NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Falcon Missions Section => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 06:14 pm

Title: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 06:14 pm
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) has scheduled the launch of the Falcon 1 Flight 3 mission for Saturday, August 2nd. The launch window will open at 4:00 p.m. (PDT) / 7:00 p.m. (EDT) and remain open for five hours.

Live coverage thread.

Webcast available via http://www.spacex.com/

Build-up thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13179.0

Preview article: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5482

Launch should be recorded (we'll see if our usual people can record off their stream).

Presser (well done to Tobi for finding it before the media were informed, on a PR Business Wire):

If launch is delayed for any reason, SpaceX has range availability to resume countdown through August 5.

Lift-off of the vehicle will occur from SpaceX's Falcon 1 launch site at the Kwajalein Atoll, about 2500 miles southwest of Hawaii. Falcon 1 launch facilities are situated on Omelek Island, part of the Reagan Test Site (RTS) at United States Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) in the Central Pacific.

Designed from the ground up by SpaceX at headquarters in Hawthorne, Calif., Falcon 1 is a two-stage, liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene powered launch vehicle. The first stage is powered by a single SpaceX Merlin 1C Regenerative engine - flying for the first time on this Flight 3 mission. A "hold before liftoff" system enhances reliability by permitting all systems to be verified as functioning nominally before launch is initiated. The Falcon 1 second stage is powered by a single SpaceX Kestrel engine.

Falcon 1 is the first new orbital rocket in more than a decade. Merlin is the first new American hydrocarbon engine for an orbital booster to be flown in more than 40 years and only the second new American engine of any kind in more than a quarter century. After achieving orbit, Falcon 1 will be the first privately developed, liquid fuel rocket to orbit the Earth.

The primary customers for the Falcon 1 launch are the Department of Defense, Government of Malaysia and NASA. Falcon 1 is carrying a payload stack of three separating satellites that will orbit at an inclination of 9 degrees:

-- The Trailblazer satellite was developed by SpaceDev of Poway, Calif., for the Jumpstart Program of DoD's Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) Office, as a test platform to validate the hardware, software and processes of an accelerated microsatellite launch. Trailblazer is deployed from the Falcon 1 second stage shortly after the shut-down of the second stage engine, about 10 minutes into flight.

-- Deploying four to eight minutes later will be two NASA small satellites: PRESat, a micro laboratory from NASA's Ames Research Center, and then NanoSail-D, which will unfurl an ultra-thin solar sail, developed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in collaboration with NASA Ames Research Center.

-- The three separating satellites attach to the Falcon 1 second stage via the Secondary Payload Adaptor and Separation System, (SPASS), developed by ATSB, a company owned by the Government of Malaysia that develops and commercializes space technology. The SPASS was engineered by Space Access Technologies of Ashburn, Va.

SpaceX will provide live coverage of the Falcon 1 Flight 3 mission via webcast at: www.SpaceX.com. The webcast will begin 30 minutes prior to launch and will include mission briefings, live feeds and launch coverage from the launch site at the Kawjalein Atoll, as well as a special video tour of SpaceX facilities by Elon Musk, CEO and CTO.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dunderwood on 08/02/2008 06:15 pm
Awesome!  Thanks for the heads up, Chris. 
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: EE Scott on 08/02/2008 06:28 pm
Second that!  My Saturday just got a whole lot more interesting....
 ;D

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: simonbp on 08/02/2008 06:29 pm
Webcast specifically at: http://www.spacex.com/testcast.php

Simon ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: simonbp on 08/02/2008 06:35 pm
Read up on the payloads while you're waiting:

http://www.spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=242

http://microsatellitefreeflyer.arc.nasa.gov/presat.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/smallsats/nanosaild.html

Simon ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: tobi453 on 08/02/2008 06:35 pm
The press release can now also be found here:
http://spacex.com/press.php?page=46
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: tobi453 on 08/02/2008 07:01 pm
press kit:
http://www.spacex.com/SpaceX_F1-003_PressKit.pdf
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 08/02/2008 07:11 pm
Good links. Note to all, this is a live coverage thread, and thus let's keep the cheerleading down to a minimum. It's going to get very busy near launch and new arrivals won't want to be trawling through 100 posts of "Go SpaceX" etc ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/02/2008 07:16 pm
Any idea why Space-X held back the information until ~6 hours before the launch?

Have they been working some technical issue we haven't heard about yet and just solved it?

