SpaceX’s goal of delivering payloads to space with re-useable rockets has suffered a blow following the loss of a Falcon9 rocket and its payload during tests.
The rocket, which had not been used for a previous launch, was undergoing a standard pre-launch static fire test at Cape Canaveral, Florida when the explosion occurred.
According to SpaceX, this ‘anomaly’ originated around the upper stage oxygen tank and occurred during propellant loading of the vehicle.
The AMOS-6 mission was set to deliver a satellite that would improve Facebook’s coverage in sub-Saharan Africa.
“I’m deeply disappointed to hear that SpaceX’s launch failure destroyed our satellite that would have provided connectivity to so many entrepreneurs and everyone else across the continent,” said Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg via the social network.
SpaceX’s quest to reuse its rockets suffered high-profile setbacks in January and June 2015 when Falcon 9 rockets were lost during landing and launch phases. Yesterday’s explosion overshadows notable successes for Elon Musk’s space company, including the successful landing of a Falcon 9 rocket on a drone ship in May, 2016. The company has yet to reuse a rocket, however, and recently announced plans to do so in the near future may now be jeopardised after this latest failure.
Commenting on yesterday’s events, Prof Loizos Heracleous, Warwick Business School said: “The latest explosion of a SpaceX Falcon rocket…indicates the inherent unpredictability and risk involved in space flight, whether manned or unmanned, and whether missions are led by NASA or by commercial contractors.
“At around six launches per year, SpaceX is gathering valuable experience, and each accident brings lessons on how to enhance the integrity of the craft for future missions – for example the June 2015 explosion was due to a faulty steel strut that allowed helium to escape, which led to enhanced checks for future missions and to further development of the software specifically for abort situations.
“Given that SpaceX is working to provide NASA with a way to transport not just cargo, but also astronauts to the International Space Station, it is especially crucial that such learning takes place before that happens.
“With space missions, even the most advanced simulations cannot replace learning by doing, given the multitude of variables involved and the importance of learning from experience. This explosion will not change the long term goals of SpaceX, which are to reduce the cost of space flight through the use of reusable rockets, and eventually to colonise Mars.”
In a statement SpaceX said it was continuing to review the data to identify the root cause of the explosion.
A recent TV show at Discovery Channel gave a good account about the terrible accident rate of rockets, showing many accidents. A rocket is scientifically very simple, but its engineering and construction, and specially operation is another thing, entirely. But as developers learn, success will be achieved eventually. The two accidents of the Space Shuttle have shown it was a risky device. It was pure luck it had only two disasters in its lifespan, both seeded by shortcuts. The O-ring failure was a specially good example of bad design plus lack of organizational culture. The second accident demonstrated a lack of respect for an observed problem (complacency). But as I said, learning will eventually improve the rate of success, but rocketry will neve be as safe as it is commonly assumed.
So did someone have an app for that?
In order to “die on Mars, but not to crash on its surface” it is necessary to fully monitor the physical and mental adequacy of every astronaut during the whole flight. The methods “Exhalation” breintrans.eu proposed by me allow to predict the development of physical and mental inadequacy by a constant analysis of change in inhaled and exhaled air. In case of danger the system will send a warning signal about such occasion to colleagues and operators on Earth and will switch a flight to autopilot mode.
further to Alfredo Márquez: there has been a huge amount written and broadcast about the O-ring failure of Challenger, on Jan. 28th, 1986. (Much of it still available on the www). It was principally a human failure, in that those with knowledgeable concerns in the launch team were bullied into continuing with the launch, after six days delay for exactly the same reason, despite exceptionally cold weather in Florida (which was mirrored in the UK, for about 2 weeks).
There were a series of other reasons in the chain of events which lead to that predicable tragedy. E.g “The shuttle had no escape system, and the impact of the (probably intact) crew compartment with the ocean surface was too violent to be survivable”
Hopefully that will not be a direct precursor for any other, as it was not at all typical. Has anyone calculated a failure rate for civilian launch rockets, mostly unmanned so far, and overall reasons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster
If you consider the early years of aircraft, there were more than a few failures before mankind could produce a reliable aircraft. Spaceflight is still at that stage.
All the same, it’s deeply disappointing when political expediency is given priority over safety considerations, especially on human spaceflight. If we have anything to learn from the past, it’s that we engineers owe it to those who fly the craft we make, to ensure that we provide them with the best equipment that we can make, and make it exceedingly clear to those who operate said craft what the safe operational criteria are. None of us can make craft to operate under every condition possible, but we can make clear what the limits are. Anything outside of that is ‘misadventure’.
The ‘O’ ring shuttle disaster was caused through politcal / PR meddling against the better judgement of engineers. Now didn’t the very same thing happen a 100 years ago with a ship called Titanic ?