Falcon 9 at Cape Canaveral

[Urwumpe]

I try to put SpaceX's failures in this context. I've seen enough three-minute comedic montages of early NASA efforts blowing up to know that test launch failures are nothing new. That's why we conduct test launches. And SpaceX's failures-until-orbit-achieved rate still outscores NASA. :lol:

Still, we are not in the 1950s anymore. Ariane also had some failures during their early flights, but each time it was either a pretty creative error, or even sabotage.

 

[Ark]

Still, we are not in the 1950s anymore. Ariane also had some failures during their early flights, but each time it was either a pretty creative error, or even sabotage.

Who on Earth would sabotage the A4 program?

My money's on Yamagata corporation...

 

[Urwumpe]

Who on Earth would sabotage the A5 program?

No, happened to the Ariane 4, at the height of the market competition with the Delta II. Nobody knows still, who was responsible for the action, but the loss of the vehicle was caused by a oil cloth inside the turbine duct. Despite no oil cloths being used at all in the complete manufacture and final assembly. Especially not inside the engines, since the storeable propellants react with oil and can cause fires on any surface contaminated with oil (or even just sweat).

Since that incident, the French Foreign Legion is securing the space port.

 

[Notebook]

...

 

[Star Voyager]

Slightly off topic, but if this flight goes down AMR without a hitch, they're really in the business:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22commercial/

 

[Star Voyager]

Flight delayed for safety approvals:

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/100224approvals/

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/status.html

 

[zerofay32]

Can't really say it's delayed when Elon Musk never sets an actual date, which is why he does that.

 

[Arrowstar]

Yeah, just a tiny technical glitch:

YouTube- SpaceX Falcon 1 Launch Failure

Always amusing to see the rocket's exhaust swirl around like that. "Whoops."

 

[Star Voyager]

Can't really say it's delayed when Elon Musk never sets an actual date, which is why he does that.

Actually, there was a set date: March 22nd. When the Air Force says they're doing inspections, they really mean it.

 

[Chupacabra]

Come to think of it again, technically it never exploded right? Does the Falcon 1 have a Flight Termination System? I heard they just kill the engines normally.....(which doesn't seem to be the case in the video)

I can't wait to see a commercial vehicle dock to the ISS though. That'll be quite interesting.

 

[Mogeley]

Here's some videos of engine testing and flights, and other things.

https://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php

People are just playing around with the explosion thing. The first version had some problems, they always do. That's why you test with a single engine and not a stack of nine... Reusable rockets fail eventually especially if people are trying to be cost efficient, then things may fail more often. It all depends on how well they can determine the flight worthiness of a vehicle.

 

[Urwumpe]

The first version had some problems, they always do. That's why you test with a single engine and not a stack of nine...

That error was one reason why the Russian N-1 failed. Because they had no test stands for the complete first stage, they only tested independent engines, but never the full system. With each flight being effectively a test. And each flight failing because of another interaction between the engines and the stage structure.

System testing is not optional, it is mandatory. Even the shuttle needed Flight Readiness Firings as system test.

 

[Andy44]

Yes, and shuttle also dodged a huge bullet by launching manned on the first try and guessing all the unknowns right.

Fortunately Falcon 9 has had a set of nine-jet static tests, and if they're smart they've learned some systems engineering lessons from the Falcon 1 failures.

 

[Star Voyager]

And the countdown test is underway:

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/status.html

Thanks for the support guys :tiphat:!

 

[Ark]

I sure hope so, but the Air Force is adament on leaving this unmanned,

Wait, what?

 

[Ghostrider]

I would not write the Falcon off, even if it fails on this launch. When looking back into the 1950s and early 1960s a lot of rockets failed, and most of them far more spectacular than the failed starts of the Falcon 1. And not to forget the failed Ariane V inaugural flight, not so long ago.

The big difference is that SpaceX cannot afford that number of failed launches. How many rockets can they blow before their stock value crashes into the ground?

 

[Star Voyager]

Wait, what?

Sorry, but either I was half asleep or a mod edited another thread of mine and put that post from there to here (I moved it back).

 

[anemazoso]

The big difference is that SpaceX cannot afford that number of failed launches. How many rockets can they blow before their stock value crashes into the ground?

It is a privately held company so their is no stock. I am sure NASA understands there may be a failure on the first flight. If this one isn't successfull then I bet they will figure out what went wrong and try again. :thumbup:

Remember, we have a can-do attitude over here, the idea that we DID put men on the moon and there for can do anything if we set our minds to it.

 

[Star Voyager]

Falcon 9 could test fire her engines this weekend. The launch is still set for late this month, but has the stong potential to move into April:

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/status.html

 

[Linguofreak]

Yes, and shuttle also dodged a huge bullet by launching manned on the first try and guessing all the unknowns right.

Actually, it got alot of unknowns wrong and dodged a huge bullet by making it through the flight despite that.