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/02/2008 07:36 pm
It should be an interesting evening. I wouldn't call it a make or break mission, but it's definitely important. In the past Elon has said they could weather two or three "failures", but I really wonder what would happen if this mission isn't 100% success, public statements aside. SpaceX has so many contracts, Falcon 9 is far along in development, etc. I went to take a look at the CCAFS launch facilities and they're making good progress there too. SpaceX seems to be too far along on several fronts for another fakilure to bring them down, but I still wonder what the ramifications would be. For me, I'm looking forward to the first F9 delivery to the Cape and would hate to see that delayed. Heaven knows we need the launch business here.

A little off topic... Press releases, in general, that get sent out by companies to pr newswire get picked up by the press almost immediately since pr newswire is one of the main sources the news media uses for their press releases. Of course, the sender also sends them to specific news organizations at the same time, but when you're an outlet that has to monitor releases from hundreds, or more, organizations, it's a lot more efficient to go to a one-stop shop like pr newswire. This release ended up in my inbox about 5 minutes after pr got it. I'm just saying, in a slight defense of the media, the press was informed at the same time as the release hit pr newswire and it would be a mistake to think those in the media didn't get this release at or near the same time it was sent by SpaceX. But with the unfortuante news cycle, most news outlets won't have anything online until later in the afternoon. Sorry about the off-topic divergence, but sometimes when it seems the media is in the dark, slow, lazy or not caring, it's not really that at all.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Orbiter on 08/02/2008 07:38 pm
Webcast to start at 6:30 PM EDT
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Paul Adams on 08/02/2008 07:41 pm
With everything looking so very negative with Aries and the NASA program, this launch carries a lot of significance in my opinion.

To Elon and the rest of the SpaceX team - good luck. I wish you 100% success and a celabratory hang-over about 12 hours after the mission!

Paul
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 07:43 pm
Read up on the payloads while you're waiting:

http://www.spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=242

http://microsatellitefreeflyer.arc.nasa.gov/presat.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/smallsats/nanosaild.html

Simon ;)

You missed the Celestis payload.
http://celestisexplorersflight.com/
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 07:47 pm
Latest hi res image they've sent out:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Hunt101 on 08/02/2008 07:48 pm
If they've had problems, they won't be letting anyone know. They sure didn't on the first Falcon 9 test which nearly became a massive failure.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Orbiter on 08/02/2008 07:55 pm
Latest hi res image they've sent out:

Interesting, done on the cheep and less complicated when compared to even an Atlas V.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/02/2008 07:56 pm
Latest hi res image they've sent out:

I still find it odd that there are trees within 10-15 meters of the launch pad.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/02/2008 08:08 pm
If they've had problems, they won't be letting anyone know. They sure didn't on the first Falcon 9 test which nearly became a massive failure.

Given the contents of your "Location", I'd say provide details- or that statement is FUD.

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/02/2008 08:20 pm
Latest hi res image they've sent out:

I still find it odd that there are trees within 10-15 meters of the launch pad.

Is there a reason why they should cut them down? Trees in that environment aren't likely to catch fire and may make a decent windbreak for pad workers and the rocket.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/02/2008 08:21 pm
Latest hi res image they've sent out:

I still find it odd that there are trees within 10-15 meters of the launch pad.
Is there a reason why they should cut them down? Trees in that environment aren't likely to catch fire and may make a decent windbreak for pad workers and the rocket.
To prevent a forest fire in case of an on-pad accident/explosion?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/02/2008 08:37 pm
Latest hi res image they've sent out:

I still find it odd that there are trees within 10-15 meters of the launch pad.
Is there a reason why they should cut them down? Trees in that environment aren't likely to catch fire and may make a decent windbreak for pad workers and the rocket.
To prevent a forest fire in case of an on-pad accident/explosion?

That's sort of like detering a burglary by blowing up your house. Seriously, even if you did manage to set the trees on fire, Omelek is a pretty little piece of real estate and what's growing there isn't really what you'd call a "forest." More like soaking wet shrubbery.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: manlymissileman on 08/02/2008 08:45 pm
Latest hi res image they've sent out:

Interesting, done on the cheep and less complicated when compared to even an Atlas V.

Invalid comparison.  Atlas V and Falcon 1 are in vastly different leagues.  Compare F1 and its pad with the Kosmos LV maybe (~2T to LEO)?  The complexity will grow exponentially for F9 which will be closer to an EELV's capabilities. (do you really think the 'old' companies don't want to cut costs and increase their profit margins?) 
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: tobi453 on 08/02/2008 08:46 pm
Pad preparations have been completed. Helium is filling and chilling nominally. Tanks have been purged.

http://spacex.com/webcast.php
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/02/2008 08:52 pm
anyone know the stream url for the webcast?  Want to get it up on VLC.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/02/2008 08:53 pm
Latest hi res image they've sent out:

I still find it odd that there are trees within 10-15 meters of the launch pad.

Omelek is a tiny island, which is leased by the U.S., but belongs to the Republic of the Marshall Islands.  SpaceX had to file an environmental impact statement to use the place, agreeing to minimize changes to the natural plant life, etc.

 - Ed kyle
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: tobi453 on 08/02/2008 08:57 pm
 Countdown has begun! T- 2 hrs and counting. All systems go at this point.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dunderwood on 08/02/2008 09:07 pm
Anyone else lose the webcast?

NM, it's back on.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/02/2008 09:10 pm
Latest hi res image they've sent out:

I still find it odd that there are trees within 10-15 meters of the launch pad.
Is there a reason why they should cut them down? Trees in that environment aren't likely to catch fire and may make a decent windbreak for pad workers and the rocket.
To prevent a forest fire in case of an on-pad accident/explosion?

That's sort of like detering a burglary by blowing up your house. Seriously, even if you did manage to set the trees on fire, Omelek is a pretty little piece of real estate and what's growing there isn't really what you'd call a "forest." More like soaking wet shrubbery.

I get it now - that picture Chris posted is of almost the entire island!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: NUAETIUS on 08/02/2008 09:17 pm
Does anyone have the list of events at all the t- and t+ points?  Example at t- what do they reload the oxygen? 
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Syntax on 08/02/2008 09:22 pm
i have lost the webcast now :( maybe there are too many connecting now?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: tobi453 on 08/02/2008 09:22 pm
from the press kit:

Major Events T+secs T+hh:mm:ss Comments
Liftoff 0 0:00:00 Lift off of the Space Exploration Technologies Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle
carrying multiple payloads to orbit including three satellites.
Tower clear 4 0:00:04 Falcon 1 has cleared the tower
Transonic 56 0:00:54 Approaching Mach 1 - the vehicle is now supersonic
Max-Q 69 0:01:09 Approaching Max-Q - the time of maximum dynamic pressure on the
vehicle
Inertial Guidance 140 0:02:20 Vehicle switching to inerital guidance mode
Pressurize Stage 2 145 0:02:25 Stage 2 pressurizing.
MECO 158 0:02:38 Approaching Main Engine Cut-off - “MECO”
Stage Separation 159 0:02:39 Stage Separation confirmed
2nd Stage Ignition 163 0:02:43 2nd stage ignition confirmed
Past 100 km altitude 168 0:02:48 Falcon 1 has crossed the boundary into space - 100 km (62 miles)
Stiffener jettison 173 0:02:53 Kestrel nozzle stiffeners have been jettisoned
Fairing Separation 193 0:03:13 The two halves of the “nose cone” or fairing separate and fall away,
revealing the satellites to the vacuum of space.
Terminal Guidance 527 0:08:47 Vehicle is now in terminal guidance mode
Passing 7.5 km/s 574 0:09:34 Falcon 1 has reached orbital velocity - the first rocket privately
developed, liquid fuel rocket to achieve this milestone
SECO 577 0:09:37 Approaching 2nd stage engine cut-offf - “SECO”
Deploy Trailblazer 587 0:09:47 Coming up to deployment of the primary payload into orbit - The
Trailblazer spacecraft for the U.S. Department of Defense’s Operationally
Responsive Space Office.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/02/2008 09:25 pm
i have lost the webcast now :( maybe there are too many connecting now?

Ya its cut for me too...

I just hope this new player is not going to fold when 1000 people watch it.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Crispy on 08/02/2008 09:34 pm
do press get better access to the video than us?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/02/2008 09:34 pm
Does anyone have the link to the mms:// ?  Or even a link to the feed source?

Thanks!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 09:34 pm
do press get better access to the video than us?

No, and they are struggling with the webcast, so it's not individual people.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 08/02/2008 09:37 pm
Webcast is problematic, so no need for large amounts of people to post the same thing. Remember, live update thread, got to be updates only.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 09:38 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 09:45 pm
45 minutes until the webcast starts. Looks like they've taken down the test...but are testing various shots, so we'll know better how things start in 45 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dirkthefirst on 08/02/2008 09:46 pm
Does anyone have the link to the mms:// ?  Or even a link to the feed source?

The video isn't an mms file, it's an embedded video of some type, so I'm not sure there's any way to view it outside of the webpage.

I wouldn't try either, you'll just put additional strain on the server and make it more likely to break again.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/02/2008 09:49 pm
Does anyone have the link to the mms:// ?  Or even a link to the feed source?

The video isn't an mms file, it's an embedded video of some type, so I'm not sure there's any way to view it outside of the webpage.

