Morpheus Lander Crashes (With Video)
NASA’s Morpheus Lander Crashes During First Free Flight Attempt (with video)
“During its first attempt at free flight today at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, NASA’s Morpheus lander crashed and caught on fire. According to NASA PAO: “During today’s free-flight test of the Project Morpheus vehicle lifted off the ground and then experienced a hardware component failure, which prevented it from maintaining stable flight. No one was injured and the resulting fire was extinguished by KSC fire personnel. Engineers are looking into the incident and the agency will release information as it comes available.”
Keith’s 6:25 pm EDT 12 Aug update: An update has now been posted on the Morpheus Lander website. Looks like they’re going to push ahead.
Keith’s 3:00 pm 9 Aug EDT note: There have been no post-accident updates yet from @MorpheusLander (we wish them a speedy recovery and, hopefully, a re-launch soon). And although video of what was openly webcast on NASA TV is now on YouTube via a non-NASA source, NASA KSC PAO has yet to post the video that was broadcast.
Keith’s 11:15 am 1:50 4:00 7:25 pm EDT 10 Aug update: This video footage aired on CNN at least 3 times yesterday. It has been viewed on YouTube over 146,000 167,000 190,000 221,000 times. Yet neither Project Morpheus or NASA KSC have been able to post it on their websites yet. The video is online at NASA HQ. All you have to do is copy and paste the embed code.
OOPS
Condolences to the hardware team. But keep trying, this project is worth continuing and important to the future of manned space flight.
Next headline should read: “We learned much from the Morpheus failure”
Far better during test than when in operational use.
Just make sure we learn from the failure and forge ahead.
Testing is good….. even when you crash and burn…
Well, its back to the drawing board on this one.We all learn from failures,rebuild and repeat test to perfection. Press on,guys,and make this project mature into one of greatness its destined to be.
Kudos to KSC PAO Laurel Lichtenberger for her quick response to this, and sorry to the Morpheus team. They’ll be back, and better.
If you keep on eventually it works.
Given the almost immediate loss of attitude control, it looks to me like this problem might be a very basic issue and hopefully therefore easy to nail down. I’m glad it “burned” without any startling explosions (that’s a shot at Liberty, SRBs, and the old boys network). Hang in their Morpheus team; it’ll all come together.
I had a deja vu moment at first glance when the video started. Then I realized how much this looks just like an Armadillo test launch from the same stage (initial untethered) of their program.
I’m pleased that US space efforts continue to evolve away from the launch-vehicle-only emphasis that seemed to exist for far too long. What’s the sense in designing and building multiple variations of LVs before we know what the spacecraft and payloads are going to be? (that’s a shot at SLS and Congress.)
I’m particularly happy about Morpheus making progress for two reasons: 1) it, or it’s descendants, are obviously a potential candidate for BEO use; and 2) it is happening without any fanfare or universal interference, which is the correct environment for doing good engineering.
Steve
Armadillo had a finger in the pie.
Yes, Morpheus is a larger version of Armadillo’s Pixel plus inspace navigation and automated landing.
“I’m glad it “burned” without any startling explosions”
Errr, boom at 28 seconds.
Paul,
True enough. I should have picked a better word than startling. From first signs of trouble to boom was a full 13 seconds, which is lots of time for crew escape, had there been a crew. And from what I could make out, neither the explosion nor the fire spread very far in 3D space. I don’t know if that was by design, but I consider it a plus if it’s repeatable in similar circumstances.
Steve
This was a rather typical liquid rocket failure such as a Delta 2 launching a GOES satellite around 1986 where the first stage lost attitude control and broke up. The debris didn’t go very far because it was close to the ground. There were also several explosions, perhaps when each tank exploded?
Mr. Whitfield,
It’s worth noting that Saturn was begun before Apollo and the lunar mission goal was even conceived. Had that not happened, it would have been impossible for Apollo to have been the success it was, certainly not in the same time frame. In fact, it’s very conceivable that Apollo would have gotten its essential political backing had Saturn and the F-1, RL-10, & J-2 engine programs not already been getting under way.
