-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
There seems to be more articles coming out referencing the WSJ article. I found the article on Google yesterday and had no problem seeing the entire article and comments. The link I posted wouldn't let read it either today.
Here is another article with a reference to a SpaceX spokesperson:
SpaceX expected to issue final report on rocket explosion by year end
The WSJ article mentioned the agencies as NASA and the FAA.
Here is another article with a reference to a SpaceX spokesperson:
SpaceX expected to issue final report on rocket explosion by year end
The WSJ article mentioned the agencies as NASA and the FAA.
I'm sure from the other articles that SpaceX is waiting on approval from the various agencies that sign off on RTF but Sp-aceX seems to be focused on RTF with Iridium out of Vandenberg on December 16th:
SpaceX eyes December 16th for first Falcon 9 launch since September explosion
SpaceX eyes December 16th for first Falcon 9 launch since September explosion
"December 7, 10:30am EDT
We are finalizing the investigation into our September 1 anomaly and are working to complete the final steps necessary to safely and reliably return to flight, now in early January with the launch of Iridium-1. This allows for additional time to close-out vehicle preparations and complete extended testing to help ensure the highest possible level of mission assurance prior to launch."
Anomaly Updates
We are finalizing the investigation into our September 1 anomaly and are working to complete the final steps necessary to safely and reliably return to flight, now in early January with the launch of Iridium-1. This allows for additional time to close-out vehicle preparations and complete extended testing to help ensure the highest possible level of mission assurance prior to launch."
Anomaly Updates
Yeah. No shock or surprise about that one. FAA is a government bureaucracy. There is no rushing a judgement from them even if the answer is completely obvious and this is clearly NOT obvious. By this point I am sure that SpaceX knows exactly what happened and why. There have been a number of explosions at the McGregor testing facility where SpaceX has recreated the circumstances that caused the explosion.
Of course the government still hasn't fully interrogated the UFO sniper that caused the anomaly in the first place.
This comes under the general RTF since I can't be sure what launch the F9 is associated with but a F9 arrived in Florida today at Cape Canaveral LC-39A. So SpaceX is biting at the bit to get back to launching. The Iridium F9 is sitting at Vandenberg awaiting that launch.
Also, there was another large explosion at McGregor today. This seemed to be another planned explosion but it was quite big. No doubt it is all necessary in the testing needed to get to RTF.
Also, there was another large explosion at McGregor today. This seemed to be another planned explosion but it was quite big. No doubt it is all necessary in the testing needed to get to RTF.
"Chris B - NSF
@NASASpaceflight
Nominal Static Fire test in McGregor. Impressive cloud due to trench quenched with water, leaves some unburned fuel."
Well we have another placeholder date of January 15th for the historic LC-39A launch of EchoStar 23. It was originally a placeholder for January 8th but seems to have been bumped a week. Tentative launch time will be 23:50. So almost Jan 16th.
The big thing we're waiting on is still the okay from FAA and NASA.
I'll make an official thread for this when it becomes something more definite.
Iridium is still the RTF as far as I am aware.
The big thing we're waiting on is still the okay from FAA and NASA.
I'll make an official thread for this when it becomes something more definite.
Iridium is still the RTF as far as I am aware.
January 2, 2017, 9:00am EST
Over the past four months, officials at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the U.S. Air Force (USAF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), along with several industry experts, have collaborated with SpaceX on a rigorous investigation to determine the cause of the anomaly that occurred September 1 at Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. This investigation team was established according to SpaceX's accident investigation plan as approved by the FAA. As the primary federal licensing body, the FAA provided oversight and coordination for the investigation.
Investigators scoured more than 3,000 channels of video and telemetry data covering a very brief timeline of events – there were just 93 milliseconds from the first sign of anomalous data to the loss of the second stage, followed by loss of the vehicle. Because the failure occurred on the ground, investigators were also able to review umbilical data, ground-based video, and physical debris. To validate investigation analysis and findings, SpaceX conducted a wide range of tests at its facilities in Hawthorne, California and McGregor, Texas.
The accident investigation team worked systematically through an extensive fault tree analysis and concluded that one of the three composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) inside the second stage liquid oxygen (LOX) tank failed. Specifically, the investigation team concluded the failure was likely due to the accumulation of oxygen between the COPV liner and overwrap in a void or a buckle in the liner, leading to ignition and the subsequent failure of the COPV.
Each stage of Falcon 9 uses COPVs to store cold helium which is used to maintain tank pressure, and each COPV consists of an aluminum inner liner with a carbon overwrap. The recovered COPVs showed buckles in their liners. Although buckles were not shown to burst a COPV on their own, investigators concluded that super chilled LOX can pool in these buckles under the overwrap. When pressurized, oxygen pooled in this buckle can become trapped; in turn, breaking fibers or friction can ignite the oxygen in the overwrap, causing the COPV to fail. In addition, investigators determined that the loading temperature of the helium was cold enough to create solid oxygen (SOX), which exacerbates the possibility of oxygen becoming trapped as well as the likelihood of friction ignition.