I wouldn't try either, you'll just put additional strain on the server and make it more likely to break again.


Without a feed source, I cannot record this launch for the NASASpaceFlight Archive, so I figure I'd ask.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Nate_Trost on 08/02/2008 09:56 pm
If possible, recording the pre-launch live stuff would be greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 09:56 pm
Webcast start time has moved back 30 mins, so I'm guessing launch will have also moved back.

EDIT: Yes, the countdown is holding, according to the clock in the top right corner.

Can you record using something like CamStudio or Realplayer?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/02/2008 09:58 pm
Looks like we're gonna have a feed for a little while, just an hour and a half from live coverage.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/02/2008 09:59 pm
Webcast start time has moved back 30 mins, so I'm guessing launch will have also moved back.

EDIT: Yes, the countdown is holding, according to the clock in the top right corner.

Can you record using something like CamStudio or Realplayer?

I could, yes, but I would not be able to post live updates here without it capturing that.

We'll just have to live without one SpaceX Launch video.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 10:01 pm
T-90 mins and counting.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dunderwood on 08/02/2008 10:03 pm
The press release said video would be available to media post-launch, so that might be an option for the archives.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 10:07 pm
Another hold.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/02/2008 10:09 pm
Clock reset to T-90 minutes, with a hold.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/02/2008 10:11 pm
Clock reset to T-90 minutes, with a hold.

Liftoff is now expected at 4:30pm PDT / 7:30pm EDT / 23:30 UTC.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: mtakala24 on 08/02/2008 10:17 pm
Why is this not on the live section yet?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 10:24 pm
Why is this not on the live section yet?

You mean the move to the live newsfeed section. The mods decided not to move the thread as there's other SpaceX threads here and it'll only confuse matters ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: DaveS on 08/02/2008 10:28 pm
T0 is now 8 pm EDT/0000 ZULU.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 10:28 pm
Launch now scheduled for midnight GMT. I seem to have lost the feed, is anyone else having this problem?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: HOTTOL on 08/02/2008 10:31 pm
Launch now scheduled for midnight GMT. I seem to have lost the feed, is anyone else having this problem?
I lost it too an hour ago. Didn't recover it ... yet ?!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Orbiter on 08/02/2008 10:32 pm
The launch is at Midnight now.

EDIT: sorry, misread midnight GMT 8 PM EDT
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/02/2008 10:32 pm
Launch rescheduled for 5:35 PM PDT / 8:35 PM EDT / 00:35 UTC

Feed is working fine for me, they seem to have dropped the live image at the pad, however.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 10:34 pm
Feed is pretty much just this. Still in the hold:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: braddock on 08/02/2008 10:36 pm
We'll just have to live without one SpaceX Launch video.

I am able to capture the flv video feed using the FireFox Download Helper Extension, and then play it back with VLC or mplayer.  Persumably I could convert it to any format with mplayer.  This is under Linux.

The captured stream has a TON of errors in it, if the Open Source codecs are correct.  I'm really worried this stream is going to fall to pieces once the imagery starts moving and the compression ratio does down.  I remember that happened on Flight 1. 

Does anyone know how to adjust the buffer size in Adobe Flash?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JMS on 08/02/2008 10:37 pm
Count has resumed.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 10:40 pm
Count has resumed.


Coming up on L-85 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Orbiter on 08/02/2008 10:45 pm
Gee, why are they delaying the launch so much? Is there an issue?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 10:47 pm
Gee, why are they delaying the launch so much? Is there an issue?

They aren't providing that information. Could be weather, could be range, could be the vehicle, or GSE.

Speaking of the weather. Anyone remember the link from the radar site we used on at least the first launch?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 10:51 pm
Heard some talk in the background about LOX loading, and needing to help the helium.....anyone catch all of that?

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 10:53 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/02/2008 10:53 pm
Looks like they've moved launch back up to 4:30 PM PDT / 7:30 PM EDT / 23:30 UTC
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/02/2008 10:56 pm
Here is a time line:

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/02/2008 11:02 pm
Liquid oxygen loading has begun.

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: DaveS on 08/02/2008 11:03 pm
For everyone with stream issues try this. No guarantees that it will work for everyone!


1: Right-click on the webcast window and select Settings
2: Click on the third button which has an open folder icon
3: Drag the slider all the way to the right until it says Unlimited and click close.
4: Restart the browser and head back to www.spacex.com

Now the webcast should be working pretty good.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/02/2008 11:03 pm
A video will be posted sometime after the event of this launch, I have no current time table on when this will be posted, but either tonight or sometime tomorrow.  Sorry for the delay!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 08/02/2008 11:03 pm
This is a live update thread, not a webcast technical helpline ;) No more, or I'll just delete it. Thanks :)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Orbiter on 08/02/2008 11:04 pm
Liquid oxygen loading has begun.



