak sitting on the pad, because the ice forms when atmospheric humidity comes in contact with a cryogen. There is no humidity in space. The ice was already there when they staged and started the second-stage on-board video.

Why they didn't catch the leak before they launched, nobody has said.

The more recent first stage recovery failure on the barge is more puzzling. There was a bit of a greenish tint to the fire about the base of the stage, which would suggest copper burning. I know they use that metal in the engines. That in turn suggests there was an engine failure as it landed. But nobody has said anything, except the FAA, which first grounded all Falcon-9's, and then cleared them to fly a couple of days later. All without any explanations from anybody at FAA or SpaceX.

I still think there is more to that incident than meets the eye. Somebody in SpaceX knew what happened, and how to fix it, or FAA would not have cleared them so fast. I suppose the corrective action might simply be "don't fly them quite so many times". But I certainly do not know, and both FAA and SpaceX have been silent about it.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-03 10:54:36

My understanding is that aircraft engines are subject to very strict regulation.

The frequency of inspections and rebuilds is based (as I understand it) on the proven track record of each engine type.

Prior to SpaceX, only NASA (that I know of) had tried to reuse engines, and from what I have read, the engines used on the Space Shuttle were practically rebuilt after every flight.

The FAA has NO experience with a space launch company trying to act like an airline.

It is ** trying ** to accumulate data on Falcon 9, and that data now includes a failure in flight 23.

SpaceX and the FAA would know what inspections are done between flights, and when rebuilds or replacement were performed.

This would (probably) be considered proprietary information by SpaceX, and quite possibly the US, considering China's interest in replicating SpaceX performance.

Thus, I would NOT expect a lot of detail about the failure.

However, there are a ** lot ** of hungry reporters and space sleuths "out there" and someone may ferret out the facts, or at least hints about facts.

This topic is available if anyone runs across anything along those lines.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-09-03 12:21:36

FAA's rules for airplanes were developed from failures and deaths, as were the fire codes. In the 1940's and 1950's not so much was known about metal fatigue as today, but the net effect was that there was a maximum number of takeoff/landing cycles that an airframe could withstand (especially a pressurized airframe). You must rebuild or replace something, when you approach that limit. And there are design features that raise it or lower it, which you must take into account.

I suspect that there is a similar life-cycle number limitation for rocket engines and propellant tankage, as well as heat shielding and any other subsystem you care to name. Nobody yet knows what those limitations might be, and they will be different for each subsystem. But we are just beginning to get an idea with SpaceX's Falcon stages. Bear in mind that spaceflight is far more stressful on materials and designs than atmospheric flight is. The limits might well turn out to be rather low, but that is just speculation on my part.

Remember the DeHavilland Comet jet airliner? With square window corners, and some other design features we now know to be faulty, its pressurized fuselage fatigue life turned out far too low. That cost 2 or 3 plane-loads of passengers. The Comet entered service as the last of the unpressurized and much slower DC-3/C-47 aircraft were built. It had redundant structures that lowered the stresses on any individual piece, to values below the infinite fatigue life now known (but not back then) for the aluminum alloys from which it was constructed. Which is why some 80-year-old examples are still flying.

GW

GW Johnson · 2024-09-30 09:59:24

Also from today’s Daily Launch:
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
SpaceX grounds its Falcon rocket fleet after upper stage misfire

SpaceX's Falcon rocket fleet was grounded for the third time in three months after a second stage problem occurred Saturday following the successful launch...

My take:

This was the deorbit burn for the second stage of the Falcon-9 that took Crew-9 to the ISS. It did the burn, but underperformed for reasons not yet understood. That delayed entry out of the area designated for it. That is technically a violation of the launch license, but that is not the real problem here.

The real problem is some sort of occasional restart-in-space problem with the long-performing Merlin engine. That needs to be found and rooted out, because this is a man-rated vehicle! Whatever has been going on with Raptor restarts is likely related, and that needs to be fixed, too.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-09-30 10:00:20)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2024-08-28 14:12:58

Falcon9 Failures

#2 2024-08-28 14:13:40

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#3 2024-08-28 14:14:01

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#4 2024-08-29 07:51:05

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#5 2024-08-29 10:02:28

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#6 2024-08-29 10:15:13

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#7 2024-08-29 10:33:04

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#8 2024-08-29 16:36:59

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#9 2024-08-29 18:57:22

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#10 2024-08-30 18:33:00

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#11 2024-09-02 12:24:18

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#12 2024-09-02 13:01:47

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#13 2024-09-02 21:40:31

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#14 2024-09-03 09:56:54

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#15 2024-09-03 10:09:15

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#16 2024-09-03 10:25:55

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#17 2024-09-03 10:54:36

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#18 2024-09-03 12:21:36

Re: Falcon9 Failures

#19 2024-09-30 09:59:24

Re: Falcon9 Failures

Board footer