
SpaceX Rocket launch aborted in final second due to technical problems - philipDS
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/spacex-rocket-launch-aborted-final-liftoff-due-technical-16384466#.T7dh6HkthOE
======
learc83
I've been anticipating this launch for a while now. I stayed up till 4:55 to
watch it; I even made popcorn.

Listening to the countdown 10...3 2 1 ignition...sputtering flame...and...
_nothing_...

You could hear the disappointment in his voice for a split second, but only a
second. Then right back to professional composure. Calling out commands,
putting the rocket back into safe mode.

Impressive even for a failure. Guess I'll be up late again on the 22nd.

~~~
reneherse
Same here with the popcorn. And cranking the speakers up in anticipation of a
good roar.

It's a little dissapointing, but the most important thing is that the launch
be successful, no matter the layers of safeguards and tests that need to
happen. It's fascinating to see just how precise a level of control and
automation that exists over all aspects of the system.

Well, to truly butcher a saying of our former rulers across the pond, "The
launch is dead, long live the launch!"

Deepest, deepest apologies for that one.

~~~
tjmc
In honour of those across the pond - here's their last attempt at a rocket
launch ;-) Worth watching the whole thing, but go to about 7:15 for the
business end... <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b4WzWFKQ20>

~~~
arethuza
"The United Kingdom remains the only country to have successfully developed
and then abandoned a satellite launch capability."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Streak_%28missile%29>

:-(

~~~
_djo_
That's not entirely true. South Africa developed the RSA-series of ICBMs and
space rockets in the late 1980s along with a concurrent satellite program. The
RSA-3 was successfully tested in a number of launches from the Overberg Test
Range in the Southern Cape of South Africa.

With the end of the Cold War, the abandonment of Apartheid and the unbanning
of the ANC in 1990 both the defence budget and the rocket program budget were
slashed and the RSA program and Greensat satellite were put on hold as a
result.

An attempt was made to drum up international orders for RSA-3 launches and the
development of an even larger variant, the RSA-4, but nothing ever came of it
and the entire program was shut down forever around 1994. The sole remaining
RSA-3 rocket is on display at the South African Air Force Museum at Zwartkop
Air Force Base.

Nowadays South Africa is slowly rebuilding its satellite capability and built
two micro-satellites on a shoestring budget, both of which had reasonable
service lives in orbit, but it has some way to go to rebuild the capability it
lost.

~~~
rdl
I feel horrible for saying this, but in many areas of science and engineering,
RSA under sanctions was more interesting to outsiders, in that it was a
relatively rich, industrialized country which produced technology (due to
being isolated) which most other countries wouldn't have (since they didn't
need it, with global supply sources). Synthetic fuels, some amazing defense
tech (G5 howitzer, funding Gerald Bull, etc.), a credible nuclear program,
space, ... I guess the isolation wasn't as complete as North Korea, and had a
much better industrial base to begin with, because aside from superbills, a
huge abandoned hotel, novel money laundering techniques, and some industrial
scale meth production, North Korea hasn't done anything interesting.

(It was of course immoral, a horrible human tragedy and was objectively worse
for 90% of the population, etc.)

Is it an accurate perception that RSA is less of an interesting
science/engineering power now than it was in the 1980s? Will this reverse
itself?

~~~
_djo_
Sure, it's undoubtedly true that in certain industrial and technological
spheres South Africa produced far more impressive and interesting projects
during Apartheid. Even though there was some outside assistance, the
developments produced in the country during this period were extraordinarily
innovative and advanced in relative terms.

Acknowledging that interesting developments came about in that period does
necessarily justify Apartheid or lessen its immoral nature. Just as (not to
invoke Godwin, the systems were totally different) we can acknowledge the
amazing technology that German engineers and scientists invented during the
Second World War without endorsing Nazi ideology.

With regards to the question of whether RSA is a less interesting science and
engineering power, it's complex. Certainly, when it comes to state-funded R&D,
especially in defence and space, then yes it's true. The defence industry,
while still innovative and very advanced in certain niche areas, has shrunk
significantly since Apartheid, shedding many skills and leaving many defence
industry companies in precarious financial positions. This is a result of the
huge cuts in defence spending since 1990, which gutted the industry. That
level of funding would never have been sustainable in a democracy with a
universal franchise and serious socio-economic problems though.

To some extent the non-defence private sector suffered too as state R&D dried
up almost entirely. It's important to understand that with the trade sanctions
of the late 1980s it was state funding and the mining industry which drove
most R&D and many companies weren't able to transition to a market-based
approach when that stopped. Imagine the impact on the US high-technology scene
were US government research funding to be yanked almost overnight from
universities and private companies.

Yet there are some encouraging developments, with private companies continuing
to try to innovate using private capital. The satellite design and
construction industry has re-established itself and is growing fairly well, as
are other space-based industries especially astronomy where South Africa is
one of the world leaders. Similarly there is small but rapidly-growing tech
scene that's creating some interesting things, with two prominent examples
being the development of Amazon's EC2 system and Mark Shuttleworth's Thawte
Consulting. Mobile telecoms are another interesting area, while there are some
aerospace firms doing well, such as Aerosud which is a single-source supplier
for both Airbus and Boeing on safety-critical parts.

R&D spending still remains low compared to other countries at South Africa's
level but there are signs that that, too is changing. So we'll have to see
what the future brings.