Bernardo,
I don’t consider comparing the Saturn program to today’s situation as apples and apples. Today we have more HSF LV models in design and in production than potential HSF spacecraft designs to launch with them. Saturn, on the other hand, was the first of its kind; a proof of concept. The Mercury and Gemini LVs were modified missiles — weapons systems revised for another purpose. Saturn admittedly employed technology and learning from weapons system predecessors (Juno, et al), but the Saturn LV stack was designed from scratch specifically and solely for HSF launches, and was had a lift capability well exceeding anything else in existence at the time. Proving that a HSF LV with the capabilities of the Saturn V was even possible was a necessary precursor to Apollo. That necessary precursor has not again existed since the moment in 1968 that Apollo 8 was a success.
Steve
I feel bad for the team, I have been there many times in my career. I hope that this test failure does not make NASA squeamish and pull further funding. As Heinlein once said, “Blowups happen”.
How are you supposed to learn from mistakes if you are not allowed to make them? Just don’t make the same mistake twice.
Maybe they can ask Armadillo for help on the failure investigation, that crew has a lot of lessons learned that they could teach the NASA crew (if they are willing to listen).
The Morpheus program at JSC is repeating the work done by other autonomous vehicle programs in the past (such as Viking, DC-X, etc.) There is no question that JPL is THE center of excellence in NASA for this as was clearly demonstrated on Mars a few days ago.
I have no idea why JSC is pursuing this “re-inventing the wheel” waste of taxpayers’ money. Building a replacement vehicle is pointless.
“
I have no idea why JSC is pursuing this “re-inventing the wheel” waste of taxpayers’ money. Building a replacement vehicle is pointless.”
Gonzo I have been thinking about this since Morpheus surfaced. This capability is a standard block in a number of contractor’s toolkits… perhaps this is considered training for the new generation?…
JPL also crashed 2 spacecraft in to Mars for stupid reasons. Keeping these skills alive elsewhere is a smart idea.
Yes, but not because they couldn’t control a simple hover. This discussion is not about the fact that it crashed, shit happens, everyone knows. The discussion is about the fact that it even exists.
This is a 7 million dollar project. By aerospace standards it is practically free. Also, it is a methane engine. I don’t think any of the other lander designs use methane.
Building something extremely cheaply is a worthwhile exercise. Old school engineering is to adjust a parameter until it fails and back off 20% 😉 In this case the parameter is cost.
No because they did even dumber things like not realizing that one person was using metric units and another was using english units.
JPL made a human communication mistake in an otherwise incredibly difficult project.
From what I have been seeing, this project’s existence is itself the problem. The crash just took it out of its misery.
Here, again: http://www.youtube.com/watc…
Get over it Keith. It was a decade ago and now there’s an one ton rover sitting on Mars. ‘Nuff said.
A variety of factors contributed to the loss of the MCO in addition to the failure (by both the sending and receiving organizations) to specify units for the burn impulse. Other problems included very limited overall funding, resulting in the need for shortcuts including separation of navigation and guidance responsibilities, the unanticipated effects on the spacecraft trajectory caused by the asymmetric solar panel, which initially caused it to “drift off course” without a clear explanation, and the unanticipated effects of the averaging of navigational fixes to improve precision. The initial fixes obtained after the burn were based mainly on data obtained before the burn, and the course appeared correct. As post-burn fixes accumulated and contributed more to the calculated position, an error appeared and seemed to be gradually increasing. The discrepancy between directional and doppler navigational data was also noted but not explained. Finally, management was overly hesitant to change what still appeared to be a safe course when the cause of the discrepancy was not clear.
JPL seems to have learned quite a bit from the experience. One would hope that communication and cooperation between the centers and between NASA and contractor organizations is adequate (at both the speaking and listening ends) for us all to learn from each other’s mistakes, and not merely from our own.
If one shortcuts around testing, the flight article becomes the test vehicle. The real tragedy of MCO is that it caused NASA to abandon (only temporarily, we hope) the faster-better-cheaper philosophy.
Moose,
I think your use of the word “toolbox” says it all. In the “spacefaring future” that most of us here dream about, Morpheus-type units will be treated like screwdrivers are today — including the idea that they are multipurpose and you would never consider using one once and then throwing it away. We won’t ever “conquer” space until we have adequately stocked “toolboxes.”
Steve
I’m guessing that you also think that Rep. Wolf was on the right track by wanting to eliminate redundancy in CCDev by reducing the number of awards?
