Musk says SpaceX knows what caused the latest rocket failure
theverge.com
theverge.com
While the loss of the cargo is regrettable, it in no way is as damaging as the loss of 1-3 lived would have been on SpaceX.
So overall unlike humans there is actually pretty low chance for the cargo to survive intact and satellites isn't something you can just fix a dent in, taking it apart doing a full analysis of every component checking for stress, microfractures, and pretty everything else under the sun would probably cost just as much if not more than building a new one.
In this case insurance is pretty much the way to go, especially once you consider the added costs of actually building a LPAS or IFAS for satellites / in orbit release payloads and the fact that they have very little chance of surviving the abort without any damage.
But ITS, the Mars rocket from SpaceX, won’t have a launch abort system. At all.
Although look at the bottom of that link, operationally they've been a mixed blessing, saving one Soyuz crew, but another one wasn't safed after a scrubbed launch and killed a bunch of pad workers.
This stuff is hard, "rocket science" really does deserve its connotations of difficulty, and is inherently dangerous.
Shuttle had launch abort modes. There was a dead zone during SRB burn, but the rest of the assent had planned abort modes for saving the crew.
Not surprisingly not a single astronaut survived Columbia's depressurization at altitude, because of failure to engage active life support. (A blessing because they had a literal snowballs chance in hell of surviving what followed, but still...)
Shuttle's abort modes, including the bailouts, were premised on the craft being under control. Given the forces involves, if it wasn't under control it probably was about to disintegrate. But the same is true of spaceX-style capsule launches. Whether parachutes would correct a tumbling capsule, or rip it in half, is an open question. They both need to initiate abort procedures at least a millisecond before the craft departs into uncontrolled flight.
(And aborts can be triggered automatically, or by someone on the ground.)
A tumble should be fairly trivial to detect and fire only when the capsule's in its upwards pointing portion of the tumble. Plus, you'd only be firing into the ground if you're pretty early in the launch - the Dragon launch abort only sent it up a kilometer or so. Finally, the launch abort is pretty sensitive - deviating not far off the right direction should trigger it, before a full-on tumble.
Those alone made it a serious death trap, if you're designing man-rated systems, you like the big boosters to be liquid fueled because you can turn them off if needed, and in many if not most of the relevant failure modes they'll effectively do that anyway.
And getting back to my point, as echoed by others, none of these equal a launch escape system, a "Get me the hell out of here!" system for when things have gone horribly and irretrievably wrong with the main system.
Particularly unforgivable when it was billed as a boring space truck, when in reality it needlessly ran on the hairy edge in many of its systems. Add the post-Apollo NASA's public works attitude, and we ended up with NASA killing two shuttles and their crews.
By the same token, I heard first hand from the guy who developed the reentry vehicle that the crazy scheme of Apollo which left us with no operational hardware off the earth was done because it spent "a billion" (8 billion in 2016 dollars) more in Texas, where LBJ just happened to hail from, and back then the race to the moon project was explicitly hailed as a way to spend money in the South and increase its tech know-how.
You use rockets optimized to get from earth to the LEO station, to transfer between the two stations, then one to get to and from the Moon. Cheaper, and you keep long lived and potentially permanent assets up there, anything you loft to LEO is done at tremendous expense, course.
Two flies in the ointment for assets beyond LEO and not under a lot of lunar soil/rock:
Apollo was primarily a political stunt to convince the rest of the world our technology as good or better than the USSR's, who'd we'd let get out into space first to get them to establish the open skies principle that orbiting over someone else's territory wasn't spying (something they were insisting up to a week or month before Sputnik). Such assets were superfluous for the stunt, plus there was a very strong RFK/LBJ prejudice against any hint of military utility in NASA's space program.
That plus internal politics which allocated the initial catch-up job to a group which was only good at making truly impressive launch pad explosions put us on the back foot in terms of getting out into space, and the Soviets made a fairly serious effort to beat us to the moon, e.g. look up the N1 rocket.
Second, and seldom remembered is that the whole program was predicated a quiet Sun cycle, that's the determining reason I've read why the last two missions were canceled, the program had sufficient delays that it was getting into the danger zone, and Nixon wasn't about to kill an Apollo crew.
For some SF coverage of this, read Heinlein's Podkayne of Mars where during an interplanetary voyage all the passengers and crew had to huddle for a while into the small shielded space the craft had for such an event.
The approach of sending a large, but modular spacecraft all the way to the moon also proved to have the ability survive some rather interesting failure modes [1] so maybe it was not so crazy after all?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_ascent [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13#Accident
And, yet, that became part of the plan rather quickly, it and EVA (extra-vehicular activity) were the big flashy parts of Project Gemini, during which I started following it all in real time.
The SRBs had a way to turn them off by opening two exhaust ports near the top that would let the gasses out and neutralize the thrust.
But it's still a bit iffy, which is why cryogenic liquid fuels are the most common choice for human-rated launchers.
Short of not using them at all, exhaust ports at the top as mentioned by exDM69 sound like least worst option.
As you say, "a bit iffy", at the very minimum.
Horizontal re-entry also allows the capsule to 'fly' by trading horizontal velocity for lift, keeping it in the upper atmosphere for longer. That isn't an option when falling strait down.
But is it really meaningful for these ‘glass half full’ comments to sit at the top of every single Elon Musk thread?
This makes me wonder why the liquid oxygen wouldn't have the same effect? Liquid oxygen is itself an extremely reactive oxidiser (search YouTube videos.)
Why would one keep just a layer of hardened resin between all that oxygen and carbon? Seems like an accident waiting to happen.
Carbon fiber alone won't be enough to keep liquid helium at least from precipitating through it, the darn thing can leak through solid glass when it's cold enough.
Not sure about liquid oxygen, but still there is no carbon fiber on the inside of the tank, if nothing else than to ensure that no particulate matter ever gets into the fuel system.
I am like 90% sure that they filmed that as a 70's porno movie and just cut out all the "interesting" parts out to make this instruction video....
Case and Point: https://youtu.be/rUKcHe0-m_I?t=175 (same video just a time stamp at 2m 55s) potentially NSFW....
But honestly what drugs were the guys on when making this, and how the hell was this ever accepted by the USAF?!
On the other hand, it definitely makes things memorable.
This second failure again involves a similar liquid helium tank. Not one under flight stress, just sitting there on the pad. Similar failure, though - tank leaks, overpressurizes liquid oxygen tank, second stage explodes.
The Saturn V had helium tanks inside the liquid oxygen tanks, but they were compressed gaseous helium, not liquid helium. Has any other rocket design ever put a liquid helium tank inside a liquid oxygen tank?
[1] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/07/spacex-falcon-9-fail...
With CRS-7, there was acoustic evidence of the strut failing and the COPV smacking into the tank wall. With AMOS-6, the first indication of any event was the catastrophic failure of the COPV.
In either case, the location of the He tank isn't terribly relevant... It was going to destroy the rocket either way.
Well done to SpaceX for getting to this explanation, I am so glad this has not been blamed on a sniper hired by their rivals!!!
Right now we have a press release that is pretty thin on details from SpaceX. Not quite comparable.