While it wasn't quite the kind of static fire accident as occurred in China about a month ago, but small satellite launch startup ABL Space lost their second RS-1 launch vehicle on Friday (July 19) after a static fire caused “irrecoverable” damage in a launch pad fire after a test firing.
You may recall that ABL Space lost their first launch vehicle on
its first flight in January of 2023
when all nine engines on the first stage shutdown 10 seconds after
liftoff. That led to the vehicle falling back to the ground,
practically on the launch pad, with the resulting explosion damaging the
launch pad area badly.
In a brief statement on social media July 22, ABL said its RS1 rocket, which was being prepared for a launch from Kodiak Island, Alaska, was damaged in a fire after a static-fire test on the pad there July 19.
“After a pre-flight static fire test on Friday, a residual pad fire caused irrecoverable damage to RS1. The team is investigating root cause and will provide updates as the investigation progresses,” the company stated. It did not disclose additional details about the incident.
The company had been keeping a relatively low profile as the second launch has been approaching. The company noted in March that it had begun “pre-launch operations” for the mission and had only put up a single blog post since then, that one in May, a blog post about engine testing.
The second ABL Space RS1 launch vehicle on the pad on Kodiak Island, Alaska, in an undated picture. The vehicle is described as being in the one metric ton (2200 lbs) payload to Low Earth Orbit class, but has never attained orbit.
Back after the January '23 launch failure, I remarked that it seemed to me they probably could keep going because their financial picture was pretty solid. That appears to still be the case, if not a little better. From '23:
ABL is not likely to be in dire financial straits because of this. In 2021 the company signed a deal with Lockheed Martin for up to 58 missions through 2029. I can't imagine Lock-Mart would sign a deal without a way out if ABL can't make their system work, but I also can't imagine that a company that has been around and in aerospace as long as the various parts of Lock-Mart have been would cancel the contract over failure of one mission. First attempts at orbit generally don't make it.
SpaceNews' article on the effects of this setback also mentions that Lock-Mart contract for 58 missions. They add that Lockheed also plans to use the RS1 for its “U.K. Pathfinder” launch for the U.K. Space Agency under a contract awarded in 2018. That launch, from SaxaVord Spaceport in the Shetland Islands, is expected to be later in 2025. In addition,
In June, Scout Space announced it selected ABL Space Systems to launch a telescope for space domain awareness observations on the vehicle’s third launch, which at the time was scheduled for later this year. Scout said it chose ABL because it offered a quicker path to launch than flying on SpaceX Transporter missions that are booked for the next year.
Well, Scout, you get what you pay for. Good luck with ABL.
ReplyDeleteSounds like they have some serious issues within their culture surrounding quality control and process-procedures, possibly their mistakes stack up like out of spec tolerances can. Seen this at one place I was employed at, very difficult to pin point and correct, as problems show up far downstream months and years later, the culture within entrenched, takes a lot of effort to correct, a bottom up/top down approach can change this, and pinpointing certain individuals who are in key positions who have a habit of not following procedures/quality assurance, or pretty much make up their own because they believe they know better and fail to understand the crux of why there are such procedures/quality and specifications in the first place. As a welding instructor the most difficult thing in teaching aerospace certified metal joiners, was mindset where you take to heart the soecifications and requirements your trusted to adhere to. Another factor is your weld certs aren't to show your qualified to do a certain metal joining process inna certain materiel and joint type, its to show you are capable of following said procedures and following quality engineering spec'd out. It is sometimes impossible seeming to get that across to a welder or brazer, some people have truly hard time grasping those concepts, even when they are fully capable of performing a said weld joint. The hardest of that is getting across the idea that your certs are a kind if trust emplaced on you, because again the potential for hidden defects that one can create that no testing spots. Thats the singular most critical aspect right there. If you have a culture which respects specifications OP's and QP's, organically and holistically, your gonna make very high quality stuff and become well known as a go to company, and it sure looks like SpaceX has that great culture. I mean its the only way they could do what they do so well.
ReplyDeleteWitnessed the last problem in spades, at one shop, its pretty shocking when you actually see it happening, that is on the manufacturing end/floor manufacturing engineer level. What happens at the top is a mystery.
That SpaceX is so successful it seems, has to do with I think an on time/real time manufacturing/engineering system, employing very close highly active relationship between all out on the floor, where they keep say engineering in same location as manufacturing, like LM Skunk Works is famous for.