[AR] Re: Falcon 9 flight today

  • From: Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 10:20:14 -0700

SpaceX has tweeted that they see no indication of an explosion.

On 10/01/2013 09:09 AM, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
On 10/1/2013 7:41 AM, Henry Spencer wrote:
Another little fly in the ointment: <http://www.zarya.info/blog/?p=1595>
reports indications that the Falcon 9 second stage may have exploded in
orbit, although after payload separation.  Which is not as bad as having
it happen with payloads still on board, but certainly isn't good news.

Henry Spencer

Of note there is the chart of new objects more or less evenly distributed around the nominal perigee & apogee - the obvious way of producing such a distribution is the roughly symmetrical explosion of an object at the target perigee & apogee.

Also pointing toward a second-stage explosion are the two photos of a cloud of vented propellant spotted over South Africa some minutes after the payloads separated from the second stage, at http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=122495.

Other ground photos of stage venting events I've seen tend to show streamers (sometimes spiral if the stage is spinning) indicating the venting is happening over time in a largely unidirectional jet or jets. The two photos here both show an apparently spherical cloud, indicating the propellant was released all at once, presumably from a major rupture of the propellant tanks.

All SpaceX has said so far (that I've seen) is that the second-stage relight test failed, that they think they know why, and they expect no problem fixing it. The key for this mission was that the redesigned second-stage problem happened after the payloads were safely separated. The next F9 mk 2 mission, IIRC, is to GEO transfer orbit and will require the second burn.

To put this in perspective, this was still an extraordinarily successful first flight of what is (despite the similar appearance) something close to a new expendable booster - both stages have undergone significant redesigns, and the Merlin 1D engines of course are a major redesign/upgrade of the Merlin 1C's previously flown. Historically, first flights of new expendable booster designs are a coin-flip, with a catastrophic failure rate of near 50%. Spacex has been doing remarkably well so far with the F9.

Henry





Other related posts: