6 ms·

Engineers investigate another malfunction on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket

68 points by perihelions 2y ago

ElonChrist 2y ago
As I said in the other thread, this is total sabotage from Boeing deep cover operatives. Boeing has proven their deep state connections when they murdered whistle blowers on multiple occasions and now they're doing their best to destroy mankind's only chance at surviving the upcoming apocalypse. Please, for the love of humanity, do your part and donate as much money as you can to Elon Musk so he can save us all.
bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
[flagged]
- gregoriol 2y ago
  They actually make it pretty ok to space
- WheatMillington 2y ago
  Are you out of your mind? No single company has done as much for space travel as SpaceX in the last 60 years.
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    To be fair, sounds like they're an insider, and even as a huge fan of the plan and goal, there's been some concerning moments. This is definitely one of the them, 3 failures in 3 months breaking a 335-long streak for mission success dating back to 2016(!).
    - WheatMillington 2y ago
      Not sure what makes you think they're an insider.
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        Wording in the post and some spelunking.
    - nordsieck 2y ago
      > 3 failures in 3 months To be fair to SpaceX, the FAA has never cared before when a F9 1st stage hasn't landed properly. Not landing a booster is technically a failure, but I have a hard time giving it similar importance to a 2nd stage malfunction - particularly one that caused the loss of the missions (the first failure).
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        The FAA doesn't care now either. SpaceX self-grounded and no one is claiming the FAA is involved at all. I trust SpaceX to protect the mission. And also the FAA. Doesn't have to be either/or.
        nordsieck 2y ago
        Apparently they do care. https://x.com/jeff_foust/status/1840851200972833175 https://x.com/jeff_foust/status/1840851200972833175
        refulgentis 2y ago
        Right, things happen live, c.f. here: https://x.com/jwmittag/status/1840874880494874823 https://x.com/jwmittag/status/1840874880494874823 When we were discussing this, they did not care. Then "why isn't the FAA involved!??!" came up and they said they'll formally request an investigation that SpaceX had already started. I don't like the divisiveness in these conversations, it makes me sad :( I just love the mission
- mephitix 2y ago
  What is fake about all the milestones they achieved?
  - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
    Well to me the only milestone that matters is the cost of launching to orbit, and that hasn't improved.
    - ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
      I don't understand how someone can be this misinformed
      - unsnap_biceps 2y ago
        I honestly think they're just trolling like that ElonChrist guy. Two sides of the same coin.
      - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
        You're misinformed. NASA pays SpaceX roughly what it was paying the Russians.
        fooker 2y ago
        You are missing some nuance here. NASA launches payloads on falcon 9 and falcon heavy for a third of the cost it was before. NASA pays the same price per seat in the Dragon as the Soyuz because they prefer not to fill up all the seats.
        nordsieck 2y ago
        > NASA pays the same price per seat in the Dragon as the Soyuz because they prefer not to fill up all the seats. That is incorrect. There are now a maximum of 4 seats in Crew Dragon.[1] While it's true that NASA had plans to take down 6 Astronauts in an emergency, 2 of them would have basically been strapped to cargo pallets. Not something NASA would engage in under normal circumstances. --- 1. > After SpaceX had already designed the interior layout of the Crew Dragon spacecraft, NASA decided to change the specification for the angle of the ship’s seats due to concerns about the g-forces crew members might experience during splashdown. > The change meant SpaceX had to do away with the company’s original seven-seat design for the Crew Dragon. > “With this change and the angle of the seats, we could not get seven anymore,” Shotwell said. “So now we only have four seats. That was kind of a big change for us.” https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/07/after-redesigns-the-finish-line-is-in-sight-for-spacexs-crew-dragon/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/07/after-redesigns-the-fi...
- 3m 2y ago
  What on earth are you talking about?
  - compootr 2y ago
    We're talking about space!
- nine_k 2y ago
  The problem with space launch is that you can't exactly fake it. Your rocket either reaches the orbit or not. Your boosters either land or crash. Your crew capsule either makes it back to Earth or not. By all these scales, SpaceX does pretty well, compared to other highly established companies, like, say, Boeing. And this is saying nothing about the launch cost.
  - nordsieck 2y ago
    > By all these scales, SpaceX does pretty well, compared to other highly established companies, like, say, Boeing It's been a while since Boeing has launched anything. But yeah - SpaceX does well compared to ULA, ArianeGroup, Roscosmos, ISRO, and Mitsubishi
    - nine_k 2y ago
      Boeing's new crew capsule failed to pass safety checks and recently went back to Earth empty from ISS. Hiccups happen to everyone. But this was just highly visible.
grecy 2y ago
‘Slight under burn’ on the second stage sounds like it may have run out of fuel..
verzali 2y ago
So, some perspective on whether the FAA will get involved or not. The FAA care about safety. If you have anything falling back to Earth you have to prove it is safe. That usually means you have to do some analysis to show your chance of killing someone on the ground is less than 1 in 10,000 (that's the European level, I believe the US level might be tougher). An easy way to meet this is to land in the middle of the ocean, since there's a lot of space and very few people around, hence SpaceX target the Pacific for the falling second stage. As part of this you need to identify your expected landing zone, which is then used to warn sailors and aircraft about the risk. But also this is not really enforced - nobody goes out there to check the zone is empty before the launch is authorised, like they do around the launch pad. But you also need to account for failures in your 1 in 10,000 analysis. So as part of it you look at the probability of something failing and of pushing you off track, and then the risk of killing someone if that happens. Again, this is easy if you are targeting the ocean, since being even a thousand miles off still brings you down in empty water. So this scenario, where the upper stage fails and comes down in the wrong place, is almost certainly already included in SpaceX’s planning and licensing. Where the FAA might have questions is whether the probability of failures is correct, or if something has changed in manufacturing to make them more likely. For SpaceX, obviously, a dodgy second stage is a bigger problem. They need the stage to be reliable for upcoming interplanetary flights and others going beyong LEO. And they'll want to understand what caused it in order to make sure it couldn't happen earlier (which in this case could have been while astronauts were still attached). So there's a good reason SpaceX are investigating and already announced a pause in flight, and probably a good reason too why the FAA is keeping quiet so far. Behind the scenes I'm sure they're already in contact about the matter.
- WheatMillington 2y ago
  Great information, thanks.
- perihelions 2y ago
  I don't believe this is completely accurate. Controlled deorbiting of orbital stages (upper stages) is a subject of ongoing FAA rulemaking [0], but it is not currently required AFAICT, and as best as I can find it is *not* done in the majority of non-SpaceX launches [1]. [0] https://spacenews.com/new-upper-stage-disposal-rules-help-not-harm-us-leadership-space/ https://spacenews.com/new-upper-stage-disposal-rules-help-no... [1] https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/osisite/wp-content/uploads/OSI_response_to_FAA_NPRM.pdf https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/osisite/wp-content/uploads/OS... ("Uncontrolled reentries are currently used for 35% of U.S. missions (62% if we exclude SpaceX)") (As a tangential curiosity, Ariane 5 (and perhaps some other LH2/LOX upper stages) lacks any capability [2] to do this, even if they wanted to: because those engines are designed in a way that can only be ignited once. To do a controlled re-entry into the atmosphere, it's a prerequisite that you have a rocket that can be turned on and off at least twice). [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576520302241 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00945...
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689433
aejm 2y ago
Three failures this close together is problematic! I have no insight, but I wonder if organization or cultural changes are to blame? Plus, SpaceX flouting FAA rules recently, makes me worry about their long term future.
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  Flouting, not flaunting.
  - aejm 2y ago
    Indeed, thank you.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