The investigation team identified several credible causes for the COPV failure, all of which involve accumulation of super chilled LOX or SOX in buckles under the overwrap. The corrective actions address all credible causes and focus on changes which avoid the conditions that led to these credible causes. In the short term, this entails changing the COPV configuration to allow warmer temperature helium to be loaded, as well as returning helium loading operations to a prior flight proven configuration based on operations used in over 700 successful COPV loads. In the long term, SpaceX will implement design changes to the COPVs to prevent buckles altogether, which will allow for faster loading operations.
SpaceX is targeting return to flight from Vandenberg's Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E) with the Iridium NEXT launch on January 8. SpaceX greatly appreciates the support of our customers and partners throughout this process, and we look forward to fulfilling our manifest in 2017 and beyond.
Anomaly Updates
Over the past four months, officials at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the U.S. Air Force (USAF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), along with several industry experts, have collaborated with SpaceX on a rigorous investigation to determine the cause of the anomaly that occurred September 1 at Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. This investigation team was established according to SpaceX's accident investigation plan as approved by the FAA. As the primary federal licensing body, the FAA provided oversight and coordination for the investigation.
Investigators scoured more than 3,000 channels of video and telemetry data covering a very brief timeline of events – there were just 93 milliseconds from the first sign of anomalous data to the loss of the second stage, followed by loss of the vehicle. Because the failure occurred on the ground, investigators were also able to review umbilical data, ground-based video, and physical debris. To validate investigation analysis and findings, SpaceX conducted a wide range of tests at its facilities in Hawthorne, California and McGregor, Texas.
The accident investigation team worked systematically through an extensive fault tree analysis and concluded that one of the three composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) inside the second stage liquid oxygen (LOX) tank failed. Specifically, the investigation team concluded the failure was likely due to the accumulation of oxygen between the COPV liner and overwrap in a void or a buckle in the liner, leading to ignition and the subsequent failure of the COPV.
Each stage of Falcon 9 uses COPVs to store cold helium which is used to maintain tank pressure, and each COPV consists of an aluminum inner liner with a carbon overwrap. The recovered COPVs showed buckles in their liners. Although buckles were not shown to burst a COPV on their own, investigators concluded that super chilled LOX can pool in these buckles under the overwrap. When pressurized, oxygen pooled in this buckle can become trapped; in turn, breaking fibers or friction can ignite the oxygen in the overwrap, causing the COPV to fail. In addition, investigators determined that the loading temperature of the helium was cold enough to create solid oxygen (SOX), which exacerbates the possibility of oxygen becoming trapped as well as the likelihood of friction ignition.
The investigation team identified several credible causes for the COPV failure, all of which involve accumulation of super chilled LOX or SOX in buckles under the overwrap. The corrective actions address all credible causes and focus on changes which avoid the conditions that led to these credible causes. In the short term, this entails changing the COPV configuration to allow warmer temperature helium to be loaded, as well as returning helium loading operations to a prior flight proven configuration based on operations used in over 700 successful COPV loads. In the long term, SpaceX will implement design changes to the COPVs to prevent buckles altogether, which will allow for faster loading operations.
SpaceX is targeting return to flight from Vandenberg's Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E) with the Iridium NEXT launch on January 8. SpaceX greatly appreciates the support of our customers and partners throughout this process, and we look forward to fulfilling our manifest in 2017 and beyond.
Anomaly Updates
I wonder if it is a design/build issue. IIRC there a video which showed how they were made. Essentially the carbon wrap is wrapped/rolled onto the cylinder with slight overlap, like an ace-bandage. I can easily see how a slight imperfection can exist with that build technique.
No. Just a return to what was done just prior to the anomaly. I believe it says that they changed their procedure for the Amos 6 static fire and it burned them. Quite literally. So a reset to the procedures done on all the static fires and launches under Full Thrust except Amos 6.
A helpful video that explains what happened in detail with pictures:
Unconfirmed, but very likely, is that SpaceX used liquid helium in this particular loading process which is what initiated the anomaly. This is unconfirmed so it is not mentioned in the video but it would exacerbate what occurred.
Unconfirmed, but very likely, is that SpaceX used liquid helium in this particular loading process which is what initiated the anomaly. This is unconfirmed so it is not mentioned in the video but it would exacerbate what occurred.
3Victoria
Active Member
Thanks for that video. It did a great job explaining what happened: the new more efficient fuel loading procedure lead to oxygen freezing in the layers of the helium tank and triggered an explosion. Reverting to older process will fix the problem.
Since we haven't had a launch yet I'll put the placeholder dates here until we get a launch.
CRS-10 has an unofficial placeholder launch date of February 8th from LC-39A. I'd expect that to be a RTLS for the booster.
CRS-10 has an unofficial placeholder launch date of February 8th from LC-39A. I'd expect that to be a RTLS for the booster.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or... LLS 17-096 License and Orders_01_06_2017.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or... LLS 17-096 License and Orders_01_06_2017.pdf
FAA Commercial Space Transportation License.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or... LLS 17-096 License and Orders_01_06_2017.pdf
FAA Commercial Space Transportation License.
Similar threads