When is topping?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Orbiter on 08/02/2008 11:06 pm
T- 1 Hour and Counting.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/02/2008 11:06 pm
T-60 minutes and counting.

Looks like they've rescheduled launch, once again, to be:

5:06 PM PDT / 8:06 PM EDT / 00:06 UTC
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:06 pm
T-60 minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/02/2008 11:08 pm
and fade to black....
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Orbiter on 08/02/2008 11:08 pm
T-60 minutes and counting.

Looks like they've rescheduled launch, once again, to be:

5:06 PM PDT / 8:06 PM EDT / 00:06 UTC

Don't think it ever changed.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/02/2008 11:10 pm
Pad Crew have left Omelek and begun their boat ride to Meck (a few miles away).

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/2008/08/update-liquid-oxygen-loading-has-begun.html

Live feed from Kwaj will be back in a moment.

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 11:12 pm
Holding.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: cb6785 on 08/02/2008 11:12 pm
And holding at T-55
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:13 pm
Holding at T-55 mins.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/02/2008 11:20 pm
Interesting- looks like a one hour hold, then a one hour count?  That means we're actually 2 hours away from launch?

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: DaveS on 08/02/2008 11:21 pm
Interesting- looks like a one hour hold, then a one hour count?  That means we're actually 2 hours away from launch?


Please do note that hold clock is ticking up not down.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:22 pm
Second Stage LOX at 50 percent.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 11:22 pm
1st stage LOX loading complete
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 11:23 pm
Hold caused by helium loading problems.

I'd guess that the hold clock is cumulative.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:23 pm
Unplanned hold for Helium Bottle........and then she turned her mic off.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/02/2008 11:24 pm
Interesting- looks like a one hour hold, then a one hour count?  That means we're actually 2 hours away from launch?


Please do note that hold clock is ticking up not down.

That was strange, it went away, came back, then counted down, then went away, now is back, and counting up again...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: zappafrank on 08/02/2008 11:24 pm
They could issue some information.

Spacex really hurts their credibility when they act this way.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 11:24 pm
Unplanned hold for Helium Bottle........and then she turned her mic off.

I think the sound is intermittent.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:26 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: cb6785 on 08/02/2008 11:27 pm
at least it's not black anymore ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:30 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/02/2008 11:30 pm
Quote
While we're waiting, I thought I'd share some fun factoids about the rocket we're checking out today:

Falcon 1 is a two stage, liquid oxygen and rocket grade kerosene (RP-1) powered launch vehicle. It is designed from the ground up by SpaceX for cost efficient and reliable transport of satellites to low Earth orbit.
Length: 21.3 m (70 feet) - Your standard 7 story building.
Width: 1.7 m (5.5 feet) - actually, make that a 7 story pencil.
Mass: 27,670 kg (61,000 lbs) - about the weight of 4 semis (sans trailer).
Thrust on liftoff: 347 kN (78,000 lbf) - about the same thrust of three F-16's at full throttle.

First Stage
The primary structure is made of an aluminum alloy (patent pending), graduated monocoque, common bulkhead, flight pressure stabilized architecture developed by SpaceX. The
design is a blend between a fully pressure stabilized design, such as Atlas II, and a heavier isogrid design, such as Delta II. As a result, Falcon 1 first stage is able to capture the mass
efficiency of pressure stabilization, but avoid the ground handling difficulties of a structure unable to support its own weight.

A single SpaceX Merlin 1C regenerative engine powers the Falcon 1 first stage, and is flying in this configuration for the first time on Flight 3. After first stage engine start, the Falcon is held down and not released for flight until all propulsion and vehicle systems are confirmed to be operating nominally.

Stage separation occurs via redundantly initiated separation bolts and a pneumatic pusher system. All components are space qualified and have flown previously on other launch vehicles.

Second Stage
The tanks are precision machined from plate with integral flanges and ports, minimizing the number of welds necessary. A single SpaceX Kestrel engine powers the Falcon 1 upper stage.

(Copied and pasted from the press pack).
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/02/2008 11:32 pm
Must be a view from a ship. 

Could probably update the crawl at the bottom of the screen to say that this is the real webcast...

SpaceX will get better at coverage, too...

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:32 pm
95 percent on first stage LOX
87 percent on second stage LOX
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/02/2008 11:33 pm
Must be a view from a ship. 

"Above image is from telephoto video camera on Meck Island, approximately 2 miles away."
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 11:33 pm
Must be a view from a ship. 

