Space X cato?

I didn't see the launch this evening...so, what's this about an engine out on the way up?
At T + 01:30 , right after it goes supersonic and before it reaches MaxQ ...something looked weird........?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRTYh71D9P0

They shut off two motors after it reached super sonic speed to keep it throttled back is what they said on NASA.

It does look like they lost a motor.

TA

Pretty sure at least the nozzle came apart because I could see parts of a nozzle in a couple of the frames. Looks like a motor blew up dumping unburnt fuel into the exhaust plume changing it. Looks like that was shut down pretty quick though.

Wow, cool video - if you pause between 1:29 and 1:30 on the video you can see a definite flash and then big chunks of stuff either in or over the exhaust plume.

I am really impressed that even with a major issue the falcon continued on and successfully made orbit. Good on ya SpaceX

Agree, wishing all the best to SpaceX, a great spirit and a great adventure to follow. This is America!:clap:

V2rocketeer said:

I am really impressed that even with a major issue the falcon continued on and successfully made orbit. Good on ya SpaceX

Click to expand...

How about that? I watched, and didn't think that was unusual, but yeah, if you look at a single frame it's unmistakeable.

It pretty amazing, you can see the individual curved bell of the engine falling apart, that is one heck of an anomaly. I think this is why they went for redundancy, because according to Elon Musk, it seems to have worked.

Obviously not a "cato" since "cato" is short for "catastrophic failure" and this was a failure, but not catastrophic.

And it certainly did not occur on the pad or at "lift off" and since rockets do not "take-off", those who use the incorrect bacronym have another data point for why the bacronym makes no sense.

I wonder, had that caused a catastrophic failure, where would civilian space flight be standing with the government and public this morning?

shreadvector said:

Obviously not a "cato" since "cato" is short for "catastrophic failure" and this was a failure, but not catastrophic.

And it certainly did not occur on the pad or at "lift off" and since rockets do not "take-off", those who use the incorrect bacronym have another data point for why the bacronym makes no sense.

Click to expand...

I just knew when I posted this last night I would hear from someone, and I wasn't disappointed.
Some very sharp readers here.
The original YouTube posting used the term CATO...it certainly caught my attention, which is precisely why I posted it that way. (incidently, I put the question mark in the title just to cover my but around here, knowing how this place gets from time to time).


Whether it makes sense from the original point of reference - that being the orginal meaning - may not be as important as what it communicates today...correct or incorrect.
I think you are essentially correct about the original definition/meaning of the CATO acronym...however, over the years it has seen so much useage, correctly or incorrectly -- even by experienced rocketeers being interviewed on TV - (the failure of one of the motors in large cluster of the first stage of the big N-1 project at LDRS years ago being a prime example) it has taken on an expanded meaning that immediately registers with rocketry people, despite the inaccuracy.
Kind of like the word "decimated" (I am always amused to hear that term as used in the the media these days as if it implies complete and total destruction vs the original meaning of merely one in ten) or the term "Gung Ho".....which has a different meaning to the average American today as opposed to the intent of the original Chinese meaning when the term was coined working with the US Marines in WWII.....

That said, has anyone read if one of the motors completly failed and disintegrated sometime after take off, or does the video just look worse than it actually was.....?

Catastrophe At Take Off. A military term originally used to describe the sudden explosion of a rocket-propelled device shortly after it has activated.

The term would later be used in civilian context to decribe the action of anything going FUBAR immediately or shortly after its beginning.
The ICBM CATO'ed due to a faulty fuel management system.

From Glossary of Common Model and High Power Rocketry Terms
https://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/glossary.html

CATO: A motor failure, generally explosive, where all the propellant is burned in a much shorter time than planned. This can be a nozzle blow-out (loud, but basically harmless), an end-cap blow-out (where all of the pyrotechnic force blows FORWARD which usually does a pretty good job of removing any internal structure including the recovery system) or a casing rupture which has unpredictable, but usually devastating, effects. Another form of CATO is an ejection failure caused by either the delay train failing to burn or the ejection charge not firing, but the result is the same: the model prangs. A CATO does not necessarily burn all of the fuel in a rocket motor (especially true for composite fuels, which do not burn well when not under pressure). For this reason you should be especially careful when approaching a CATO.

Origin: Opinions on the meaning of the acronym range widely. Some say it's not an acronym at all, but simply a contraction of 'catastrophic' and should be pronounced 'Cat-o' (which sounds better than 'cata' over PA systems . Others maintain that it is an acronym but disagree on the meaning, offering a broad spectrum of 'CAtastrophic Take Off,' 'Catastrophically Aborted Take Off,' 'Catastrophe At Take Off' and the self referential 'CATO At Take Off.' The acronym crowd pronounces it 'Kay-Tow', like the Green Hornet's side kick. It has been pointed out, though, that all of the above are 'post-hoc' definitions since LCO's were using the term over range PA systems long before any formal acronym was established.


Opinions on the origins say that it is either from the military rocket programs of WW II, the post war development era, or even a modroc-only term which originated with the MESS (Malfunctioning Engine Statistical Survey) performed by NAR's Standards and Testing committee. There is also a claim that it started with the Boston Rocket Club and that the spelling has evolved over the years. It supposedly started out as 'KATO' which, of course, stood for KABOOM At Take Off!

