Early this morning, after the Polaris Dawn mission was scrubbed due to weather in the recovery area, SpaceX launched a completely routine Starlink mission, delivered the upper stage to the right location and later delivered the 21 Starlink satellites, including 13 of the larger satellites with direct-to-cell capabilities, to orbit properly.
The problem occurred at landing of Booster B1062 on its fleet-leading 23rd
mission. Something went wrong and the booster apparently caught fire, exploded and
fell overboard. This is the first time since February of 2021 that a landing
has failed.
Last December (2023) B1058 fell over in rough seas
after its landing and was scrapped. That was 1058's 19th mission.
Flames erupt from the base of B1062 upon landing after its Aug. 28 launch. The booster tipped over seconds later. Image credit SpaceX (webcast)
Here's a video from Space.com. The accident is all in the first 30 seconds, really between 21 and 30, and doesn't loop or repeat on its own.
Prior to Wednesday's landing failure, SpaceX had landed 267 boosters in a row. The cause of the failure was not immediately clear, and SpaceX said "teams are assessing the booster's flight data and status." Looking at the video at 0.5x speed, it appears that all the engines cut off and then more flame appears. It doesn't look like the landings we're used to, where a small amount of flame exists for a few seconds before going away.
B1062 had its first mission in November of 2020, a GPS Satellite for the US Space Force (GPS III-04).
Booster landings are considered secondary objectives to a launch's primary mission of delivering payloads into orbit. However, in recent years, SpaceX has delayed launches due to poor recovery weather conditions, as it does not want to lose the first-stage hardware, which probably costs at least $20 million to $30 million to manufacture, test, and deliver to the launch site.
An immediate consequence of this failure was cancellation of a Starlink mission from Vandenberg also supposed to have been in the predawn hours (ET) this morning.
Earlier in the evening, Polaris Dawn mission commander Jared Isaacman had announced a decision to put off that launch at least until Friday.
"Our launch criteria are heavily constrained by forecasted splashdown weather conditions," Isaacman wrote on X on Tuesday evening. "With no ISS rendezvous and limited life support consumables, we must be absolutely sure of reentry weather before launching. As of now, conditions are not favorable tonight or tomorrow, so we’ll assess day by day."
In the competition for video clicks, there were already posts up on YouTube by
8 or 9 this morning suggesting that SpaceX has lost their abilities given two
mission failures in two months or whatever it has been since the upper stage
failure that grounded them for two weeks. That was before I knew that (1) the
mission was a success and (2) this was the oldest booster in the fleet, the
fleet leader in its 23rd mission. I'd seriously be looking into whether there was
something worn more than their inspections showed or wondering if it might be
an early indicator not to try for 30 missions.
267 launches since February 2021. That works out to roughly 107 launches per year, or every 2.5 days.
ReplyDeleteThat launch cadence is astonishing.
Of course, that average doesn't tell the full story. But to keep up that level of performance for ~30 months is jaw dropping. Especially in a highly government regulated industry. A burgeoning private industry.
The competition for clicks.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I take with a grain of salt the reports of most videos and completely ignored some channels.
Because of that, there are channels I never click. If there's talk about something that seems important, I go to the real news sources to see if they have it. Elon Musk has taken on some kind of celebrity status that has gotten dozens of channels to use his name to draw clicks. As well as SPAM selling all sorts of crap with his name.
DeleteHow are the landing legs deployed? Hydraulic? Pneudraulic? Gravity? Hydraulic, with a leaky line or seal blown would make a nice fire...if it weren't flame resistant fluids. Can't find what it is in a quick search, but someone out there knows what activates it.
ReplyDeleteIt would also make a tipover easy if they failed.
Deletelegs are gravity powered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tox9uu4QtMg&t=37s
DeleteHe didn't say much about how they latch, but it's a good look at the legs.
DeleteNo reason to have electrics or hydraulics. Gravity works and fits Elon's #1 Engineering Rule - No part is the best part.
DeleteWhat the hell is this: FAA grounds SpaceX? Politics? https://apnews.com/article/spacex-launch-accident-booster-db396897fbb90d00ef18be886b3b1ce0
ReplyDeleteSome leftist/commie, like Rahm Emmanuel said, "never let a crisis go to waste." Considering that pretty much every other launch service throws out their boosters, this can't be a crisis. Maybe not even just a problem.
DeleteThe grounding is retribution for Elon supporting Trump and also stopping X/Twitter from being an organ of Democrat propaganda. The direction for doing this probably came from the "Whitehouse", that is whoever is actually running the Government is Joe's stead.
DeleteRegrettably, that is the most logical explanation, consistent with everything we see from those folks.
DeleteThere's no reason whatsoever to ground SpaceX for a losing a booster overboard on a world-record setting flight number - especially when virtually every launch provider in the world just drops them in the drink after one use. Or on their people. No one was hurt, and if anything was damaged, it was theirs and they're paying to fix it.
I look forward to seeing other rocket companies grounded when their boosters fail to land intact. Safety first.
DeleteAn amazing number - 23 flights. Well done.
ReplyDeleteThere was some video on X that looked like it showed one of the legs failing as it touched down, the strut supporting the leg buckling. Could just be wear and tear, those legs and struts take some heavy sudden loads and fatigue is a thing. Why the FAA should pounce is beyond me, but politics is in the air.
ReplyDeleteIn the video, appears the leg furthest from position of camera collapsed. Possible it was rough seas and the booster was flipped over before the octograbber attached to the booster. Even though there where excessive shut-down fire, not an explosive event, and too little time for the flames to cause critical damage. No aerospace system with the myriad of variables in reality is perfect.
ReplyDeleteHopefully it was rough seas or a rouge wave which caused a simple tip-over, so they can get back in launch schedule.
Further analysis (by others) kinda points to a landing leg failure, which allowed the engine nozzles contacting the deck. The crunch probably broke something open and fire ensued.
ReplyDeleteFAA grounding the SpaceX fleet is just stoopid.
Which naturally raises the question of whether or not a new part (or adding one where there never was one) will extend the life. The economics require real numbers, but from rough numbers I've read (and rougher memory) the actual costs of a used Falcon 9 launch are around $1 million. The billed cost is closer to 20x that. So think of adding a part that adds even 20 or 30 k-bucks and getting 10 more missions that get you pretty much $20 million in profit. While I agree that "the best part is no part" there's a definite tradeoff here.
Delete$20k bucks to get $200 million more profit? Let's ask that Kevin O'Leary dude from Shark Tank... no wait. Never mind.
Jared Isaacman, in a post about Polaris Dawn on X passed on this reference to B1062's RUD. Bold added.
ReplyDelete"- We sincerely apologize to those who have traveled to see our launch and have faced delays. Many of our guests were able to witness 1062’s final Starlink mission. While it’s unfortunate she didn’t stick the last landing, the cause is well understood, and she successfully completed her mission. 1062 had an incredible career, flying many notable missions, including Inspiration4 and AX-1. It’s remarkable to think about the life this amazing rocket led from the day she first rolled off the assembly line."