Falcon 1 Flight 3 Launch Thread

[GregBurch]

Well, let me be the first to sit down for a big breakfast of baked crow.

I had to leave for other duties, and woke up this morning to see this news.

The worst fact I see here is the way they handled the actual launch after the aborted initial first stage ignition. I have to agree that that feels like bad management.

Best case: the clock gets set back a year or more on the beginning of the Good Stuff.

Worst case: Elon's pocket's empty and alt.space is in for a decade or more of the lean days, like back in the 1990s.

 

[Lunar_Lander]

Man, what a shame. Three failures in a row. Well, ok, in the beginnings of spaceflight even NASA and the Russians suffered setbacks. But now we have 2008, and Musk can rely on 60 years of rocket experience.

Let's see what crazy malfunctions will happen on F4 and F5 :lol:!

 

[Urwumpe]

You are sounding like the rocket exploded.

I mean honestly. They had a pre-launch anomaly and mitigated it by aborting the launch. This is still cheaper as a loss of the vehicle.

Arianespace does the same sometimes without people even considering it being a special problem. As long as things go wrong before the rocket lifts off, it is still possible to save the mission.

 

[GregBurch]

You are sounding like the rocket exploded.

I mean honestly. They had a pre-launch anomaly and mitigated it by aborting the launch. This is still cheaper as a loss of the vehicle.

Arianespace does the same sometimes without people even considering it being a special problem. As long as things go wrong before the rocket lifts off, it is still possible to save the mission.

Nope -- they launched anyway; and the 2d stage failed to separate. Even a political philosopher like me knows that's a BAD THING.

 

[simonpro]

You are sounding like the rocket exploded.

I mean honestly. They had a pre-launch anomaly and mitigated it by aborting the launch. This is still cheaper as a loss of the vehicle.

Arianespace does the same sometimes without people even considering it being a special problem. As long as things go wrong before the rocket lifts off, it is still possible to save the mission.

Urwumpe, have you heard the rest of the story? The rocket did actually explode.:blink:

They aborted the launch, then decided (apparently without checking) that everything was actually dandy, so they launched.
Staging was a disaster, from what I've heard the first stage partially separated but gave the second stage a bump so large that it caused structural failure. This caused a bit of an explosion, and led to the destruction of the vehicle.

They seemed to make no attempt at inspecting the spacecraft and had a successful liftoff when they reignited the engine not long after.

This is truly insane, and for the first time in a long time I'm speechless. I mean, what the hell? If there's an abort then you damned well find out why there's an abort. You don't just change the safety limits and have another go. I thought that everyone from the man in the back garden with the Estes kit right up to Griffin knew that one!

 

[GregBurch]

This is truly insane, and for the first time in a long time I'm speechless. I mean, what the hell? If there's an abort then you damned well find out why there's an abort. You don't just change the safety limits and have another go. I thought that everyone from the man in the back garden with the Estes kit right up to Griffin knew that one!

Simon, let me encourage you to not hold back. Especially for my sake: I really deserve it. Please, let us know what you really think. :lol:

 

[simonpro]

I'd get banned for swearing if I said what I really think

(edit) But I'll give it a go.

Disclaimer: This is based solely on what I've read here, what I've heard from friends and what I've read on spaceflightnow.com
I didn't see the launch, and the first I've heard about it was when I woke up this morning, so my information may be wrong. If it is then so be it, what I'm about to say is only based on what I know right now.


Ok, SpaceX have shown themselves to be less than professional once again. And once again I have to say that the managerial staff take a large proportion of the blame. I prefer realing in what went wrong rather than who went wrong though, so this is what I have to say:

1) Post-abort handling was poor. Firmer procedures need to be in place to deal with what happens after an abort event.
2) Management needs to instill confidence that a delay after an abort is not a problem.
3) Engineering analysis needs to take preference over "go fever".
4) Lessons from previous flights need to be applied to future flights.
5) Guidance system robustness needs extra analysis.
6) Staging logic needs extra analysis.

