The first time’s not the charm. Relativity Space sees stars, but not in the sky.
After years of development, Relativity Space finally attempted to launch its first rocket, named Terran 1. The following article will take you over the multiple launch attempts over the last week or so, with all, unfortunately, ending in a scrub for multiple different reasons.
Cape Canaveral, Florida — In a breakthrough for the commercial space industry, California-based aerospace company Relativity Space has successfully built and tested a fully 3D-printed orbital rocket named Terran 1. The rocket, which stands over 30 meters tall and has a payload capacity of up to 1,250 kg, is the first of its kind to be almost entirely constructed using 3D printing technology. Despite the successful testing of Terran 1, the company’s first orbital launch attempts have all ended in misery for fans and engineers alike.
Player Ready?
The big day had finally rolled around. March 8th. After years of development and testing, Terran 1 was ready for its maiden flight. The range was green, the vehicle was healthy, and propellant finally started to flow through the lines and into the rocket at Launch Complex 16. Just three-quarters of an hour after the propellant lines first flooded, Relativity Space had to delay their launch by an hour in order to leave time to work through thermal conditioning of the rocket, which would foreshadow the cause of the first scrub later that day. The countdown progressed as normal, and the team polled Go for launch, however just minutes before T-0, the launch was scrubbed for the day due to Terran 1 “exceeding launch commit criteria limits for propellant thermal conditions on stage 2.” As they say, scrubs are better than RUDs, so the team pressed on with finding a new launch date.
Here we go again!
The team chose the 11th of March as the date for the next launch attempt of Terran 1. After leaving a few days to “allow methane to reach the right concentration” within the liquid natural gas propellant, which is used to send Terran into space. The launch window opened at 1PM Eastern Time, however, upper-level winds had an objection to this, which caused a hold at T-20. After the launch was delayed to 14:35 ET, Terran finally progressed into Terminal count for the first time. The timer ticked ever lower, and the screens of tens of thousands of live viewers were lit up by the mesmerising shot of nine Aeon 1 engines igniting, producing a beautiful blue glow against the grey of the launch pad. Just as it looked as if the rocket would leap into the sky, the camera snapped away, the violent whippings of steam calmed, and Terran 1 remained firmly attached to the pad. Suddenly, our smiling faces dropped, and the launch director announced that the vehicle had yet again scrubbed due to a “launch commit criteria violation”, which was later clarified to be a “corner case in the stage separation automation a few seconds before T-0”, which properly aborted at just T-0.5 seconds. Talk about a close call!
In a shock to many, the team pressed on yet again with another attempt just hours later, which similarly progressed right down to terminal count. This time felt like the one, after so many scrubs, surely the team had ironed out all the issues this time? Nope! Stage 2 had yet more objections today, this time throwing a temper tantrum and calling an automated abort for being 1 PSI lower than it should have been inside the fuel tank. One entire pound per square inch. Yet again the fans, eager to watch the first 3D-printed and LNG-powered vehicle take flight, were reduced to frowns. This a firm reminder to many that space is hard!
The next launch date of Terran 1 has yet to be announced but we will be sure to keep you posted on our Discord server of any changes to this. For now, good luck and have fun! #GLHF
Hey, I’m Divaze (Div-ahh-zay). I’m a writer for Max-Q News by day, and a qualified SCUBA Diver by night. I love feeling weightless, and exploring other-worldly environments, which is why I am interested in both diving and space!
March 13, 2023
Leave a Reply