68 points by perihelions 2y ago

As I said in the other thread, this is total sabotage from Boeing deep cover operatives. Boeing has proven their deep state connections when they murdered whistle blowers on multiple occasions and now they're doing their best to destroy mankind's only chance at surviving the upcoming apocalypse. Please, for the love of humanity, do your part and donate as much money as you can to Elon Musk so he can save us all.

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago

[flagged]

gregoriol 2y ago
They actually make it pretty ok to space
WheatMillington 2y ago
Are you out of your mind? No single company has done as much for space travel as SpaceX in the last 60 years.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  To be fair, sounds like they're an insider, and even as a huge fan of the plan and goal, there's been some concerning moments. This is definitely one of the them, 3 failures in 3 months breaking a 335-long streak for mission success dating back to 2016(!).
  - WheatMillington 2y ago
    Not sure what makes you think they're an insider.
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      Wording in the post and some spelunking.
  - nordsieck 2y ago
    > 3 failures in 3 months To be fair to SpaceX, the FAA has never cared before when a F9 1st stage hasn't landed properly. Not landing a booster is technically a failure, but I have a hard time giving it similar importance to a 2nd stage malfunction - particularly one that caused the loss of the missions (the first failure).
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      The FAA doesn't care now either. SpaceX self-grounded and no one is claiming the FAA is involved at all. I trust SpaceX to protect the mission. And also the FAA. Doesn't have to be either/or.
      - nordsieck 2y ago
        Apparently they do care. https://x.com/jeff_foust/status/1840851200972833175 https://x.com/jeff_foust/status/1840851200972833175
        refulgentis 2y ago
        Right, things happen live, c.f. here: https://x.com/jwmittag/status/1840874880494874823 https://x.com/jwmittag/status/1840874880494874823 When we were discussing this, they did not care. Then "why isn't the FAA involved!??!" came up and they said they'll formally request an investigation that SpaceX had already started. I don't like the divisiveness in these conversations, it makes me sad :( I just love the mission
mephitix 2y ago
What is fake about all the milestones they achieved?
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  Well to me the only milestone that matters is the cost of launching to orbit, and that hasn't improved.
  - ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
    I don't understand how someone can be this misinformed
    - unsnap_biceps 2y ago
      I honestly think they're just trolling like that ElonChrist guy. Two sides of the same coin.
    - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
      You're misinformed. NASA pays SpaceX roughly what it was paying the Russians.
      - fooker 2y ago
        You are missing some nuance here. NASA launches payloads on falcon 9 and falcon heavy for a third of the cost it was before. NASA pays the same price per seat in the Dragon as the Soyuz because they prefer not to fill up all the seats.
        nordsieck 2y ago
        > NASA pays the same price per seat in the Dragon as the Soyuz because they prefer not to fill up all the seats. That is incorrect. There are now a maximum of 4 seats in Crew Dragon.[1] While it's true that NASA had plans to take down 6 Astronauts in an emergency, 2 of them would have basically been strapped to cargo pallets. Not something NASA would engage in under normal circumstances. --- 1. > After SpaceX had already designed the interior layout of the Crew Dragon spacecraft, NASA decided to change the specification for the angle of the ship’s seats due to concerns about the g-forces crew members might experience during splashdown. > The change meant SpaceX had to do away with the company’s original seven-seat design for the Crew Dragon. > “With this change and the angle of the seats, we could not get seven anymore,” Shotwell said. “So now we only have four seats. That was kind of a big change for us.” https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/07/after-redesigns-the-finish-line-is-in-sight-for-spacexs-crew-dragon/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/07/after-redesigns-the-fi...
3m 2y ago
What on earth are you talking about?
- compootr 2y ago
  We're talking about space!
nine_k 2y ago
The problem with space launch is that you can't exactly fake it. Your rocket either reaches the orbit or not. Your boosters either land or crash. Your crew capsule either makes it back to Earth or not. By all these scales, SpaceX does pretty well, compared to other highly established companies, like, say, Boeing. And this is saying nothing about the launch cost.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > By all these scales, SpaceX does pretty well, compared to other highly established companies, like, say, Boeing It's been a while since Boeing has launched anything. But yeah - SpaceX does well compared to ULA, ArianeGroup, Roscosmos, ISRO, and Mitsubishi
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Boeing's new crew capsule failed to pass safety checks and recently went back to Earth empty from ISS. Hiccups happen to everyone. But this was just highly visible.