Meck Island, according to the text updates below the feed.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:34 pm
LOX Loading complete. Into topping.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/02/2008 11:36 pm
Cut to SpaceX HQ. 

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:36 pm
This could be fun.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:37 pm
Picking up the count in 5 mins.

00:40 ZULU new launch time.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 11:41 pm
They seem to be having some problems with the videos.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/02/2008 11:42 pm
Trying to go back,minor audio glitches, bouncing back and forth between canned video and live video...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:42 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:43 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:45 pm
Still in the hold...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/02/2008 11:48 pm
more from press Pack:

Quote
Here's a diddy on the rockin' Merlin 1C, the main engine of Falcon 1 Vehicle 3.



The pintle style injector at the heart of Merlin was first used in the Apollo Moon program for the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landing engine, one of the most critical phases of the mission.

Specs:

Sea Level Thrust: 78,000 lb - those three F-16s I mentioned earlier
Vacuum Thrust: 138,400 lb - everything is just better in space.
Sea Level Isp: 255 s - Isp is Specific Impulse
Vacuum Isp: 304 s

Now I know you're asking: What exactly is Isp, Kimbal? Well, funny you ask. I just happen to have an explanation...

For the Rocket Scientists out there...

The specific impulse Isp is given by:

Isp = Veq / g0

where g0 is the gravitational acceleration constant (32.2 ft/sec^2 in English units, 9.8 m/sec^2 in metric units). Now, if we substitute for the equivalent velocity in terms of the thrust:

Isp = F / (mdot * g0)

Mathematically, the Isp is a ratio of the thrust produced to the weight flow of the propellants. A quick check of the units for Isp shows that:

Isp = m/sec / m/sec^2 = sec

Now I know that a lot of folks aren't into physics, or if they are, and you still can't figure it out, our friends at NASA have a nice and easy explanation of Isp:

"Why are we interested in specific impulse? First, it gives us a quick way to determine the thrust of a rocket, if we know the weight flow rate through the nozzle. Second, it is an indication of engine efficiency. Two different rocket engines have different values of specific impulse. The engine with the higher value of specific impulse is more efficient because it produces more thrust for the same amount of propellant. Third, it simplifies our mathematical analysis of rocket thermodynamics. The units of specific impulse are the same whether we use English units or metric units. Fourth, it gives us an easy way to "size" an engine during preliminary analysis. The result of our thermodynamic analysis is a certain value of specific impulse. The rocket weight will define the required value of thrust. Dividing the thrust required by the specific impulse will tell us how much weight flow of propellants our engine must produce. This information determines the physical size of the engine. "

And from SpaceX:
"With a vacuum specific impulse of 304s, Merlin is the highest performance gas generator cycle kerosene engine ever built, exceeding the Boeing Delta II main engine, the Lockheed Atlas II main engine and on par with the Saturn V F-1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXCD9UETbao&eurl=http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/02/2008 11:51 pm
Holding to determine Collision Avoidance with ISS and avoid radiating UFKAS during powered flight. New projected T zero is 12:55pm local.

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:51 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/02/2008 11:54 pm
Currently 525 employees at SpaceX.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 11:54 pm
According to the webcast, there are two more F1s to fly this year. I was only aware of one (Razaksat).
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/02/2008 11:55 pm
Liftoff is now expected at 5:55 PDT / 8:55 EDT / 00:55 UTC.

That was posted on the Space X page, under the live webcast (reiterating what collectSPACE said).
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/02/2008 11:56 pm
Still getting both audio sets merged.  Sounds like Kwaj is adjusting countdown clock.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:56 pm
Holding to determine Collision Avoidance with ISS and avoid radiating UFKAS during powered flight. New projected T zero is 12:55pm local.

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/

SpaceX aren't saying anything, but fits with them picking up the count in four minutes.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/02/2008 11:57 pm
4 minutes to count pickup.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/02/2008 11:57 pm
93% LOX load on the first and second stage.  LOX topping shortly.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: braddock on 08/02/2008 11:58 pm
Max Vozoff (blue shirt) is actually Senior Mission Manager/Dragon Product Manager at SpaceX - not just a talking head.  I think they are doing a great job.  Although it is a shame there isn't a press call so that there is some Q&A, not just a force feeding of information.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2008 11:59 pm
Yeah, impressed by Max. Clock about to pick up the count.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/02/2008 11:59 pm
2 mins left in the hold.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: blairf on 08/02/2008 11:59 pm
For raw fear, hope and adrenalien you cannot beat a SpaceX coutdown. This is my third and they all beat the rather mundane ULA/Ariane/Nasa efforts.

