News SpaceX F9R Dev 1 vehicle loss...

[MaverickSawyer]

Earlier today, SpaceX's F9R testbed vehicle was performing a test flight at McGregor, Texas when...

Video posted online by KWTX shows the F9R starting to go sideways shortly before the range safety engaged and destroyed the vehicle.

http://www.kwtx.com/video?videoid=2913715

:facepalm:

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

There's no need to :facepalm: actually:

1. That thing was meant for testing - a whole rocket stage flying up and down with engine throttling and wild pitch/yaw movements in fact. Actually Gwynne Shotwell said that they would have fly it till "a smoking crater" is formed if all the tests went right.

2. The FTS worked as planned (engine shutdown, then kaboom)

3. No impact on orbital launches (in fact they just finished a static test firing for the next flight shortly after this)

4. They have F9R-dev2 already built and ready to fly (apparently ground facilities at White Sands has delayed that part), so unlike Masten or the Morpheus project they can re-start testing very quickly

5. If it turns out that the loss of flight control has linkage to those rockets flying spacecraft (unlikely, but you know...), then F9R helped dodging a bullet

So there you go....

 

[Kyle]

Test like you fly, fly like you test.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Test like you fly, fly like you test.

Expload?

 

[statickid]

Its like a slow, boring firework. Poof is right

 

[Urwumpe]

Finally it happened (a bit)... now everything can go fast forward.

 

[N_Molson]

I'm disappointed. I was expecting a louder bang. They definitively failed their failure.

 

[RisingFury]

I wonder where the failure came from. I wonder if they pushed the hardware or the software too far - or both.

Now the wait begins for more information, but some of us were wondering where the limits of the Falcon 9 technology was and I wonder if they found one of them.

@N_Molson: It's a test bed rocket. Probably no or little payload up tops and not as much fuel as a full rocket.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Hey, they were probably flying a nearly empty tank. It was probably about as loud as it was going to get.

 

[Kyle]

Expload?

"Wait, I just lit a rocket. ROCKETS EXPLODE!"

 

[Linguofreak]

I was expecting a louder bang.

Is this better?

No range safety. This one hit the ground mostly intact, except for a structural failure shortly before impact.

 

[Urwumpe]

Is this better?

Much better. Thats what you call a FAILure. With capital FAIL. That shows you for what you have spent all that money.

 

[boogabooga]

When testing something new, one generally learns more from failure than success. So in that regard this is good for SpaceX.

But, it is SpaceX and it is flaming rocket debris so yeah....media hype.

 

[Linguofreak]

No range safety. This one hit the ground mostly intact, except for a structural failure shortly before impact.

Incidentally, does anyone know what the reason is that range safety didn't go off on the Proton flight in that video? Does the Proton M just not have a range safety package?

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Does the Proton M just not have a range safety package?

Nope. http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=427560#post427560

 

[Linguofreak]

Note to self: Do not buy house east of Baikonur.

 

[Donamy]

That thing could have gone anywhere.

 

[Linguofreak]

Certainly, but failures later in the launch would result in impact points in roughly the same direction from the launch point as the intended ground track.

 

[NukeET]

"Wait, I just lit a rocket. ROCKETS EXPLODE!"

Nice reference!.


Thanks Woody!

:rofl:

 

[Thunder Chicken]

When testing something new, one generally learns more from failure than success. So in that regard this is good for SpaceX.

I was getting worried that SpaceX wasn't blowing up and/or crashing enough test vehicles. SpaceX's LOW KARMA light was on. Hopefully this resets it.