SpaceX Crew Dragon Anomaly Occurred During Super Drago Static Fire
In this photo taken from a Kennedy Space Center tour bus, an orange plume rises from a SpaceX Crew Dragon test vehicle after an accident during engine testing at Cape Canaveral (????: @fsedano). FULL STORY: https://t.co/9RbqgB0jKo pic.twitter.com/RLfaIZeY8M
— Spaceflight Now (@SpaceflightNow) April 21, 2019
NASA has released the following statement from NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine:
The NASA and SpaceX teams are assessing the anomaly that occurred today during a part of the Dragon Super Drago Static Fire Test at SpaceX Landing Zone 1 in Florida. This is why we test. We will learn, make the necessary adjustments, and safely move forward with our Commercial Crew Program.
SpaceX has been scheduled to conduct an in-flight abort test using the Super Drago engines in June. That test would use the same Crew Dragon spacecraft that successfully flew to the International Space Station last month.
A flight test to the space station with crew would follow in July. Both those flights could be delayed depending upon the outcome of the investigation into today’s anomaly.
UPDATE NO. 1, 5:53 pm PDT: Source at the Cape says the Crew Dragon that flew to ISS last month was destroyed in an explosion. In-flight abort and flight test to ISS scheduled for June and July, respectively, have been postponed indefinitely.
UDPATE NO. 2, 6:08 pm PDT: Some uncertainty about which spacecraft was involved. Will update.
UPDATE NO. 3, 8:35 am PDT: Yeah, looks like the initial report was accurate. Appears to be the DM-1 spacecraft that flew to station.
27 responses to “SpaceX Crew Dragon Anomaly Occurred During Super Drago Static Fire”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Very unfortunate. Hopefully the cause will be discovered quickly and remediated shortly thereafter. Certainly hoping it won’t postpone the in-flight abort test too long.
Yep, there goes 2019.
Damnit
Maybe. Maybe not. Let’s see what the autopsy shows.
I’m not taunting you with this, only referencing past discussions. It’s always something. Something always fails and causes delays in new systems. It’s just part of doing this business. I see you’re holding out hope, but this is going to cause a delay, rework, and probably a reflight of the test we just had.
Agreed that we’re looking at inevitable delay here. It’s just a question of how much and we have no basis upon which to make any guesses here except SpaceX’s past record of promptly running down anomalies and fixing them. That suggests we might not be looking at an extended soap opera here.
If Matula is right and the problem is related to seawater exposure, that could require anything from a trivial to a time-consuming fix. If SuperDracos can’t take seawater up their bells, for instance, the simplest fix might be water-tight, re-entry-capable blow-off panels over the bells of the SuperDracos.
Or revisiting the whole issue of powered landings on terra firma.
Ouch. Major bummer folks.
Yes, Jeff, this is potentially a huge set-back for Dragon II. Those Super Draco engines need to be bullet proof. SpaceX needs potentially to build a Dragon II test article, drop from a chopper into the ocean, fish out, fire and re-fire the Draco’s without any hiccups, then, do it all again and again. Major bummer, indeed. Regards, Paul.
Or just decide to skip reusing the Dragon2 capsules after they have been soaked in the ocean. It’s not like NASA is going to need a lot of them, not at the flight rate needed to support the ISS. If I recall NASA was already requiring them to provide a new capsule for each flight so really the only difference would be just sending them to museums afterward instead of trying to find customers for reuse.
Alternately, NASA could decide it is too dangerous to have the abort systems built in the capsules. Recall that one of the reasons the Boeing CST-100 pad abort test has been delayed was due to issues with its abort system leaking. In which case you are looking at a major delay as both Boeing and SpaceX redesign their capsules to use external abort systems. In that case you may well see NASA decide to use the Orion, launched on a Delta Heavy, to service the ISS.
It would be expensive of course, even at two flights a year, to use the Orion that way, but so was it expensive to use the Shuttle Orbiter. It of course be a victory for Old Space.
Regardless, the root cause will have to be fully understood. Just saying “it’s because it was soaked in the ocean” is meaningless. This was not a minor failure or a little glitch. Even if it was because of being in the ocean, that’s a huge problem. SpaceX has royally screwed the pooch on this one.