 

[Urwumpe]

Argh. I should read the full news. I just followed the launch until I went to bed and resumed it this morning, without any indication of a further failure except the aborted launch.

Staging failed again? Now that becomes really foolish.

 

[Lunar_Lander]

Hmm, how could staging be improved? I once heard that Musk uses his spring-loaded seperation systems to save the payload form excessive loads.

But: On every multi-stage rocket since the first one there were pyrotechnic seperators and seperation thrusters. I can't believe that such thrusters would cause loads/vibrations greater than that from the normal ascent.

I can understand you too, Simon. Is SSC now convinced to keep away from SpaceX?

PS: Seems like an 50th anniversary repetition of.....well, a not so successful US Navy Project

 

[Andy44]

[picks up a fork full of crow]

I have to say I agree with Simonpro on this one. I was astounded that they actually launched after the abort, with no inspections or time out for analysis. After the engine had ignited, no less.

I understand what they are trying to do: they are trying to keep launch costs down by increasing the responsiveness to anomalies and cut down on delays. Scrubbing a launch costs a lot of money.

But let's go one step at a time. You need to make absolutely sure your rocket makes orbit, or you're finished. This was try #3 for gods sake! Put priority on a successful launch, even if it's late, even if it costs lots of money. Get the bird airborne first, then, when you get established, you can start doing experiments in speeding up operations.

I really thought they were done for the day after the abort. Now they're done for months, at the very least.

 

[gawinnard]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7539780.stm

"Cheaper better quicker" attitude is not a winning one... I've not done a full look up on the facts, but common sense says if you have an abort find out way and did it effect any other systems. I think NASA will be silently regetting the "Cheaper better quicker" once again.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Ok, from what I've been able to gather from reading various articles last night and today, and from viewing the webcast live, it doesn't appear the first abort and problematic staging were related unless the parameter referred to voltage or somesuch that would cause the pyro bolts to not blow apart.

Frankly, I think you guys are judging SpaceX a bit too harshly. 3 failures, of completely unrelated problems (so we think so far) is not quite that bad. The Ariane 5 failed 3 times before a truly successful mission; Delta III failed complegtely and was scrubbed for the Delta IV. However, these rockets had something SpaceX doesn't have: experience...and they still failed!! Ariane Space had the Arianes I-IV to work on, Delta's been in existence since our first feeble attempts at a stable launch vehicle.

Give SpaceX some credit, they've already done what not one single other entity has. Rutan's only barely touched space a few times, Bezos is only going to touch space like Rutan. Compared to a fully functional orbital launch vehicle, these sub-orbital systems are either simplistic, or rely on wellllllllll known precedents that these people have been working with all their lives. SS1 was simply an oddly-shaped plane with a higher-thrust motor in back. Don't know much about Blue-Origin's vehicle, except that it's based on the DC-X, but the silence from them does not inspire confidence.

Bottom line is that SpaceX does not seem set-up to fail, rather it seems set-up to spread its wings and fly straighter and truer than ANY other orbital launch group in history including RKK, ESA and of course, NASA!

 

[Urwumpe]

The Ariane 5 failed 3 times before a truly successful mission; Delta III failed complegtely and was scrubbed for the Delta IV. However, these rockets had something SpaceX doesn't have: experience...and they still failed!! Ariane Space had the Arianes I-IV to work on, Delta's been in existence since our first feeble attempts at a stable launch vehicle.

Wrong. Ariane 5 had 1 total failure, one partial failure and after that a long list of successful flights, before the rocket failed again. It's just one small thing, SpaceX is lacking in their Falcon I design: Progress.

That is what ESA and Arianespace did different: They analyzed the problems and made sure they don't happen again. And tested again. You can only test a rocket really during flight.

But two flights which fail by similar problems, are no sign of progress.

I see it like that: Now, the fourth flight has to be a success. That the third flight was still a total failure, is bad enough. A partial failure, which reaches a reasonable orbit, but still had critical anomalies would have been acceptable for a third flight.