------
jsherry
Read from an article on CNN (<http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/19/tech/us-
spacex/index.html>):

"This is not a failure," Shotwell (SpaceEx President) told reporters. "We
aborted with purpose. It would have been a failure if we lifted off with an
engine trending in this direction."

Perhaps that's PR spin, but I think that it comes from a very responsible
position. Well said.

~~~
api
It's true. This is a brand new vehicle, and you want to start with tight
limits and gradually expand them as you know they are safe. Otherwise stuff
fails and you don't know why.

This is a _test flight_.

------
cek
I'm kind of blown away that the engines don't have to be torn-down and rebuilt
or something after being ignited and shut down like this.

I assumed that since the booster stages are not re-usable, the design would be
more optimized for "one use". And the controlled explosion of a rocket
igniting seems to count as "one use".

Clearly I'm wrong. I guess they are so robust (for saftey & redundancy
reasons) that a few seconds of burn don't do any irreversible damage.

~~~
api
Merlin is designed to be reusable. It's ultimately designed to power a fully
reusable rocket.

------
perlgeek
I'm fascinated. I didn't even know that rocket engines could simply be shut
down like this. I guess that's because they don't use solid fuel engines?

~~~
ballooney
The space shuttle engines could do (and did on I think 5 occasions) the same
thing. That is why they turned on before the solid boosters were lit, to be
checked out by the avionics. Example:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VELYTzUrjc>

[Edit: I must apologise to the commenter below for just repeating him 10
minutes later - accidental]

~~~
ANH
Technically, it was the orbiter's engines that could be shut down. "Space
shuttle" is used to refer to the whole assemblage of orbiter, solid rocket
boosters (which cannot be shut down), and external fuel tank.

~~~
ballooney
Quite right, I should have said Space Shuttle Main Engines, as that is what
they were actually called. Apologies for the ambiguity.

------
checker659
So what happens next?

~~~
wolf550e
<http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/003/status.html>

1040 GMT (6:40 a.m. EDT)

Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX, says technicians will inspect Engine No.
5 on the Falcon 9's first stage beginning at around 12 p.m. EDT (1600 GMT).
Further data analysis of readings from the engine during the ignition prompted
SpaceX to order hands-on inspections before clearing the rocket for liftoff.
The next launch opportunity is still Tuesday at 3:44 a.m. EDT (0744 GMT), but
that is pending the outcome of today's inspection. Shotwell said the abort was
triggered one-half second before liftoff after all nine engines were ignited.
Alan Lindenmoyer, NASA's commercial crew and cargo manager, said there should
be another launch opportunity May 23 at 3:22 a.m. EDT (0722 GMT).

0940 GMT (5:40 a.m. EDT) The target launch time for Tuesday is 3:44:34 a.m.
EDT (0744:34 GMT).

0926 GMT (5:26 a.m. EDT) The rocket is being drained of propellant as the
launch team backs out of this morning's countdown following an abort moments
before liftoff at 4:55 a.m. EDT (0855 GMT).

0915 GMT (5:15 a.m. EDT) NASA plans a post-scrub news conference at 6:30 a.m.
EDT (1030 GMT). We'll carry it live.

0905 GMT (5:05 a.m. EDT) The strongback has been returned to a position next
to the Falcon 9.

0901 GMT (5:01 a.m. EDT) SpaceX reports the problem triggering the abort was a
high chamber pressure reading on Engine No. 5 of the first stage. Aborts are
common in Falcon 9 countdowns when computers recognize a limit out of a
predefined range. Sometimes the fix is as simple as adjusting the acceptable
range in the computer, but with a one-second launch window this morning, there
will no opportunity to resolve the issue today.

0858 GMT (4:58 a.m. EDT) The launch team is safing the rocket and Dragon
spacecraft after this morning's abort. The next launch opportunity is Tuesday
morning at 3:44 a.m. EDT (0744 GMT), assuming whatever issue caused the abort
is resolved in time.

0856 GMT (4:56 a.m. EDT) It's not clear what caused the abort just before
liftoff, but this will mean Falcon 9 will not launch today. The rocket had a
near-instantaneous launch window in which it could fly today.

0855 GMT (4:55 a.m. EDT) ABORT. The ignition sequence started, but there was a
countdown cutoff before launch.

~~~
andypants
I think it's pretty amazing that this kind of thing can be co-ordinated down
to a 1 second launch window.

~~~
uxp
It's less that is _can_ and more that it _has to_ in order to be optimal.

The launch window pretty much guarantees that if the rocket launches, and
stays on a course that is designed to get it outside of earth's atmosphere
using as little fuel as possible, it will meet up with the orbiting space
station "by chance". Launching outside of this window means that it would have
to spend fuel to realign itself and go find the space station on it's own.

~~~
mkramlich
Probably one of their many hacks at getting the launch cost down as much as
possible.

------
joshmlewis
I can't imagine being in the rocket and what's going through your head as your
about to take off, the rush of it all, and then at the last second it's like
nope. That feeling must have been incredibly interesting.

------
rms
Now everyone has time to use www.hipmunk.com to book flights to Florida for
possibly weeks long stays at your favorite Eastern Orlando resort.

~~~
cynest
Because missing launch windows hasn't de riegeur since spaceflight's
beginnings?