I'm not sure if that is a good thing, but boy it's exciting
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 12:00 am
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:01 am
Great view...

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:01 am
T-55 minutes and counting.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:02 am
Kwaj loop had traffic fiddling with heaters, looking for effects seen at LV...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 12:06 am
Fuelling underway.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:07 am
Interesting that SpaceX buildings have lots of open space, with high visibility into everyone's cube and meeting rooms...

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Arb on 08/03/2008 12:09 am
What means "avoid radiating UFKAS"?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 12:11 am
45 mins to launch
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pbreed on 08/03/2008 12:11 am
The feed quality has gotten much better.

Anyone know what UKFAS means?

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:12 am
Looks pretty windy at the launch site- the flag's really moving.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 12:12 am
What means "avoid radiating UFKAS"?

I believe it was "USAKA"

US Army Kwaj Atoll.  The main base
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 12:12 am
Standing by for LOX topping. And that has now begun.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:13 am
T-44:00, counting down.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: simonbp on 08/03/2008 12:13 am
Max Vozoff (blue shirt) is actually Senior Mission Manager/Dragon Product Manager at SpaceX - not just a talking head.

He's also a former JPLer and a nice guy; he give us JPL interns a tour of El Segundo two years ago. The new facility is much, much nicer looking than the "cubicles on a shop floor" before the move...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:13 am
LOX Topping in effect for both stages.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nathan.moeller on 08/03/2008 12:14 am
Will record the launch and upload it if the quality turns out okay.  Sorry, but it will not have audio.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:18 am
Cut Max off to go back to Elon's walkthrough video.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Rocket Girl on 08/03/2008 12:18 am
Interesting that SpaceX buildings have lots of open space, with high visibility into everyone's cube and meeting rooms...



I sure wouldn't like it. 

Maybe Musk is paranoid and needs to spy on people.  That would be why there is "high visibility into everyone's cube".






Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 12:19 am
What will become SpaceX MCC:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:19 am
Quicktime failed, webcast dropped for the moment...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 12:19 am
technical problems galore

Edit:  Hey they have vlc, why not let us use it for their webcast?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:19 am
LOL a mac crashed!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 12:20 am
Should have used a PC.....
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: simonbp on 08/03/2008 12:20 am
Someone hit relaunch, for christ's sakes!

Simon ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:21 am
DOH!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:21 am
So no wonder the quality is poor for the bitrate.. They are restreaming!

Meh if they can afford 100s of CPUs they afford a dedicated server!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Andrewwski on 08/03/2008 12:22 am
Will record the launch and upload it if the quality turns out okay.  Sorry, but it will not have audio.

I'll grab an individual audio track then and we'll see what we can do.

Really, they should use VLC to stream in ASF or something better...maybe someone can send them an email about next time.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Diagoras on 08/03/2008 12:22 am
Ignore, abort, retry.

Always hit retry. Or relaunch as the case may be.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JesseD on 08/03/2008 12:22 am
Should have used a PC.....

LOL! <asbestos underpants on!!!>
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 12:22 am
Have they even noticed the problem?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 12:22 am
hmm, i get this instead:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:23 am
Quote

I sure wouldn't like it. 

Maybe Musk is paranoid and needs to spy on people.  That would be why there is "high visibility into everyone's cube".


Or, maybe as a successful entrepreneur, he's seen enough slackers and had enough of them... 
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:23 am
Feed is back up, but paused...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:24 am
Quote

I sure wouldn't like it. 

Maybe Musk is paranoid and needs to spy on people.  That would be why there is "high visibility into everyone's cube".


Or, maybe as a successful entrepreneur, he's seen enough slackers and had enough of them... 

I agree.

It will cut back on the "Business Solitaire" hours
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 08/03/2008 12:24 am
Took a while to notice the crashed player. :)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: mr.columbus on 08/03/2008 12:25 am
Is it just me, or has the webcast frozen?

It works, but the picture is magnified and the countdown clock not visible any more  :-[
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:25 am
Took a while to notice the crashed player. :)

Will take a while to notice he's paused it.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 12:25 am
I think it also killed our moderators given the way this thread has become a free for all ;)

We're kinda not able to see the countdown clock now :(
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 08/03/2008 12:26 am
Streaming a paused player, this may take awhile.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 12:27 am
Should be about T-30.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:27 am
Fuel loading complete.  Feed back up and running.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:27 am
Fuel Load Complete
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 12:27 am
Running again, fuelling complete
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JesseD on 08/03/2008 12:28 am
it's working for me at T-28:00
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:28 am
Good for these two- they're not getting flustered, staying professional and smiling.  Genuine enthusiasm is what I get from them.