Absurd. Motor failure at max-Q is not at "take-off" and rockets do not "take-off". Rockets "lift-off", or, if they are from the 1950's or 1960's they may "blast-off".

A crashed rocket from a missing or failed ejection charge is not a failure at "take-off". Insisting it is is irrational. Defending the obviously bogus bacronym is like defending "2+2=7".

Quoting an online glossary which contains a bogus definition, bogus origin and no reference material to back up the bogosity is simply silly.

shreadvector said:

Absurd. Motor failure at max-Q is not at "take-off" and rockets do not "take-off". Rockets "lift-off", or, if they are from the 1950's or 1960's they may "blast-off".

A crashed rocket from a missing or failed ejection charge is not a failure at "take-off". Insisting it is is irrational. Defending the obviously bogus bacronym is like defending "2+2=7".

Quoting an online glossary which contains a bogus definition, bogus origin and no reference material to back up the bogosity is simply silly.

Click to expand...

Hello everyone. This is my friend Fred. He doesn't like it when you say CATO.

He might prefer FAMQ. (Flight Anomaly at Max Q)

See ya.

That is one of the biggest WOW moments I have seen. Go Space X !!!!!!

The first thing I thaught was....who does'nt want this thing to work. But then, I've seen Destination Moon too many times.

SpaceX has clarified what happened with the failed engine...

https://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

V2rocketeer said:

I am really impressed that even with a major issue the falcon continued on and successfully made orbit. Good on ya SpaceX

Click to expand...

It's deja vu all over again. Just last week:

Delta rocket delivers despite unexpected engine trouble

-- Roger

shreadvector said:

Obviously not a "cato" since "cato" is short for "catastrophic failure" and this was a failure, but not catastrophic.

And it certainly did not occur on the pad or at "lift off" and since rockets do not "take-off", those who use the incorrect bacronym have another data point for why the bacronym makes no sense.

Click to expand...

I would say that while the failure was not catostrophic for the vehicle as a whole, it certainly was a catostrophic event for the that particular engine. Splitting hairs, I realize, but this entire conversation over a commonly used term that was used mostly in jest in this instance is pretty much splitting hairs to begin with...I'm gonna go look at what's on sale at hobbylinc now...

They should make out a report and send it in to the engine manufactor.
they might get a free 3 pack and maybe a new rocket.

Best advice in the thread.


And THIS one was an "ENGINE" and not a "MOTOR".


:wink:

Scotty Dog said:

They should make out a report and send it in to the engine manufactor.
they might get a free 3 pack and maybe a new rocket.

Click to expand...

shreadvector said:

Obviously not a "cato" since "cato" is short for "catastrophic failure" and this was a failure, but not catastrophic.

And it certainly did not occur on the pad or at "lift off" and since rockets do not "take-off", those who use the incorrect bacronym have another data point for why the bacronym makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Congrats to Fred for the 1,000,000th lecture on this subject that NOBODY CARES ABOUT...

Guess he's going for a record to see how many times he can repeat this before he dies...

Geesh... (eyes rolling to the point they're about to fall out on the floor).

Later! OL JR

Scotty Dog said:

They should make out a report and send it in to the engine manufactor.
they might get a free 3 pack and maybe a new rocket.

Click to expand...

Hehehe...

It's a lot tougher when you ARE the engine manufacturer... Later! OL JR

Engine failures are a part of spaceflight, and probably always will be. Good to see the Falcon was able to handle it with no issues.

Apollo 6 and 13, as well as STS-51-F all experienced engine failures. Apollo 6 lost two engines on the second stage, and had a damaged engine on the third. :y:

luke strawwalker said:

Congrats to Fred for the 1,000,000th lecture on this subject that NOBODY CARES ABOUT...

Guess he's going for a record to see how many times he can repeat this before he dies...

Geesh... (eyes rolling to the point they're about to fall out on the floor).

Later! OL JR

Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl:

shreadvector said:

Quoting an online glossary which contains a bogus definition, bogus origin and no reference material to back up the bogosity is simply silly.

Click to expand...

Sorry...I couldn't find the link to the Fred Shecter rocketry glossary for the proper quote...
So the part about CATOs having nothing to do with "take off" - since they actually "lift off " - is part if the problem for you?....

I've seen a lot of rockets declared to have CATOed long after take off - or lift off.........irregardless of what it is they are doing on the up part.
So just to understand your point, (I can't believe I'm spending time doing this) your point is that common useage of the term CATO today is unjustified, because the acronym contains the letters "TO" for take off" and they don't do that.
SO the term shouldn't be CATO - despite the fact everyone knows exactly what we're talking about?

Regardless...the point of the post was to talk about what happened with one of the engines as seen in the video, and what new info we could share. Label the "it" part that happened anything you like.

I call it a minor malfunction, a major malfunction would have been loss of the vehicle.

rcktnut said:

I call it a minor malfunction, a major malfunction would have been loss of the vehicle.

Click to expand...

Since the spacecraft reached the proper orbit, I think the word SpaceX used, "anomaly," is appropriate.

-- Roger

jadebox said:

Since the spacecraft reached the proper orbit, I think the word SpaceX used, "anomaly," is appropriate.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the official forum stance shall be that it was a CATO.

-Kevin