SpaceX has a Kerbal moment

[hubbazoot]

How many engines can the Falcon 9 lose before failing?

Two. I've read a ton about spaceX, the answer is two.

However, this is the first I've heard about them having multiple payloads on one rocket...awesome.

[Borklund]

, for those of you who can't get enough of SPACE (which should be all of you!)

[mustwinfull]

, for those of you who can't get enough of SPACE (which should be all of you!)

Heh. I have already seen it as I watched the hatch opening live.

On Topic is a news release:

Update / SpaceX CRS-1 Mission: October 12

NASA and SpaceX announce that they have jointly formed a CRS-1 Post-Flight Investigation Board. This board will methodically analyse all data in an effort to understand what occurred to engine 1 during liftoff of the CRS-1 mission on Sunday, October 7. While Falcon 9 was designed for engine out capability and the Dragon spacecraft has successfully arrived at the space station, SpaceX is committed to a comprehensive examination and analysis of all launch data, with the goal of understanding what happened and how to correct it prior to future flights. Additional information will be provided as it is available.

[Designer225]

It was never disassembled, or blew up, otherwise Falcon 9 would've been blew up. Besides, when the anomaly happened "Engine out" capability also happened. It was unintended, though. I also heard that the secondary payload was put into an unstable orbit and was burned in the atmosphere 4 days into Dragon's flight.

Anyway, NASA and SpaceX have formed a CRS-1 post-flight investigation board soon after the anomaly.

Also, the secondary payload is Orbcomm-G2.

For more information please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Designer225

[Temstar]

As for the rocket suffering failures on 2 engines and continuing on, I may be wrong, but i seem to recall hearing that the second failure cannot be on the same side as the first. Although maybe they take account of that in their operation modes, and presuming the altitude is high enough and a second engine fails a 3rd and 4th will be shut down on purpose to balance the rocket, as the remaining 5 may be enough keep the thrust to weight ratio up.

Depends on the design of the rocket. Apollo 6 lost two J-2 engines on the same side and it caused the rocket to flip over till it was horizontal. But then the IU kicked in automatically and gimbled the three remaining engines and the rocket managed to right itself again. Stage 2 burned for 58 seconds longer than normal then stage 3 burned a further 29 seconds longer to compensate for loss of two engines on stage 2 but still couldn't quite reach the intended orbit. Then after that stage 3 failed to reignite for the dummy TMI burn so the Apollo spacecraft separated from stage 3 and fired its own SM engine to perform the dummy TMI.

Add to the fact that Apollo-6 also suffered massive Pogo oscillations in stage 1 that went all the way upto the spacecraft and broke pieces of it and you pretty much had full house as problems go for all three stages.

[rdfox]

It was never disassembled, or blew up, otherwise Falcon 9 would've been blew up.

Actually, it's pretty clear that the engine at least partially disassembled as part of the failure, due to the visible debris it left in the exhaust plume. Whether it was a disassembly that caused the failure, or if the disassembly was due to the nozzle collapsing under the aerodynamic loads of a fast shutdown at max-Q, isn't yet clear, but it's certain that the engine did not remain intact all the way to first-stage jett.

I've seen plenty of footage of launches from the 50s and 60s where a "rapid unscheduled disassembly" of one engine on a multi-engined rocket didn't result in an immediate catastrophic failure of the entire rocket. There's plenty of examples where the rocket continued flying until thrust asymmetry driving it off-course or other safety concerns saw the flight terminated by the RSO, most notably that one Atlas that had a holddown clamp release about a tenth of a second too late, resulting in it crushing the opposite-side vernier against the other clamp; that one staggered drunkenly up until it finally got light enough that the guidance system couldn't maintain control and it tumbled, whereupon the destruct command was sent.

[Borklund]

I'd wait for the final report before drawing any conclusions.

[mustwinfull]

I'd wait for the final report before drawing any conclusions.

Yes, the investigation board needs to look into exactly what happened and then we can draw conclusions. I just hope that it wont effect future Commercial Re Supply Missions to the ISS.

[rdfox]

I expect that there will be little, if any, effect on future ISS resupply missions. CRS-2 in January is scheduled to be the last flight using this Falcon 9 configuration, with future flights switching to a different first stage engine configuration (outer ring rather than a square) and an improved engine. Add into that the fact that it's an unmanned mission and the supply situation is deliberately kept from being critical for any given resupply flight, just in case there's severe delays or a launch failure, and I suspect that NASA will agree to let SpaceX fly CRS-2 as planned unless SpaceX recommends a scrub. Indeed, as SpaceX pointed out, this proved the Falcon 9's engine-out capability in a rather dramatic manner, and should be seen as a design/engineering success that it was able to complete the primary mission despite the failure. (Orbcomm apparently knew in advance that there was a good chance they'd lose their satellite due to NASA requirements on the ISS, and accepted that in exchange for a much lower launch price than normal. Note that if it weren't for the NASA "99% chance it will boost above the ISS's orbit" requirement for secondary payloads, the Orbcomm satellite would have probably been a success, too, with a 95% chance it'd make the intended orbit...)