If you're a fan of Firefly aerospace you might remember off the top of your head a post about Firefly failing to launch a customer's payload back on April 29 of this year, and losing both the vehicle and the customer's payload on a mission called "Message in a Booster."
The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has cleared Firefly Aerospace to resume launches of its Alpha rocket.
During the stage separation, just after the first stage shut down and dropped away from the upper stage, the vehicle suffered an anomaly as the two stages separated, which led to the loss of the nozzle extension for the upper stage's single Lightning engine. This reduced the upper stage thrust enough to render it unable to put its payload, an experimental satellite for Lockheed Martin, into orbit.
Both stages splashed down into the Pacific near Antarctica, a pre-cleared safety zone, with no other property damage and nobody injured.
The FAA oversaw the review alongside Firefly, with additional support from a board of outside experts from government, industry and the company's customers. The investigation concluded that extreme heat from a phenomenon known as plume-induced flow separation over-taxed portions of Alpha's first stage, which suffered a structural break as a result.
Investigators determined the heat buildup from the plume-induced flow separation was exacerbated by Alpha's steeper ascent angle compared to previous launches, which was needed for proper payload delivery on this mission. The combination caused the stage to rupture milliseconds after separation, which destroyed the nozzle extension on the second-stage engine.
...
To prevent similar problems during future launches, Firefly will reinforce the first stage's thermal protection system and adjust flight profiles to avoid similar ascent trajectory stresses to reduce heat buildup.
With the investigation closed and modifications in place, Firefly says it is turning its attention to Alpha Flight 7. That mission will be the company's next chance to demonstrate the rocket's progress as it works to establish Alpha as a competitor in the small-satellite launch market.
Another look at the "Message in a Booster" launch. (Image credit: Firefly
Aerospace/NSF via YouTube)
Go Firefly!
ReplyDelete"The FAA oversaw the review alongside Firefly, with additional support from a board of outside experts from government, industry and the company's customers." Is this normal or more specifically is this how it is done with SpaceX?
ReplyDeleteInteresting question. I remember always reading that the FAA was working with SpaceX on the reviews after the run of bad Starship flights, but not the wording they used about "outside experts from government, industry and the company's customers." The obvious difference was that there were no customers on those test flights, and it has been years since any issue they had affected a customer. I can imagine it being some situation where the government and other experts were called in for some special reason, maybe by Firefly themselves, but I don't know for sure.
DeleteI know that outside experts are called in when airliners crash.
DeleteI agree with you that it probably depends on the situation - who is affected and whose cargo/ payload is involved (and possibly whether Firefly has appropriate experts in house).
I wonder why Lockheed made the satellite for? I don't see them making and launching one for themselves..
Jonathan
The Space.com article says it was "Lockheed Martin's LM 400 satellite technology demonstrator" which sounds to me like it was for them. To test and get material to use for Sales & Marketing - the original (or other) S&M.
DeleteFlow separation induced by plume has been studied and understood since early in rocketry, or at least since the early 1960s.
ReplyDeleteIf a launcher is going to experiment (high ascent angle) thereby to increase risk, why take a payload along for the ride.
(simulation of payload not withstanding)
An answer can be that the LockMart sat was inexpensive vis a vis the total cost of the launch. IOW, the sat was disposable, designed to be short lived. Perhaps even for a single mission.
I suppose the investigation was to confirm expected results. This would explain why 'outsiders' were included.