backtop

Print 50 comment(s) - last by johnsmith9875.. on Aug 17 at 10:05 AM

Morpheus up in flames
No one was on board, but the crash cost NASA $500,000

A NASA moon lander prototype crashed and exploded during testing yesterday afternoon.

The moon lander, called Morpheus, is a prototype spacecraft that is meant to carry around 1,100 pounds of cargo to the moon for future NASA space missions. Its engine is partially powered by methane.

The project has been ongoing for about two and a half years and has cost around $7 million.

But on Thursday afternoon, Morpheus took a dive during an engine test and then exploded about 30 seconds later. No one was inside of the spacecraft when the crash occurred.

"The vehicle itself is lost," said Jon Olansen, Morpheus project manager. "But we are working currently on gathering more data and information to understand what occurred in the test and how we can learn from it and move forward."

To do this, the Morpheus project team will pull memory devices from the wrecked spacecraft and study the exact events that led to the crash. While the team isn't 100 percent sure yet, it suspects hardware issues.

Thursday's crash and burn cost NASA about $500,000, but the team added that this is why tests are performed in the first place. It's all part of the development process.

While NASA continues working on its transportation to the moon, it can continue celebrating its recent successful landing on Mars. Earlier this week, Mars rover Curiosity landed safely on the Red Planet in the Gale Crater, where it will explore for signs of life for two years. Curiosity is a one-ton, nuclear-powered, six-wheeled, Mini Cooper-sized machine that was originally called the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL).

The following is a video of the crash:

Source: CNN


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Another Morpheus Lander was already under construction.
By m51 on 8/10/2012 12:19:01 PM , Rating: 5
Early word is that the primary Inertial Measurement Unit failed 600 milliseconds after liftoff. The thrust vector control put the nozzle hard over to one side and flipped the lander into the ground.

This will be an interesting test of NASA will to see if they continue on with the project or if funding gets cut or cancelled for this.

If they wimp out it's going to be a very bad sign for the future of NASA.




By WalksTheWalk on 8/10/2012 12:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
The first rule in NASA\Government spending: Why make one when you can make two at twice the price?

NASA won't cut this project all together. They NEED to go to the moon again to show the world how great they are. Once it happens everyone will cheer and praise NASA.

Let the down rating commence...


By Belard on 8/10/2012 1:38:09 PM , Rating: 3
That's from a movie.


By WalksTheWalk on 8/10/2012 5:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it's from Contact, paraphrased, when Hadden surprises Ellie and drops the news that there's a second machine being built in Japan. :)


By Schrag4 on 8/13/2012 2:30:54 PM , Rating: 3
Ok I realize it's from a movie and all, but does building the second of anything ever come anywhere near the cost of building the first? Isn't a lot of the cost of the first one just figuring out how to build it in the first place? Also, if special machinery had to be bought or built in order to build the first one, you don't have to buy that again, right?


By JediJeb on 8/13/2012 2:53:24 PM , Rating: 1
In real life yes, but in NASA/Government life, you just make everything again just because you can.


By room200 on 8/10/2012 10:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
In other words, it lifted up a little bit and fell over.


By PaFromFL on 8/11/2012 8:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
When you have explosive unmanned vehicles flying around, redundant inertial sensors ought to be required. If two inexpensive (MEMS?) sensors disagree with the main IMU, you could go into limp mode for a hard (but not crash) landing. Also, the launch software could have tested for abnormal launch conditions (such an abnormal tilt when launching, or a physically impossible attitude rate of change), and shut down.


By NellyFromMA on 8/13/2012 8:05:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's like you should have been designing it!?!? Maybe they're hiring.


By Natch on 8/13/2012 8:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
They should name the next one Neo. Not only will it fly better, it will be able to dodge meteors!


By esandrs on 8/13/2012 2:57:40 PM , Rating: 3
When the next one is ready, it won't have to dodge meteors.


6 minutes for the fire truck
By Greene1980 on 8/10/2012 12:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't they have the fire truck on stand by? Took about to the 6 minutes for the truck to get there.

Maybe to let it burn some of the fuel off? What about all the data that might have been saved if they had put out the fire a bit sooner?




By alpha754293 on 8/10/2012 2:01:13 PM , Rating: 3
Because the last thing you'd want is for it to crash INTO the fire truck.


RE: 6 minutes for the fire truck
By Bostlabs on 8/10/2012 4:52:53 PM , Rating: 4
Those explosions looked like a great reason as to why the trucks didn't rush right up to the site and start hosing it down. But that was my first thought as well. "Why isn't a firetruck there?... BOOM! Oh!"
Even Firemen don't want to be near something that still has a lot of highly explosive fuel.


RE: 6 minutes for the fire truck
By FaaR on 8/10/2012 9:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's of course much safer to just let it burn itself out, considering the volatility of the fuel involved and whatnot; the vehicle itself is already a complete writeoff already, it's not as if it really matters if a crashed rocket wreckage is a bit more wrecked after the flames have died out. It's going to get scrapped either way.


Eh
By km9v on 8/10/2012 12:28:12 PM , Rating: 5
That will buff right out.




RE: Eh
By ARoyalF on 8/10/2012 9:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO that comment made my day.


RE: Eh
By Alexvrb on 8/11/2012 8:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
Uh oh, better get Maaco.


Response Time
By ender707 on 8/11/2012 3:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
Good to know that it takes about 9 minutes for fire crews to respond to experimental test flights for NASA.




RE: Response Time
By Divide Overflow on 8/12/2012 12:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Good to know you think the important metric is firefighter response times to a crashed prototype rocket. Perhaps you can give it a go next time? With luck, you can make it there right before it explodes.


