SpaceX hit by inflight Falcon 9 failure
- Reference: 1720785606
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/07/12/spacex_suffers_an_inflight_falcon/
- Source link:
The mission was to launch 20 Starlink satellites, including 13 with Direct to Cell capabilities. The launch from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California at 1935 Pacific time on July 11 (0235 UTC July 12) seemed to go well, with the first stage of the Falcon 9 making a successful landing on a drone ship.
However, something appeared to be amiss with the upper stage. Onlookers including this reporter saw an unusual build-up of what appeared to be ice around the Merlin engine during the first burn of the stage. A scheduled restart of the engine to raise the perigee before the deployment of the Starlink satellites "resulted in an engine RUD for reasons currently unknown," [1]according to SpaceX boss Elon Musk. "RUD" stands for Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly.
[2]
Neither SpaceX nor Musk have commented on the ice seen around the engine.
[3]
[4]
SpaceX later [5]confirmed that the second burn was not completed as planned, and the Starlink satellites were deployed into a lower-than-intended orbit. This lower orbit means the satellites will soon make a destructive reentry into the Earth's atmosphere.
Musk [6]posted on social media that attempts were being made to have the satellites run their ion thrusters "at the equivalent of warp 9" in an effort to raise their orbits faster than the atmosphere pulls them down.
[7]
He wrote: "Unlike a Star Trek episode, this will probably not work, but it's worth a shot."
[8]AST SpaceMobile promises the Moon with seamless satellite phone service
[9]50 launches, 1 knighthood – Rocket Lab CEO talks heavy-lift rockets, Venus, and Musk
[10]Ariane 6 ready to rocket, bringing heavy-lift capability back to Europe
[11]SpaceX set to literally rock Florida with more and bigger Starship launches
This is the first inflight failure of a Falcon 9 launch since 2015's CRS-7 cargo mission to the ISS, which failed a few minutes into flight. The company also lost a Falcon 9 and the AMOS-6 payload in a pad explosion in 2016. Still, aside from that and the occasional incident on landing, the vehicle has otherwise been extraordinarily reliable.
The implications of the failure are not immediately apparent. SpaceX has several launches scheduled for July, including more Starlink satellites and the [12]Polaris Dawn Crew Dragon mission, which is set to feature the first commercial spacewalk.
NASA also depends on SpaceX to send crew to the ISS from US soil. The next launch is planned for August. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1811620381590966321
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZpFTGYTlyQ@Dkl@jj4V1eAAAAJA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZpFTGYTlyQ@Dkl@jj4V1eAAAAJA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZpFTGYTlyQ@Dkl@jj4V1eAAAAJA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1811635860481454487
[6] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1811638892879020243
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZpFTGYTlyQ@Dkl@jj4V1eAAAAJA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/04/ast_spacemobile_plans/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/19/rocket_lab_peter_beck_interview/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/06/july_9_ariane_6_launch/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/10/spacex_starship_florida/
[12] https://polarisprogram.com/dawn/
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
"The implications of the failure are not immediately apparent."
This probably won't affect the Starlink or other satellite launches, I don't see any reason for the FAA to ground the rocket over a upper stage malfunction.
They will need 3 successful launches before they can put humans on it again. But they have 6 satellite launches planned before the next crew mission.
So all in all I doubt this will effect the schedule much.
FAA might not, but the payload insurance agencies might want a good investigation before allowing one of their insured payloads to ride on a Falcon 9. Not so much a problem for Starlink (afaik they don't have payload insurance and just launch at their own risk, but they probably have indemnity insurance that might want some sort of investigation too)
And to think it's only a few days since China's static fire with bonus unscheduled flight test, and all those humiliating comparisons with the ultra reliable Falcon 9. Was Winnie the Pooh seen running from the pad with an evil crackle, by any chance?
My first thoughts were "If this had been a manned mission, would it have resulted in a loss of crew?"
Apparently not, according to comments at Spacenews.com, because the vehicle didn't explode. Additionally, they say that this malfunction wouldn't have occured on a mission to the ISS because that profile doesn't use an engine relight.
It's rocket science
It stays hard.
Every time.
Re: It's rocket science
It stays hard.
Actually,... this time it did not stay quite hard; it experienced [icon] leaving only very small hard pieces, which will mostly become not-hard-at-all vapour sooner than later.
Re: It's rocket science
Not only does it stay hard, but there are hundreds of potential faults, a bloody harsh environment, and you only get one shot at it.
Re: It's rocket science
The science is easy. It's been worked out long ago.
The engineering however, that's where the real challenge lies.
Who knew
Even the most reliable vehicle ever can have issues ...
Re: Who knew
The Honda Accord?
Data
364 Falcon 9 launches, 361 deemed a success. 99.17% success rate.
135 Space Shuttle launches, 133 successful. 98.51% success rate (both failures due to problems at launch).
32 Saturn launches, 32 successful. 100% success rate. Not to be confused with Apollo.
4 Soviet N1 launches, 0 successful. 0% success rate.
Admittedly the Saturn & the Soviet N1 historical records have smaller sample sizes compared to the Space Shuttle and Falcon 9 data. On the topic of human-rated systems, Falcon 9 is showing less risk than the Space Shuttle. Someone else can locate the data for other launch programs from different nation states - Russia, China, etc.
Trying hard to catch up with Boeing?