And to remind people, who like to compare the Falcon 1 to rockets like Vanguard, Thor or Atlas: We are not operating in the 1950s. All basic research is available, so you can't claim starting at zero as excuse. Even a student could afford a good book on rocket design and study it for avoiding repeating errors done in the past.

 

[Lunar_Lander]

But now we have 2008, and Musk can rely on 60 years of rocket experience.

Exactly my word, Urwumpe !

Musk should change his strategy fairly quickly if Flight 4 is supposed to be some kind of success. Up to now he never got behind a successful second-stage burn.

Btw, at the German board at www.raumcon.de somebody said that the Falcon 9 would be completely different from the Falcon 1, and therefore the "cards are shuffeled newly" for the 9. I don't think so. And you?

 

[Urwumpe]

Btw, at the German board at www.raumcon.de somebody said that the Falcon 9 would be completely different from the Falcon 1, and therefore the "cards are shuffeled newly" for the 9. I don't think so. And you?

I don't subscribe this. The craft is different. Different enough to require new testing and it's own statistic. But the technology inside the Falcon-9 is still the same untested technology from the Falcon 1. What fails on the Falcon-1, will cause problems on the 9.

So, the cards are not "shuffled newly". The people who test it will be the same people, the attitude is the same, the technology is the same.

 

[Andy44]

Not only is this not the 1950s, it's also not a government program with unlimited funds. Back then they were racing to get ICBMs operational and to get satellites aloft for military purposes, and no matter how many Atlases Convair blew up, the government would keep shoveling them funds. SpaceX doesn't have those dep pockets to support it.

But like I said before, private ventures must be allowed to fail. Without that risk none of them will get anywhere. If SpaceX fails at least they tried, and the next enterpreneur will learn from it. As painful as it is.

 

[spcefrk]

I'd get banned for swearing if I said what I really think

(edit) But I'll give it a go.

Disclaimer: This is based solely on what I've read here, what I've heard from friends and what I've read on spaceflightnow.com
I didn't see the launch, and the first I've heard about it was when I woke up this morning, so my information may be wrong. If it is then so be it, what I'm about to say is only based on what I know right now.


Ok, SpaceX have shown themselves to be less than professional once again. And once again I have to say that the managerial staff take a large proportion of the blame. I prefer realing in what went wrong rather than who went wrong though, so this is what I have to say:

1) Post-abort handling was poor. Firmer procedures need to be in place to deal with what happens after an abort event.
2) Management needs to instill confidence that a delay after an abort is not a problem.
3) Engineering analysis needs to take preference over "go fever".
4) Lessons from previous flights need to be applied to future flights.
5) Guidance system robustness needs extra analysis.
6) Staging logic needs extra analysis.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to see that in SpaceX's procedures.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Does anyone know the precise reason for the pre-launch abort? It seems that Space X has the first stage abort turn-around down pat, and the first stage seems to work as designed. The only reason to fault their decision to launch would be if they over-rode one of their launch criteria, and that criterion turns out to be root cause for the separation failure.

The staging (the bit they can't test well on the ground) is the bit that is biting them in the buttocks. Maybe their 'fix' for the staging problems from flight #2 introduced a new bug - this happens.

 

[GregBurch]

You know, under other circumstances, I'd be in here defending SpaceX like crazy. The problem is that Musk has literally taken the weight of the world on his shoulders. He doesn't just have his own money riding on this job any more.

I still admire him like hell for trying. But the bull ring of public opinion and public expectations is unforgiving. Last night he got gored.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

I still admire him like hell for trying. But the bull ring of public opinion and public expectations is unforgiving. Last night he got gored.

True. Despite the failures, SpaceX is still the lead horse in the commercial launch market. They might need to blow up a few more rockets before they get the kinks worked out. Whether they get the chance will depend on Elon Musk's ability to persuade his financiers that SpaceX, at it's core, is a professional enough organization to sort out these issues. There is a lot going for SpaceX, but there is a lot (e.g. stuff on webcasts, etc.) that just screams to me *N00b!*

Still, I don't see anyone else out there with a plausible plan to put a cheap ride into orbit.