In doing my usual space news perusing yesterday I came across news that a SpaceX Merlin engine had “exploded” on the test stand. As it would turn out, the engine didn’t explode, but what did happen is still interesting enough to discuss here. The article also shared a bit of new information with me that I wasn’t aware of regarding the current Falcon 9. Of course, the commentary provided is, worth noting.
As for what actually happened, this engine is a dedicated test model for the next version of the Falcon 9 rocket. While this engine wont fly, it’s a test version of the design, known as Merlin 1D, that will fly on the human-rated “Block 5” Falcon 9 rocket.
So what happened? The engine caught fire during leak checks, before any actual testing had happened. Damage was done to the test stand and I would imagine certainly the engine being tested. The news outlet, spaceflight now, keeps referring to this fire as an explosion and while it is possible there was a small explosion, this doesn’t sound like it was – reports are saying it was more than likely a liquid oxygen leak at the test stand itself, so really, the engine (according to reports) wasn’t even related to the actual issue.
Still, this makes you question exactly what went on. If it was just a leak at the test stand, why don’t the SpaceX executives just come out and say it? They always call things by cute terms for the general pulic, with any failure an “anomaly” even if it’s something they, for whatever reason, seem to easily dismiss.
I legitimately want to know details on what went on – video of the actual fire would be welcome. No, I’m not saying for a second they are lying but what I would like them to try to do is be more direct on what the hell does happen.
News outlets are, as I mentioned above, reporting the event as an explosion when it seems by all accounts to have been just a fire, albeit an intense one. This does make me question the kind of quality control going on here, and the kind of checks that test stands and such are going through, which brings up some nuance that I must go into here.
Remember, this booster exploded during on the ground testing, due to the failure of a component unrelated to the engine test that was to be preformed.
Yes, things can fail during a test. Hell, that’s what testing is for – to find where things can go wrong and use the data gained to solve the issue. I’m not faulting the company for a failure. What I do have to make comment on is the fact that this was, apparently, a leak that was bad enough to create a combustion situation intense enough to damage a test stand badly enough to take it out of commission for several weeks is still an incredibly uncommon error, just like the other “anomalies” that SpaceX has encountered over the years. It’s strange, and very uncommon for such to happen on a test stand these days.
That’s all. It’s always the odd things that remind us that SpaceX isn’t perfect.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/11/09/engine-for-upgraded-falcon-9-rocket-explodes-on-test-stand/
With that out of the way, I do want to make note of how the “Cult of SpaceX” is reacting to this, which is about what you would expect: sarcastic posts targeted at critics discussing how “surprising it is something would fail during testing“, which is not what critics are focusing on; defending how testing and failures are pathways to success, which yes, they certainly are; and lastly stressing these are new engine models under testing, and not flight units which again, yes, that’s the case.
Now, notice the common thread to all that – it’s pure defense. It’s automatically, quite literally, damage control. They just shrug it off and move on which in and of itself is right – This is a strange event, but I see it as an isolated occurrence. However, if this were to happen to, let’s say, NASA and the RS-25 engine tests down
in Stennis, or with a United Launch Alliance RD-180 engine test you already know they would be all over it talking about how terrible that company / agency is and how SpaceX would never have it happen with their glorious reusable rockets!
Hypocrisy, pure and simple. I’ve yet to see someone (beyond myself) actually admit that this was something that realistically shoudln’t have happened during a test. Your test subject should fail. Not the devices used to conduct the test!
I’ll provide links here, for you to be the judge.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41014.msg1747631#msg1747631
You might have to scour the last link, but look over the comments and notice the attitude presented – especially redirecting the discussion to attacking other companies, agencies, news and especially one person who attacks the “laded self important (non) experts” for, what exactly? Not buying everything Elon Musk is selling?
Right, that comment alone deserves its own article, but that’s enough of this for now. I really do want to know, however, where all these people who don’t like SpaceX hang out, because that’s a place I’d want to study on its own accord, to see if they are just critical and honest about the good and the bad, or if they are as feverishly against SpaceX as the fanbase is for it!
