Sunday
It appears the premature shutdown of the Falcon 1 engine was caused by a pad processing error. A pipe fitting was loosened by an experienced technician while working on the avionics. I would really not want to be in his shoes today.
You can read more details here.
Engine fire is visible shortly after launch, just above the nozzle.
Photo: SpaceX
PS: This definitely had more serious consequences than the time my extremely souped up MGB backfired through the carburator and set the air filter on fire...
Poor old libboes, even their escapist phallic symbols are on the fritz these days.
Posted by Matt O'Halloran at April 9, 2006 05:09 PM
Dale, could you just like get it up?
We're all on tenterhooks here!!
Posted by RAB at April 9, 2006 06:34 PM
Ah, Sunday! The day after Saturday night, when people's brain cells are still recovering from the assorted substance overloads they have had to deal with...
Posted by Dale Amon at April 9, 2006 07:04 PM
Sounds like Falcon has a less than optimal design if you must loosen a fuel line to work on the Avionics. This sounds as bad as the 1974 Corvette which I was told needed to have the motor mount bolts removed, in
order to move the engine enough, to change the oil filter.
... But then again, look how rapidly the airplane improved from the Wright brothers ungainly invention.
Posted by Uain at April 9, 2006 10:00 PM
Pardon my pedantry but what other kind of error could there be other than human error in a project of this nature?
Posted by Bernie at April 9, 2006 10:02 PM
While not optimal, it is understandeable. The avionics has to control the engine functions so I would expect some sensors and actuators to be found in unusual locations.
Cars really are not any better. With the old TR's I believe you had to pull the engine block to get at the tranny; on my old Jeep Cherokee (the real one on a jeep truck chassis, not the yuppie bus it became later) you had to take off the power steering belt to get at the alternator belt, and this included some rather difficult to reach bolts. I once slipped while doing this operation... and spent the rest of the evening with a blow torch repairing the gash in my radiator...
So no, I am not surprised that a rocket engine requires some odd disassembly to get at something. If it is like my MGB, it also requires you to be a three handed contortionist.
Posted by Dale Amon at April 9, 2006 10:09 PM
Good points Dale. And with a greedy capitalist at the helm of the Falcon project, I suspect that rapid improvements in overall service-ability will be in the offing.
... driven by the persuit of evil profits, of course.
Posted by Uain at April 9, 2006 10:36 PM
The fault is reassuring. Like many I'd expected a full success. To find the culprit so easily implies a quick resumption of flight.
Elon's response was encouraging as well, but it's what we thought it would be anyway. He is indeed one of the true brothers.
Posted by Lee Valentine at April 10, 2006 06:11 AM
Ah, Lee... you've been around rockets as longs as I have. The first one hardly *ever* works as anything other than a 4th of July display!
But seriously, I was not surprised although in my heart I wanted the first one to go. There are things it seems that every rocket team has to learn. Check lists have to get longer unfortuneately... remember why DCX fell over after its last flight? An hydraulic line on the landing leg that was not re-connected. Or the really big one... the plastic cover left on some plumbing in GT6? (I actually saw the thing. Deke Slayton had it in his office at Space Services)
At least they didn't freeze up a LOX valve... Yet. ;-)
Posted by Dale Amon at April 10, 2006 11:19 AM
At least they KNOW what caused it. If that had been a NASA test then the US taxpayer would now be facing a colossal bill for the drawn out inquiry into the cause of the crash.
Posted by Julian Taylor at April 10, 2006 11:58 AM
This really is a management problem. They did not have a correct proceedure for whatever evolution the technician was performing.
Posted by M. Simon at April 10, 2006 09:47 PM