grecy 2y ago

‘Slight under burn’ on the second stage sounds like it may have run out of fuel..

verzali 2y ago

So, some perspective on whether the FAA will get involved or not. The FAA care about safety. If you have anything falling back to Earth you have to prove it is safe. That usually means you have to do some analysis to show your chance of killing someone on the ground is less than 1 in 10,000 (that's the European level, I believe the US level might be tougher). An easy way to meet this is to land in the middle of the ocean, since there's a lot of space and very few people around, hence SpaceX target the Pacific for the falling second stage. As part of this you need to identify your expected landing zone, which is then used to warn sailors and aircraft about the risk. But also this is not really enforced - nobody goes out there to check the zone is empty before the launch is authorised, like they do around the launch pad. But you also need to account for failures in your 1 in 10,000 analysis. So as part of it you look at the probability of something failing and of pushing you off track, and then the risk of killing someone if that happens. Again, this is easy if you are targeting the ocean, since being even a thousand miles off still brings you down in empty water. So this scenario, where the upper stage fails and comes down in the wrong place, is almost certainly already included in SpaceX’s planning and licensing. Where the FAA might have questions is whether the probability of failures is correct, or if something has changed in manufacturing to make them more likely. For SpaceX, obviously, a dodgy second stage is a bigger problem. They need the stage to be reliable for upcoming interplanetary flights and others going beyong LEO. And they'll want to understand what caused it in order to make sure it couldn't happen earlier (which in this case could have been while astronauts were still attached). So there's a good reason SpaceX are investigating and already announced a pause in flight, and probably a good reason too why the FAA is keeping quiet so far. Behind the scenes I'm sure they're already in contact about the matter.

WheatMillington 2y ago
Great information, thanks.
perihelions 2y ago
I don't believe this is completely accurate. Controlled deorbiting of orbital stages (upper stages) is a subject of ongoing FAA rulemaking [0], but it is not currently required AFAICT, and as best as I can find it is *not* done in the majority of non-SpaceX launches [1]. [0] https://spacenews.com/new-upper-stage-disposal-rules-help-not-harm-us-leadership-space/ https://spacenews.com/new-upper-stage-disposal-rules-help-no... [1] https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/osisite/wp-content/uploads/OSI_response_to_FAA_NPRM.pdf https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/osisite/wp-content/uploads/OS... ("Uncontrolled reentries are currently used for 35% of U.S. missions (62% if we exclude SpaceX)") (As a tangential curiosity, Ariane 5 (and perhaps some other LH2/LOX upper stages) lacks any capability [2] to do this, even if they wanted to: because those engines are designed in a way that can only be ignited once. To do a controlled re-entry into the atmosphere, it's a prerequisite that you have a rocket that can be turned on and off at least twice). [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576520302241 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00945...

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689433

aejm 2y ago

Three failures this close together is problematic! I have no insight, but I wonder if organization or cultural changes are to blame? Plus, SpaceX flouting FAA rules recently, makes me worry about their long term future.

NotYourLawyer 2y ago
Flouting, not flaunting.
- aejm 2y ago
  Indeed, thank you.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]