Updates SpaceX DM-1 capsule lost during static fire test

MaverickSawyer

Acolyte of the Probe
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
5
Points
61
Location
Wichita
I see nothing regarding the capsule having been destroyed, merely that there was an anomaly. Care to provide proof to back up the claim?
 

Kyle

Armchair Astronaut
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
3,912
Reaction score
339
Points
123
Website
orbithangar.com
I see nothing regarding the capsule having been destroyed, merely that there was an anomaly. Care to provide proof to back up the claim?

Multiple "unconfirmed" sources, such as Emre Kelly from Florida Today, and a poster on NSF.com who has seen video of the capsule "blowing up into millions of pieces". Also there was a sustained hydrazine fire observed at the Cape for quite a while there, with enough smoke to be visible from radar. Based on this, I think it's safe to say the capsule has been completely lost. :(

EDIT: Given nothing has been confirmed yet, I've updated the title until more facts come in.
 
Last edited:

Donamy

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
6,904
Reaction score
196
Points
138
Location
Cape

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
5,017
Reaction score
1,254
Points
188
Location
Dallas, TX
Scott Manley has done a video on the subject in which he shows footage of the smoke plume. I'm not quite ready to take the "blown to pieces" rumors at face value, but given the size of the plume and hypergolicity of N2O4 with hydrazines, I have trouble imagining a scenario in which that smoke plume could be generated without the capsule being damaged beyond repair, even if it's still in one piece.
 

IronRain

The One and Only (AFAIK)
Administrator
Moderator
News Reporter
Donator
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
3,484
Reaction score
403
Points
123
Location
Utrecht
Website
www.spaceflightnewsapi.net
[ame="https://twitter.com/Astronut099/status/1119825093742530560"]Astronut099 on Twitter: "Yep, this isn’t good...… "[/ame]

Took the liberty of updating the title...
 

Donamy

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
6,904
Reaction score
196
Points
138
Location
Cape
And that's the end of that.
 

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
5,017
Reaction score
1,254
Points
188
Location
Dallas, TX
Yeah, seeing that, I'd expect:

1) Dragon will not fly with crew this year.
2) No capsule with liquid fuel LES thrusters is likely to ever be man-rated.
3) No capsule with integrated LES thrusters is likely to ever be man-rated.
4) Dragon will consequently not fly with crew until a conventional escape tower for it has been developed.
5) Dragon may never fly with crew.
6) No cargo dragon with fueled LES thrusters is likely to be allowed to dock with the ISS.
 

steph

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,393
Reaction score
713
Points
113
Location
Vendee, France
As bad as it is, it's still a good thing that it happened during testing, and that IS the purpose of rigorous testing : catching this kind of stuff before it happens when it's manned. In spaceflight, you have to be prepared for this kind of stuff. Now, how it managed to do an ISS flight without this specific kind of test happening, I don't know. As in, if it's a cargo flight, in-flight abort might really not be necessary. I simply don't know
 

BrianJ

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
900
Points
128
Location
Code 347
Damn. Still, I'm not reading reports of any injuries, so that's good.
 

steph

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,393
Reaction score
713
Points
113
Location
Vendee, France
I'm reading reports on reddit of the capsule being so obliterated that they literally can't find it anymore :rofl:
 

APDAF

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
399
Points
98
Yeah, seeing that, I'd expect:

1) Dragon will not fly with crew this year.
2) No capsule with liquid fuel LES thrusters is likely to ever be man-rated.
3) No capsule with integrated LES thrusters is likely to ever be man-rated.
4) Dragon will consequently not fly with crew until a conventional escape tower for it has been developed.
5) Dragon may never fly with crew.
6) No cargo dragon with fueled LES thrusters is likely to be allowed to dock with the ISS.

Seems a bit rash no?
If we tar all LES thursters with the same brush how can we innovate?
 

Kyle

Armchair Astronaut
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
3,912
Reaction score
339
Points
123
Website
orbithangar.com
Speculating without facts here, but that looks like a significant over-pressurization event of a COPV.
 

Donamy

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
6,904
Reaction score
196
Points
138
Location
Cape
Maybe a kink in a line, caused by splashdown impact ?
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
491
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
qwspxvujrxg01.png
 

statisticsnerd

Active member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
117
Reaction score
24
Points
33
Location
Earth
Thank God this happened during testing rather than during the planned DM-2 mission. Not only would people have died, but I can't imagine that NASA would ever trust SpaceX to send up astronauts on their rockets again.

This is yet another reminder that spaceflight is very dangerous business.
 

Kyle

Armchair Astronaut
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
3,912
Reaction score
339
Points
123
Website
orbithangar.com
SpaceX tested these particular set of Superdraco engines probably dozens, if not hundreds, of times before the DM-1 mission with nothing like this happening. That really tells me that the failure is related to the stresses the capsule went through returning to Earth. Really wouldn't be surprised if salt water corrosion caused a tank to burst. That's probably the best case scenario right now, because that points to problems reusing the Dragon, as opposed to a major flaw with the design of the engine itself. If salt water is ruled out and this actually was a result of a major design flaw of the Superdraco engine, then CCP has been dealt a substantial setback indeed.
 
Last edited:

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
5,017
Reaction score
1,254
Points
188
Location
Dallas, TX
Seems a bit rash no?
If we tar all LES thursters with the same brush how can we innovate?

LES thrusters, really, probably shouldn't be very innovative. The rest of the spacecraft, sure, but for launch escape you want reliability and safety, not cutting edge. It's a seatbelt, not an engine, so to speak.

Of course, SpaceX was trying to do propulsive landing, but that had already been abandoned.

Hypergolic propellants are a bomb if the tanks are ever breached, whereas a solid propellant will have its maximum burn rate in an intact chamber and will sputter out if the chamber develops spontaneous unplanned nozzles of significant size.

Hypergols are fine on lower stages, unmanned spacecraft, or in applications like RCS thrusters where the required quantities are small and less damaging if they do cook off, but I guarantee you that after this, no space agency will accept liquid fuel, integrated LES motors on a manned spacecraft.
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
491
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
"After the failure of Apollo 1, I can guarantee you that no country will fly to the Moon!"

But then technical changes were made...
 
Top