Arguably worse that it was ever in the ocean, because you’ll never recreate that vehicle’s precise state ever again. What if you can’t find the problem on a brand new set of hardware? “Screwed the pooch” is right.
Yes, it will make it difficult to determine what happened. But more worrisome is the consequences of the failure. NASA will likely not trust having hyperbolic fuels that near the capsule, especially since there is a safer alternative, namely the traditional solid fuel tractor system similar to the one on Apollo and Orion. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out for Commercial Crew and see where the program goes from here.
Too bad Congress wasn’t willing to fund the development of a third crew module (the Dream Chaser), so that NASA could have more options that just the the CST-100 and the Dragon in case of accidents.
Marcel
LoL. You mean the Dreamchaser that has received money all these years and yet still hasnt flown? That one?
DC went several years with zero funding, except what SNC did.
This video isn’t looking great https://twitter.com/boringf…
A complete disintegration. I don’t think any astronaut wants to be on this thing any time soon
After watching that all I can say is thank God it happened on the ground. That is what testing is for. No doubt the loss of the hardware is a major setback but the SpaceX team is a resilient crew. Let’s see what the Accident Investigation Board finds and hope it is something straight forward rather than an issue with the base system architecture.
Ironic that this was a test of the escape system.
If it was the same capsule that flew DM-1 it is likely proof that despite NASA beliefs, space capsules and sea water don’t mix well.
Could be. I expect we’ll know in fairly short order. SpaceX isn’t inclined to let the grass grow in situations like this – and they’ve had a few.
They said they were having trouble with the temp of the engines. Must have got too high. They had better get Dragon-1 converted like they said they were going to do in ’12. Not doing what you say you are going to do sometimes comes back and bites you.
What are you even talking about? Its like you mix info from one place and apply it somewhere else without any logic. Sorry if you are going senile. Wait — is your name Gaetano?
have to wonder.
Preliminary. I think my credentials are good. I was the 1st to explain what happened to Amos through frame by frame. First. Next day SpaceX confirmed. So far this looks like a hypergolic leak explosion. I never liked using thrusters for abort. I like the proven SRM. Using these is experimental and a 1st. Looks like a bust. NASA lets people try stuff like this. But if it fails. I would not be surprised if they did not go back to a tower. BO’s NASA pusher abort worked with SRM. So they might use that. Certainly this system could be used for an emergency land landing. But like Soyuz a SRM could be used. This could run out of fuel though, just like SRM if not used correctly. Perhaps they could change to Green fuel. At 75% water it is hard to start, but also should be hard to explode. Not hypergolic. 2 fuels in separate tanks only coming together in combustion chamber would be safer. It could fire when combined or ignited with an igniter.
The code says be polite. So watch it or Doug will get you.
The temperature issue was for the little Draco thrusters and their lines freezing on orbit (not getting too hot). In any case this test was of Super Draco and the problem originated upstream of the thruster regardless. As usual you are making a hot mess of the analysis.
I guess I remember wrong. I I sure thought Bridenstine said too hot. Looks like a hypergolic explosion. No need to be insulting. I could return the insult if you like.
I figured out and proved that the helium leaked or exploded on Amos. I did a frame by frame of a video I took off a monitor. And it worked. If you go back far enough you can find it on DISQUS. It showed LOX pouring out of a large round hole. The tank over pressurized and blew out at this weak point. A hatch or blow out port. I guessed it was the helium tank again. SpaceX said next day that is what happened. I was 1st to come up with what happened. And they still say that from the evidence they found. I have not agreed on a cause. The suggested friction igniting a strand, I do not think possible. I have come up with a few causes. Like metal fatigue on the liner or they did not make it strong enough and loaded the helium 1st and did not have LOX loaded and at flight pressure to have less differential pressure. 5000psi – whatever the LOX pressure is. Perhaps 1 strand short. They changed loading to the old way and have not had any trouble. Shotwell said they may have changed loading procedure. So I am guessing what fixed it.They have never said if that was the cause or what the fix was.
Samuel L. Roman
I believe Elon made some off-the-cuff remark to the effect that a human could have safely ridden the first Dragon with just a couch and an aqualung. That hardly counts as a commitment to making Dragon 1 human-rated.
No joke.