Place your bets: Why the Falcon I failed!

[mikejz]

SpaceX in an interview has announced several items about the launch failure.<br /><br />1) that the fire was due to a procedural problem and not a problem with the booster<br /><br />2) It will be an easy fix<br /><br />Therefore I submit that the failure was due to a common sense item that was overlooked. ('smack forehead')<br /><br />What is everyone's prediction as to the cause of the fire?<br /><br />My bet: failing to close the value on the RP-1 fill.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"failing to close the value on the RP-1 fill."</font><br /><br />I think this as a strong contender. It's tempting trying to find out fancy, complex failure modes but as you said, SpaceX's problems have been more in the 'smack forehead' league.<br /><br />My guess to refine the valve thing a bit; it was the RP-1 fill umbilical that spilled it contents on the rocket when it disconnected and swinged down. A valve in the end of the hose either failed or there wasnt' one (D'oh). <br /><br /><br />Or ... the guy who last time imploded the first stage while draining it decided to play it safe and filled RP-1 tank to 110%... <br /><br /><br />SpaceX has two other issues to work out too; make sure the recovery ship is in the right place and see to it that the blankets come off in an orderly fashion.

 

[kumbarov]

Bad fuel tank(and/or piping) -> Turbulence at and after lift off -> Fuel leak -> Fire -> Vehicle lost

 

[edkyle98]

Usspacenews.com, a site that has had to retract some of <br />its past reports, posted an April 3 item that said that the <br />failure was due to a "1/4 line" that was not properly <br />secured (your guess is as good as mine as to what that <br />means) and that the leak had begun four minutes before <br />liftoff. <br /><br />I'll believe this story only when I read it elsewhere.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[mlorrey]

Sounds to me like Elon hired the wrong guy out of the McDonnell DC-X program....

 

[edkyle98]

The four minutes before didn't make sense to me either, <br />but today's space.com story confirms it. The story says <br />that a "pad technician had been working on the rocket’s <br />avionics the night before launch and failed to tighten a <br />tiny fuel pipe fitting that had been loosened in order to <br />perform the avionics work". To me, it sounds like the tech<br />might have actually disconnected, or at least loosened <br />the connector fitting of, a small fuel line, perhaps<br />a section that fed fuel used as a lubricant. If this line was <br />left unconnected or nearly unconnected, I can see how a <br />small fuel flow could have been initiated through it at a <br />certain point in the countdown (say four minutes from <br />liftoff). The leak would have been small and difficult to <br />detect visually. It seems to also have been difficult to <br />detect with instruments, but in retrospect it should have <br />been detected somehow. <br /><br />It might also be that the tech loosened a clamp that <br />held the line (this is also a fitting I suppose). The line <br />might then have vibrated until a leak was created.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle<br />

 

[nacnud]

Fire a technican that is now going to go the extra mile to make sure something like this doesn't happen again? I doubt it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[tap_sa]

SpaceX must go the extra mile to make sure no technician of anykind can leave the pad without tightening every nut&bolt he loosened. Some anal retentive padwork procedures must be put in place.

 

[mlorrey]

Yeah, it's only a $6 million dollar hit to Elon, less than 3% of his net worth. Like a bad day in the stock market.<br /><br />I don't know the level of documentation of procedures there, so speculating on how much the tech had to reference to is useless, however, tightness of all fittings should have been part of a standard pre-ignition physical inspection every time you are going to start the engines. Why said fitting fasteners are not safety wired in place is another question to ask.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"it's only a $6 million dollar hit to Elon"</font><br /><br />IIRC DARPA paid the flight anyway. Elon promised in return to piggy-back something of equal size for free in some future F9 flight. IOW Elon got his strike one for almost free.

 

[mlorrey]

Thats great. Were they able to salvage anything from the satellite that landed in their shack?

 

[mikejz]

You forget all the labor that is being tied up due to the failure along with the request overhead. The three month delay of the Falcon IX will result in tens of millions of dollars of overhead and labor expenses.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Were they able to salvage anything from the satellite that landed in their shack?"</font><br /><br />Nope. The USAF sat team declared it FUBAR. Will end up as statue in their lobby.<br /><br />mikejz: I fail to see why perhaps 95% of SpaceX employees should stop their work for three months while the rest are trying to figure with USAF/FAA/etc how to prevent some tech from forgetting to tighten screws. If piggy-backing some tiny sat to F9 takes three additional months and costs tens of millions then I guess Elon would have promised them dedicated F1 flight.

 

[mikejz]

Serveral reasons<br /><br />The gov't investigation is almost surely going to involve SpaceX adding more procedures, rules, etc... Time<br /><br />The delay of the Falcon IX means that SpaceX gets paid latter...more time<br /><br />The failure could lead to increased range scrutiny, again more time<br /><br />and time=money esp for a high fixed asset, high fixed labor company like SpaceX. I'm willing to bet that Musk had forecast positive cash flow for SpaceX by 2007. <br /><br />The

 

[mlorrey]

SpaceX is not shooting off man-rated vehicles and is not doing so over populated areas. There is no human risk, so there is no reason for long delays.

 

[josh_simonson]

>Fire a technican that is now going to go the extra mile to make sure something like this doesn't happen again? I doubt it <br /><br />I'd still bet he had an uncomfortable visit to the principals office, and has probably been crying himself to sleep...<br /><br />With the 'order of magnitude more automated pre-launch checks', I assume that means another bunch of scrubbed launches before they get the launch sequence debugged?

 

[gunsandrockets]

"...high fixed asset, high fixed labor company like SpaceX."<br /><br />Uh, I don't think so. SpaceX is a tiny company with a tiny labor force, hence low-cost.