No they are not repeating the work of others. The engine is new and still under development and testing. The flight software was developed by Goddard. It would be nice if people would at least read wiki. Just my thoughts. – Ralphy
In all previous tests, save one, Morpheus’ engine was started while M. was dangling from a tether, true? The one other test was a firing with M. held down on the ground. If so M. experienced its greatest vertical acceleration and motion in this test. It will be interesting to learn what hardware failed.
MSFC has been flying an a fully autonomous robotic lander, the WGTA, for well over a year. The vehicle has flown both indoors and outdoors and at altitudes of up to 100 feet. The propulsion system, including all pulse and throttle valves, and the hydrogen peroxide rocket motors, was designed and built from scratch, by the former Orion Propulsion company (now part of Dynetics) for NASA. Teledyne Brown Engineering built the structure. The vehicle was built to develop automatic landing algorithms. Check it out.
The vehicle was built to develop automatic landing algorithms.
While corporate America is busy furiously and painfully hacking away at redundancy to survive these lean, challenging times, NASA chooses to go in the opposite direction by fattening itself with duplicate programs at various centers. The fact that these programs don’t support any missions in the foreseeable future is even more wasteful.
It’s time NASA cut the fatty pork before the whole agency is perceived as wasteful and redundant.
The Warm Gas Test Article (WGTA) is much smaller than the Morpheus lander. The payload of the WGTA has not been revealed but appears to be a few pounds, where as Morpheus can land half a tonne.It is quite normal for companies to sell products in different sizes. The customers buys the appropriate size. A small one normally costs less than a large one but 10 small ones frequently cost more than one large one.
WGTA was never intended for payload. The whole point of that project was to test guidance algorithms for landing on an airless body using pulse mode thrusters while being able to hover for 30 seconds. It was actually a follow-on to the compressed air powered Lunar Lander Test Bed (which could only fly for 10 sec), which was a follow-on to the Ames-developed cold gas lander that can only fly for 4 seconds (and now belongs to GLXP team Moon Express). Each of these landers also have an important distinction, an Earth-g cancelling thruster that allows the lander to fall like it is on the moon. I am not sure if Morpheus had this feature.
If you want to learn more about these landers, Dynetics presented a paper about it at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference last week. Also, NASA has good websites about it as well.
Sounds like an interesting paper to read.
Morpheus goes in for a 3 minute burn to slow down from orbital speed. Hovering is performed using deep throttling. The maximum Earth is restricted compared with the lunar payload.
That was a total failure. Why does Nasa continue with Morpheus project when you have private companies like Masten and Armadillo who have mastered this type of free-flight Landers. It’s obvious to me that Morpheus is years behind in comparison to these private companies, so why doesn’t Nasa contract to them completely and cancel Morpheus and save us some money!
According to the article on spaceflightnow.com, Armadillo is part of Morpheus.
The Morpheus was developed in cooperation with Armadillo. From the look of it, it is an Armadillo design.
This is NASA Houston/JSC excellence in action. As others have posted, the
Morpheus program at JSC is repeating the work done by other autonomous
vehicle programs in the past. This error looks rather fundamental since it never got off the ground. If it was meant to be a learning experience, some program with experience should have been on the lead. I don’t know how this kind of crap ever gets funded, it is serious gross oversight and many are proud of it.
JSC needs a major civil servant RIF. This center and MSFC have notoriously idiotic civil servants are a plague to anything progressive in spaceflight. Many of them are extremely conservative and preach the anti-federal gospel anyway, so it should work out.
We could divert their budget to JPL programs and SpaceX contracts and be on mars in a decade.
JPL and SpaceX also have their own records of spectacular failures just as JSC and MSFC also have their own records of spectacular successes. No doubt each of them will have spectacular successes and failures to come, as will others. Such is the nature of pushing the frontiers of technology.
The only thing counterproductive in this situation is deliberately incendiary sniping from the peanut gallery like your comment.
I’ve been biting my tongue for quite some time, but I’m becoming extremely disappointed by the unhealthy obsession with what other people should NOT be doing that is becoming so prevalent on this blog.
To be fair, there are a number of other frequent commenters deserving of the same rebuke, but your comment is as deserving as any to be called out for unwarranted arrogance and conceit. Unless you can point to where you have personally done it better yourself, who are you to sit in judgement of folks who are least trying to actually DO something?
This persistent whining about who and what should NOT get funding is becoming quite detrimental to useful discussion on a purportedly space flight enthusiast blog.
Sorry Bernardo, but you’re wrong on several counts. 1) the Morpheus team isn’t actually pushing the frontiers of technology in any way shape or form. Sorry, but they aren’t actually doing anything new. 2) Being a space enthusiast does not mean you become an instant fan-boy of every project that anyone ever dreams up. As a space enthusiast its healthy to understand not only what is happening technically but also how should the technical things be implemented and that sometimes means shifting things to organizations with the proper skill set to get the job done!!! JSC shouldn’t be doing this type of work. There are other NASA organizations that have the correct skills (and a hell of a lot less egomaniacs) to do this job, and still make it appealing to the public and have it be low cost.
Would those other NASA organizations, with the correct skill sets, do this for under 10 million?
It was my understanding it was the absolute low costs involved is why it was here?
The number you hear quoted did not include the burdened labor costs for the 50-60 FTEs the program manager mentioned were working the project. Once you add those in, you’re talking somewhere close to what Burt Rutan spent winning the X-Prize. “Cheap” by NASA standards maybe, but not cheap by industry standards.
NASA loves to spend the funny money (civil servant labor) because they can make things look much cheaper than they really are.
test
Regarding 1) do you have anything that shows they aren’t doing anything new or are you just saying that if you’ve seen one lander you’ve seen them all? The Morpheus project webpage describes why it is unique. I’m willing to listen as to how they are wrong.
Morpheus did get off the ground, it just flow in a curve to the right rather than straight up. So the steering needs fixing. That will probably take about a week to cure.
These landers appear to be sufficiently cheap that other projects can save money by buying one rather than developing their own.
I’m sure the Moprheus team feels pretty frustrated today, but it is good to see NASA taking real risk to push the boundaries of technology. I’m sure with a slow enough schedule and a big enough budget, this failure could have been avoided, but that it is outweighed by the success Morpheus has achieved to date and has the potential to achieve that would have been impossible had they spent the time and money to eliminate all risk.
Congratulations for having the courage to risk failure.
Folks:
The first time I saw the video, I must have had the same sinking feeling as the test team. I told my girlfriend to ‘wait for it…’ as it burned on it’s side. “What…” she asked. Boom! “That!” says I as the first oxygen tank explodes.
Shades of DC-X, eh? A lesson there. Many rockets have failed during launch over the decades, but, except for the early years of spaceflight, not many failures have happened close too the ground. With vertical powered landing in works by a number of companies, we’re going to have the potential of more vehicle accidents at low altitude. Beef up the hardware I guess. Is anyone using ‘fuzzy logic’ in software these days? It was very fault tolerant (almost on the scale of analog systems).
We gotta get this right this time instead of being 1960 all over again. The DC-X accident set back vertical landing tests back a decade… because of a landing gear failure. All I can think of is TransHab and the HL-20 pulled from the dust bin, projects that languished because of non or simple engineering issues. There’s a few left kicking around to get revived too.
tinker
“We gotta get this right this time instead of being 1960 all over again”
Tinker,
That’s it in a nut shell. Power without control gets you nowhere.
Steve
The image of Morpheus on its side brought back memories of Neil Armstrong’s LLRV crash.
According to NASA, the reason for Morpheus is that it has a new engine that uses liquid methane which can be created from ice on the moon or mars. Also the ISS dumps enough waste methane to provide fuel as well. There is a reason for their madness. Also they are trying to do this on the cheap. Could LockMart or Boeing build it like they built the MSL lander(they were prime contractors)? Yeah, sure but for some odd reason NASA wants to do this itself, cheaply as possible. Read about it:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers…
Thus sayeth Wiki “Having spent less than $7 million over 2.5 years, the Morpheus project is considered lean and low-cost for NASA.”.
Also Morpheus uses spaceflight software that was developed at Goddard.
MSL was NOT built by Boeing or Lockheed Martin.. It was built at JPL. Perhaps you are thinking of other JPL missions (Juno, MRO, Phoenix) where Lockheed was the spacecraft contractor? The rovers have all been built at JPL (Sojourner, MER, MSL).
No, wiki stated that Boeing and Lockmart were the major contractors. Unless… wiki meant the United Launch Alliance which used an Atlas V to launch it from Canaveral? If so, why didn’t wiki state ULA ? The ways of wiki are mysterious…
The radiation hardened computer was built by BAE systems out of Virginia.
Why don’t you ask the wiki editors? Go to the page, click on Talk, and begin a discussion to clarify the matter.
btw, this incident looks exactly like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
except without the crane…
Yes. It does. I feel sorry for the team, but you know the finger pointing must have already started at least internally. Each NASA sponsored test is (or should have been) evaluated in a Test Readiness Review. In the TRR, the risks have been explained to the managers and they chose to accept or reject the test based on the perceived readiness of the hardware, software, ground equipment, etc. etc. and the test team personnel. How “clean” was the review?
Now, a loss like this will trigger a Mishap Investigation Board which is going to uncover every bit of management and organizational failures that may have or not had anything to do with the accident. There will be finger pointing and bickering. It bothered me the vehicle looked under powered and looked “heavy” as it lifted off. It’s like balancing a baseball bat on the palm of your hand. If you veer off too much from the center, you cannot recover and it topples over. It was indeed a sickening feeling when you see it go over. Condolences to the team who assembled and tested this. It is a personal loss for each and every one in there. To the managers, suck it up and eat some humble pie, you fools.
“Monday Morning Quarterback”
It didn’t look under powered to me. It appeared to be purely a control issue.
My question is why was this being done at all under JSC. Isn’t Marshall and Stennis and Glenn responsible for propulsion?
Reminds me of the X-38 project. Isn’t Langley and Dryden the main aeronautical design and testing centers?
And yet JSC, who is responsible for ISS control, has to contract out to the Draper Labs for new algorithms to control the ISS while it has engineers wasting time on this?
Principal objectives are to keep them off the
street in Houston (it’s dangerous in the real world where you have to do
something productive and meaningful) and it keeps the economy humming along
(repeating the past is shovel ready). It just keeps getting better and better
at NASA! It keeps you on the edge of your seat trying to figure out what they
will wow you with next. Tang perhaps?
And to those SpaceX naysayers who claim SpaceX isn’t doing anything
special because NASA has done it all before, it didn’t help these NASA
employees that they had done it all before. And the 70+ years
experience doesn’t seem to be a guarantee for the Russian program
either.
Not saying that SpaceX didn’t have failures with the Falcon 1 or that the won’t have any in the future. But things like this and the recent Russian failures does put things into perspective for me and I have to give SpaceX their due credit.
One reason that SpaceX still has significant developmental challenges for their LAS approach and especially to use it for landings.
yes i can’t wait to see how tinker will spin this into “nasa will SHARE this data with spacex and then they will make a lander for a nickel just write them a check and step back ooooh it’s gonna be sooooo awesome… and in a few years i’ll be out of college… annd….”
If you can’t play nice, at least please keep it to yourself.
Steve
“They’re just jealous coz we’re young and in love.”
Yeah! LOL I was young once. Looking back, it seems like a lot of work, now. I guess part of growing older is that I’ve learned to bite my tongue instead of someone eles’s head off, since it doesn’t require one to have a follow-up.
Steve
This is what test flights are for-learning. I think Morpheus is as much a JSC training program, training engineers to do things that human space flight has not done for 40 years or longer. JSC has a long tradition of developing rocket propulsion systems, though little in recent years. It is not something that is unique to other centers like MSFC.
It is interesting that the crash comes so soon after the successful Curiosity landing. On the one hand it tells the public that NASA does not always succeed, but on the other hand it shows in some ways just how difficult the Curiosity landing was.
What does not come out adequately in all of the Morpheus public information releases are the reasons for the program, whether for educating engineers to something NASA has not done in decades, or the fact that the fuel is something that might be harvested from the moon or mars soil. The testing and crash is exactly the kind of event that demands NASA put out a short release explaining what the program is all about. It might be the only time anyone pays attention. Sorry to say I have not seen a suitable public information release. That was the failure.
“I think Morpheus is as much a JSC training program, training engineers
to do things that human space flight has not done for 40 years or
longer.”
From what I understand, this is one of the unstated objectives of the program – getting engineers who have gotten comfortable with ops into a situation where they’re having to design something and produce results at low costs and on relatively short timescales.
If so, I would consider it an objective more noble than sensible. Trees are not ducks, and vice versa.
Steve
An experimental vehicle that crashes? Now that’s never happened in the history air flight and spaceflight before:-)
The Wright Brother’s aircraft killed 11 people from 1912 to 1913. The V-22 Osprey killed 30 people during its flight development from 1991-2000. US test pilots during the 1940s and 1950s had a 25% chance of dieing in a fatal plane crash during their careers. Space X has had three launch failures during the development of it Falcon spacecraft.
In the history of aerospace, you almost always learn through your failures.
Marcel F. Williams
As you suggest, in engineering you tend to learn a lot more from your failures than your successes.
Just got near internet.
Cool to see some testing going on 🙂
Now I get to learn about Morpheus 🙂
Good to seework being done for my future 🙂
The Tick Pilot LOL
Nobody caught the total hilarious Irony that happened at JSC with this Morpheus test….
Who was a guest inside the ISS Mission Control room at JSC the same day?
Smokey the Bear 🙂
http://www.redorbit.com/new…
As others have said, I am all for this kind of lean (compared to typical NASA projects) development that the Morpheus project is doing. And it’s NOT a failure. This was a TEST, they got data and will use it to improve the design. Morpheus is unique and worth my tax payer contribution.
Keith, who cares whether the video is posted on the NASA website in a timely fashion or not? NASA has never been know for having rapid website updates. There are plenty of other sources to view the video as you have so frequently pointed out.
Big price drop for a ticket on the first passenger flight.
When I saw the first tethered test I started doing some investigating. This testing should have been shut down immediately. JSC is totally unequipped to do this safely. Incredibly reckless. Did I mention the public highway that sits barely over 1000 feet away? Or the elementary school that sits barely over 1800 feet away?
Incredibly stupid.
The tests were performed at KSC, hundreds of miles away from Space Center Elementary. Incredibly reckless of you to ignorantly levy invalid criticism.
Incredibly stupid.
Space Center Intermediate School might be what you are referring to here.
Based on the size of the vehicle and the video, the explosive potential did not seem that great and apparently the fuels were not hazardous. The crane and tethers did not permit the vehicle to go loose at JSC and presumably that was why they sought a larger area for testing, like KSC, for free flights. I’m a little surprised they did not go someplace like White Sands or DFRC where the vacant territory and lack of vegetation makes the potential for environmental problems much less likely. But, no doubt, the Test Readiness Review and the Safety overseers reviewed all of this well in advance and gave a proper go ahead.
The public highway you refer to is Saturn Drive ( a four lane street). The elementary school you refer to is actually Space Center Intermediate. But the most important mistake in you post might be the actual location for the launch – KSC – not JSC!
Wonder how far that crash was from the elementary school?
Roughly 1000 miles.
This crash was at KSC.
Which you would have known if you had just read even the first sentence of Mr. Cowing’s summary before ranting.
about 1200 miles
I have 1200 miles; do I hear 14?, 1200 going once…
I do hope the Morpheus team had an engineering test article and back-up hardware that allows them to quickly be able to assemble and begin testing of their back-up. If they have no back-up then its all for nought and they start over essentially from scratch.
Something could have weakened the structure during transport from Texas to Florida. The first flight after the transport was the test to determine if the transport was successful.
Hopefully they didn’t just cross their fingers and send it up in the hope of seeing whether it would survive. It should have gotten a serious check out prior to flight. The first engine on test should have been at a very low altitude, just getting off the ground and holding position. It would be interesting to understand where it went wrong.
Skinny isn’t all this part of the problem today? The reason we do less.
When Robert and I worked together we blew up lots of stuff.
Esther Christine Goddard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
http://www.clarku.edu/resea…
MSFC shows JSC how it’s done with the Mighty Eagle lander.
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
Fuel – hydrogen peroxide. There may be a way of making this on the Moon and Mars, ask the ISRU (In-situ Resource Utilisation) people.
A bit small to be a lander but may be able to carry tools and machines to the top of mountains, and roll out cables across craters. Cables could be power, communications or support for cable cars.
These are jobs the Morpheus lander may be too big for.