RE: Response Time
By Camikazi on 8/12/2012 10:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
There is a reason the firefighters won't go near it quickly that reason is highly explosive fuel. You get near a crashed rocket like that and you take the risk of being caught in an explosion from the fuel going off. The rocket was done no recovery so why would they put themselves at risk of dying or injury just to try and turn it off a few seconds faster?


RE: Response Time
By JediJeb on 8/13/2012 3:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they could have built some sort of automated fire suppression system at the pad to help in such an event? Something like what is below the Shuttle launch platform to dump lots of water quickly on the spot, or simple CO2 vents near it?


Chips
By Bostlabs on 8/10/2012 12:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm assuming that those chips that were mentioned in the article were in a black box. That fire and explosions looked pretty intense.

Hose it down boys and lets see what happened.




RE: Chips
By MrBlastman on 8/10/2012 12:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
If you look closely at the few sections of ignition and liftoff (sounds really cool btw), you'll notice that the exhaust cone tilts like it is trying to thrust vector. It looks like the gyroscope could have failed.


RE: Chips
By Bostlabs on 8/10/2012 4:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hah!
Yup thanks for pointing that out. I missed that my first two views of the video.


I know the problem...
By dbwells on 8/10/2012 12:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
They forgot to say "1"!




RE: I know the problem...
By rjwerth on 8/10/2012 1:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed....how the heck are they supposed to be able to get things in space if they can't even conduct a countdown correctly??


RE: I know the problem...
By Bostlabs on 8/10/2012 4:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
New math.

2 then 0. Ok... :/ LOL!


Cost of progress
By corduroygt on 8/10/2012 1:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
The path to success is filled with failures.




RE: Cost of progress
By Schadenfroh on 8/12/2012 10:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
Trying is the first step towards failure.


I guess...
By MrBlastman on 8/10/2012 11:56:24 AM , Rating: 3
It ate the blue pill...




By Arsynic on 8/10/2012 1:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't news. This is what can happen during a test.




Morpheus...
By whitt107 on 8/10/2012 4:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
Morpheus, Winged messenger and Greek god of dreams... bet they wish this was just a nightmare...




Support rig?
By EricMartello on 8/12/2012 8:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
If you spend the time and money to build something like that, why not spend a little extra time and money to build a support rig for testing so that if it were to fail it would not crash? This could have been avoided. Once they get it right testing it on the rig, THEN go to a free-flight test.




What am I missing here?
By crispbp04 on 8/13/2012 9:42:14 AM , Rating: 2
what's wrong with the apollo designs? They were further along 50 years ago




Worst thing to see ever
By johnsmith9875 on 8/17/2012 10:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
Something like that happen when you're standing on the moon, and your ride home flips over and burns.




Software Failure
By wakeboarder205 on 8/10/12, Rating: -1
Just wondering....
By mphilli7823 on 8/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Just wondering....
By bobsmith1492 on 8/10/2012 12:30:54 PM , Rating: 4
This is an automated control system. Armstrong flew the lunar lander manually. He had his own internal gyroscope that didn't fail. :-)


RE: Just wondering....
By geddarkstorm on 8/10/2012 12:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's sad watching all that hard work go up in smoke so quickly. Hardware failures suck, but this is just a prototype, so these sort of issues are meant to be hammered out now, long before the finished device.


RE: Just wondering....
By BigEdMan on 8/10/2012 3:43:00 PM , Rating: 3
Keep in mind the Apollo missions accomplished their lunar landings aided by a computer almost as advanced as what you would find in a modern day greeting card.


RE: Just wondering....
By FaaR on 8/10/2012 9:31:06 PM , Rating: 2
As the LEM had a centrally mounted rocket engine it was an inherently unstable device. Trusting a mere human being to be able to keep that thing upright while it's continuously losing mass (due to burning off rocket fuel and oxidizer in its engine), whilst simultaneously also actively moving and searching for a landing site is probably a bit too much to ask of him.

Yes, the Apollo capsule indeed had a flight computer assisted by gyros/inertial tracking system.


RE: Just wondering....
By JKflipflop98 on 8/11/2012 9:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
. . . a flight computer that failed during the landing sequence. Hence the comment about Ol' Neil laying it down by hand.


RE: Just wondering....
By FaaR on 8/11/2012 2:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
It didn't fail. It encountered a program error, which it subsequently recovered from.


RE: Just wondering....
By 91TTZ on 8/10/2012 1:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
It makes you wonder? Why don't you just come out and say it- that you believe in Moon landing conspiracies?


RE: Just wondering....
By SPOOFE on 8/10/2012 3:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Because the Hoaxies have learnt to slowly creep up on their victims instead of leaping out of the bushes.


RE: Just wondering....
By Omega215D on 8/10/2012 4:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
Hell, the conspiracy theorists are using the celebration of the Curiosity Rover to further their stupidity.


RE: Just wondering....
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2012 3:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
So days after Lord666 gets reamed for his ignorant and short-sighted view on space travel, and his idiotic Moon landing conspiracy theories, "mphilli7823" comes out of nowhere with ONE post. About the Moon landing being faked.

Kinda makes ya wonder...


RE: Just wondering....
By anactoraaron on 8/10/2012 8:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
...It's the same guy!!!!one!!ONE!!!


RE: Just wondering....
By Omega215D on 8/10/2012 4:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you didn't learn a lick of history concerning the space missions.

Many test flights were done on earth for the Apollo missions. According to some astronauts it was the most horrible thing to fly (since it was designed slightly differently to cope with earth's gravity and atmosphere) compared to the actual modules heading for the moon.

Now just imagine an automated system trying to do the same thing.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki