HoloLens Headsets Destroyed in SpaceX Rocket Explosion

HoloLens Headsets Destroyed in SpaceX Rocket Explosion

The unmanned SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, which carried more than 2 tons of supplies including two HoloLens headsets, was airborne for mere minutes before exploding Sunday morning.

The rocket, named Dragon, exploded 139 seconds after its launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on Sunday morning. Dragon was carrying supplies to the International Space Station, where three astronauts currently have enough supplies left to last them four months. This marks the third failed resupply attempt in the last nine months.

Elon Musk, SpaceX's founder, tweeted Sunday morning that there had been "an overpressure event in the upper stage liquid oxygen tank. Data suggests counterintuitive cause."

"That's all we can say with confidence right now," Musk continued. "Will have more to say following a thorough fault tree analysis."

In a news conference, NASA Associate Administrator William Gerstenmaier said "This was a blow to us. We lost a lot of important research equipment on this flight." The rocket, which debuted in 2010 and had 18 successful flights prior to its demise, carried more than 2 tons of food and equipment, including a replacement water filtration system, a spacesuit, and docking adapter. However, he stressed "from a macro level standpoint, the crew is in no danger."

Also on board the rocket were two HoloLens headsets, intended to help develop a new program named Sidekick.

"Sidekick has two modes of operation. The first is "Remote Expert Mode," which uses Skype, part of Microsoft, to allow a ground operator to see what a crew member sees, provide real-time guidance, and draw annotations into the crew member's environment to coach him or her through a task," the NASA press release reads. "Until now, crew members have relied on written and voice instructions when performing complex repair tasks or experiments."

"The second mode is "Procedure Mode," which augments standalone procedures with animated holographic illustrations displayed on top of the objects with which the crew is interacting. This capability could lessen the amount of training that future crews will require and could be an invaluable resource for missions deep into our solar system, where communication delays complicate difficult operations."

Two Russian cosmonauts and an American astronaut are currently aboard ISS. More cargo missions are planned this summer, including Russian flights on July 3 and July 22, and a Japanese launch on August 16.

An investigation into the explosion will ground the Falcon 9 rockets for "a number of months or so" according to SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell.

"This is a reminder that spaceflight is an incredible challenge, but we learn from each success and each setback," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a statement. "Today's launch attempt will not deter us from our ambitious human spaceflight program."

Scott Kelly, the American astronaut on the ISS, stated "Day 93 Today was a reminder spaceflight is hard. Tomorrow is a new day. Good night from @space_station #YearInSpace" via tweet Sunday.

You can watch the full post-launch briefing below.

Permalink

That's a shame. But good that it was an unmanned rocket. Equipment can be replaced. Rocket designs can be revised.

I've commented before that one of the hardest parts of science is learning as much from the failures as from the successes. Well... if nothing else, this is one hell of a learning opportunity.

All rocket talk aside, those both sound like very practical applications for augmented reality tech, and I'm happy to learn such things are already in the works.

Anyone else think the Russians did it?

Silk_Sk:
Anyone else think the Russians did it?

No. That would be silly conspiracy theory nonsense. The Russians don't stand to gain anything from this failing.

OT: Argh. I hope they nail this whole "actually going to space" thing soon.

"This marks the third failed resupply attempt in the last nine months."

Anyone else smell incompetency? I know this is rocket science, but this shouldn't be happening.

Silk_Sk:
Anyone else think the Russians did it?

Let me point you to this point in the article.

Two Russian cosmonauts and an American astronaut are currently aboard ISS.

Cosmonauts are an extremely valuable national asset. There is no way Russia would profit from endangering two of them with only 4 months of supplies remaining.

Silk_Sk:
Anyone else think the Russians did it?

It would be a little hard to do that. Dr. No hasn't exactly been around, lately. I doubt there's a secret cadre of Russian agents in Florida, messing it all up.

OT: It's rough, but they'll have to make it soon. Either that, or somebody's gotta come down...

I'm 99% sure that at least some of that rocket reached orbit.

Overpressure event, meaning the pressure release valve failed to release pressure in the LOX tank as the rocket went higher into the atmosphere. Counterintuitive cause is BS for "unexpected." Well, as they say, "NSS." No one expects a catastrophic failure unless one is planning to clean up in the insurance racket. One would think in a world of, minimally, triple checks, that any mistake, however minute, would only be expected to happen at most once. One would also expect that after fifty years of experience sending a chemical rocket into orbit would be so mundane as to be as fault free as a bus ride to the park. One must always be prepared for disappointment, it appears, especially public disappointment in the mental acuity of rocket scientists.

Wiggum Esquilax:
I'm 99% sure that at least some of that rocket reached orbit.

No, not at that altitude, even with the extra thrust of an explosion. All fall down, go boom.

FalloutJack:

Silk_Sk:
Anyone else think the Russians did it?

It would be a little hard to do that. Dr. No hasn't exactly been around, lately. I doubt there's a secret cadre of Russian agents in Florida, messing it all up.

OT: It's rough, but they'll have to make it soon. Either that, or somebody's gotta come down...

Dr. No was Asian, most likely Chinese but possibly Korean.

Looks like a re-enactment of one of my launches in KSP (pick one of many). Glad no-one was hurt, the parts and supplies can be replaced a person can not. Also interesting news about the holo lens, although alittle concerned about the "less training" part.

gridsleep:

FalloutJack:

Silk_Sk:
Anyone else think the Russians did it?

It would be a little hard to do that. Dr. No hasn't exactly been around, lately. I doubt there's a secret cadre of Russian agents in Florida, messing it all up.

OT: It's rough, but they'll have to make it soon. Either that, or somebody's gotta come down...

Dr. No was Asian, most likely Chinese but possibly Korean.

Yes, I know that, but I needed to reference the villain using a facility to disrupt space launches. Beggers can't be choosers.

Space is hard.

*Not a low content post, just a common saying in that arena*

RicoADF:
Looks like a re-enactment of one of my launches in KSP (pick one of many). Glad no-one was hurt, the parts and supplies can be replaced a person can not. Also interesting news about the holo lens, although alittle concerned about the "less training" part.

The Soviets taught us all those lessons the hard way, with hundreds of their own people burned to ash.

VanQ:

Silk_Sk:
Anyone else think the Russians did it?

Let me point you to this point in the article.

Two Russian cosmonauts and an American astronaut are currently aboard ISS.

Cosmonauts are an extremely valuable national asset. There is no way Russia would profit from endangering two of them with only 4 months of supplies remaining.

I don't really think they did it. But wouldn't the Russians have a lot to gain by keeping America dependent on their space program?

Yeah, I'm not too worried about this. The space program is risky business, and NASA blew up tons of things along the way as they perfected their system.

Dynast Brass:

The Soviets taught us all those lessons the hard way, with hundreds of their own people burned to ash.

[citation needed]

I would put it on a handful or maybe dozens (if including animals).
"Hundreds" unlikely.

EndlessSporadic:

Anyone else smell incompetency? I know this is rocket science, but this shouldn't be happening.

Oh? How good are your rockets?

Sniping aside part of the SpaceX programme is designing cheaper, private sector usable items in a field which is right at the edge of our engineering ability as it is.

Gatlank:

Dynast Brass:

The Soviets taught us all those lessons the hard way, with hundreds of their own people burned to ash.

[citation needed]

I would put it on a handful or maybe dozens (if including animals).
"Hundreds" unlikely.

Well, get ready to be very surprised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe

That's one example in which over 100 died in a single event. I will point out that while asking for citations is a good thing, in this case you could very easily have verified the numbers on your own.

Dynast Brass:

Gatlank:

Dynast Brass:

The Soviets taught us all those lessons the hard way, with hundreds of their own people burned to ash.

[citation needed]

I would put it on a handful or maybe dozens (if including animals).
"Hundreds" unlikely.

Well, get ready to be very surprised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe

That's one example in which over 100 died in a single event. I will point out that while asking for citations is a good thing, in this case you could very easily have verified the numbers on your own.

Might as well throw some V2 rockets numbers there too.
That was a ballistic missile test which has much relation to a space program as football (soccer) is related to american football.
While ballistic missiles have a commonality in development with space rockets they have different testing and uses. If not NASA would be better served by slapping together some Tridents and calling it a day.
So yes your "hundreds" still needs a citation unless of course this article was talking about the use of the rocket for military purposes.

Gatlank:

Dynast Brass:

Gatlank:

[citation needed]

I would put it on a handful or maybe dozens (if including animals).
"Hundreds" unlikely.

Well, get ready to be very surprised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe

That's one example in which over 100 died in a single event. I will point out that while asking for citations is a good thing, in this case you could very easily have verified the numbers on your own.

Might as well throw some V2 rockets numbers there too.
That was a ballistic missile test which has much relation to a space program as football (soccer) is related to american football.
While ballistic missiles have a commonality in development with space rockets they have different testing and uses. If not NASA would be better served by slapping together some Tridents and calling it a day.
So yes your "hundreds" still needs a citation unless of course this article was talking about the use of the rocket for military purposes.

If I had said, "Manned space program" or "Scientific Space program" you would not be making a purely semantic argument.

Dynast Brass:

If I had said, "Manned space program" or "Scientific Space program" you would not be making a purely semantic argument.

I also fail to see where is mentioned in the link you provided that that rocket was related to a space program of any kind.
All pointed out to a military testing supervised by a military branch where the only thing space related was that was performed in a testing range (for military use) in the Baikonur cosmodrome.

So the first commercial flight and they already fill it up with Microsofts latest product placement... ah the future of space flight. I wonder how long before someone starts renting moon space for ads, excellent global marketing with that one.

Gatlank:

Dynast Brass:

If I had said, "Manned space program" or "Scientific Space program" you would not be making a purely semantic argument.

I also fail to see where is mentioned in the link you provided that that rocket was related to a space program of any kind.
All pointed out to a military testing supervised by a military branch where the only thing space related was that was performed in a testing range (for military use) in the Baikonur cosmodrome.

Military space programs are still space programs, however much you want to deny it. As to how it is related to a space programs, how was an ICBM related to LEO? I can't imagine. :|

Smooth Operator:
So the first commercial flight and they already fill it up with Microsofts latest product placement... ah the future of space flight. I wonder how long before someone starts renting moon space for ads, excellent global marketing with that one.

It blew up at launch, still definitely staying with the MS theme. (:))

Dynast Brass:

Gatlank:

Dynast Brass:

If I had said, "Manned space program" or "Scientific Space program" you would not be making a purely semantic argument.

I also fail to see where is mentioned in the link you provided that that rocket was related to a space program of any kind.
All pointed out to a military testing supervised by a military branch where the only thing space related was that was performed in a testing range (for military use) in the Baikonur cosmodrome.

Military space programs are still space programs, however much you want to deny it. As to how it is related to a space programs, how was an ICBM related to LEO? I can't imagine. :|

ICBM's are different from space rockets even if similar in development. The objective of a space rocket is to reach and fulfill it's purpose in space, a ICBM not so much, reaching space it's not their main objective and their job is practically completed after launch.
If you want to tally the (fringe) death count of a military rocket in a (not even related) space program you better start counting the death toll of the V2 since it has stronger ties with the american space program than the R-16 has with the soviet.

Besides you insist that the Nedelin cathastrophe is related to a space program, yet everything i read in the link you provided says otherwise, even the links used to write that article.

Gatlank:

Dynast Brass:

Gatlank:

I also fail to see where is mentioned in the link you provided that that rocket was related to a space program of any kind.
All pointed out to a military testing supervised by a military branch where the only thing space related was that was performed in a testing range (for military use) in the Baikonur cosmodrome.

Military space programs are still space programs, however much you want to deny it. As to how it is related to a space programs, how was an ICBM related to LEO? I can't imagine. :|

ICBM's are different from space rockets even if similar in development. SNIP

I guess we're done, thanks.

Dynast Brass:

I guess we're done, thanks.

Thanks. Lesson to take from this an ICBM doesnt a space rocket make.

Gatlank:

Dynast Brass:

I guess we're done, thanks.

Thanks. Lesson to take from this an ICBM doesnt a space rocket make.

Ok. I've taken a starkly different lesson, but I'm glad the learning experience was mutual. Now maybe we can cut this really pointless aside and return to the topic at hand, if that works for you?

VanQ:

Silk_Sk:
Anyone else think the Russians did it?

Let me point you to this point in the article.

Two Russian cosmonauts and an American astronaut are currently aboard ISS.

Cosmonauts are an extremely valuable national asset. There is no way Russia would profit from endangering two of them with only 4 months of supplies remaining.

Which has a higher value as a national asset: Cosmonauts or a successful and well respected space shuttling program that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars each year as along as SpaceX doesn't take those contracts from them?

What's more is that I missed the factoid that now that SpaceX has failed that all the astronauts and cosmonauts are going to die. I assume that would have made more news so I'm guessing that isn't the case.

So you'd be looking at discrediting a competitor at no cost to themselves.

The motivation is certainly there. Especially seeing as SpaceX had no failures until shortly after Russia failed and their organization's flaws were exposed that one of SpaceX's rockets failed.

So is it possible that the Russians did it? Sure. They have motivation and means.

Is it likely? Probably not.

Damn, SpaceX has been losing a lot of stuff lately, haven't they? This saddens me, as the future of space travel is the gateway to humanity's future survival.

Russians got this don't worry.

Smooth Operator:
So the first commercial flight and they already fill it up with Microsofts latest product placement... ah the future of space flight. I wonder how long before someone starts renting moon space for ads, excellent global marketing with that one.

If all the supplies were commercially gathered I wouldn't be suprised if the "two tonnes of food supplies" was just piles of Doritos, Mountain Dew and Red Bull.

Honest question, if the rocket didn't have the HoloLens, would this crash even be discussed on the Escapist?

Either way, three times is pretty bad, hopefully they find a way to fix this problem.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here