They'll get the glitches worked out.  Like not trying to re-stream a multicast stream with the present setup... :-)p
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 08/03/2008 12:29 am
"How are you coming along with that Helium there, Zack?".  Not quite what you would here with a NASA broadcast.  However, since someone earlier said a Helium tank was a problem earlier I'm rather curious myself.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Andrewwski on 08/03/2008 12:30 am
Refresh didn't work...but the third button from the right on the flash toolbar at the bottom is for aspect ratio...hit that once and it'll be all good.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 12:30 am
Weather is go
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:30 am
Weather is green at the moment.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 12:31 am
Ascension Island tracking station is go.

25 minutes away from launch.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: hektor on 08/03/2008 12:32 am
And the second button is full screen if you are adventurous;
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:33 am
Helium Top
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 12:34 am
Ok guys, given this is a strange kinda webcast, we'll take as many screenshots as possible, especially during launch and flight, so feel free to post as many as you can all grab and we should have a decent pictorial overview of the launch plus the text - which we'll look after.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:34 am
T-22mins and counting.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:35 am
Ok guys, given this is a strange kinda webcast, we'll take as many screenshots as possible, especially during launch and flight, so feel free to post as many as you can all grab and we should have a decent pictorial overview of the launch plus the text - which we'll look after.

What I suggest for those who want to do this is to use paint.net..

Copy and paste 3-5 images. Use the select tool to roughly select the image and save as jpeg..
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:35 am
Back to HQ.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:36 am
No issues in work.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:37 am
"This webcast, as well as launch footage, will be posted on our website, www.spacex.com"

There will also be a recording of launch here, not right after/during flight, will be a few hours, but there will be one tonight.  :)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:39 am
Max still trying to make it through an overview of launch activities, then sudden cut back to Elon...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:40 am
Hold clock counting.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:40 am
Countdown clock frozen at 16:00
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:41 am
HOLD
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:42 am
Passing 1:30 of hold, no mention of why yet...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 12:43 am
Factory shop with Elon during the hold.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:43 am
Quite a nice collection of Haas machines...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Danderman on 08/03/2008 12:45 am
I see the countdown clock and a bunch of black.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:45 am
Black screen, no commentary, no canned video.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:46 am
Back to the canned payload overview.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pbreed on 08/03/2008 12:47 am
The window runs till 8:00 PM pacific time.
they have just less than 2hours  till the window closes.

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nathan.moeller on 08/03/2008 12:47 am
Disregard my earlier posts...was posting under the thinking the window was 2 hrs. so my bad for any confusion.  Now 7:20 in the hold.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 12:48 am
The window runs till 8:00 PM pacific time.
they have just less than 2hours  till the window closes.



I make it three hours.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:48 am
Fuel Offload!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: hektor on 08/03/2008 12:48 am
offload sequence
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 12:48 am
"Fuel offload"?

Does that mean they've scrubbed?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:49 am
More than likely a scrub!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Martin FL on 08/03/2008 12:49 am
Quite a nice collection of Haas machines...

Can the moderators ask people to post images, rather than just writing text, as it's no help to those of us who are unable to get the webcast. Thanks.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: hektor on 08/03/2008 12:49 am
The launch team has been instructed to begin the first stage fuel off-load procedures.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:50 am
Fuel offloading.  Stage 1 and 2 are now offloading.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: zappafrank on 08/03/2008 12:50 am
Max is distracted.

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:50 am
I guess the PR people are confused. They are not announcing a scrub...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:51 am
"Hold is due to extended time needed to cryochill the helium."

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/


(Posted by collectSPACE earlier, just giving updates as needed)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JesseD on 08/03/2008 12:51 am
Remember, last launch they offloaded, reloaded, and launched in a hour or so... for the same problem, temp. problem caused pressure deficiency
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: hektor on 08/03/2008 12:51 am
They are recycling or scrubbing ?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:51 am
Quite a nice collection of Haas machines...

Can the moderators ask people to post images, rather than just writing text, as it's no help to those of us who are unable to get the webcast. Thanks.

Due to the difficulty of image capture when dealing with a flash movie.. This is a bit much to ask..
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:51 am
Sudden cut back to HQ.  I'm not sure Max Knows when he's on... He's still talking away...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:52 am
Remember, last launch they offloaded, reloaded, and launched in a hour or so...

That was historic but something tells me they will not try that again.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 08/03/2008 12:52 am
Last time they offloaded, reloaded, and launched...after an engine firing!  Hopefully this isn't a scrub.  The clocks are still running.  Count down at -16:00 and hold at +12:42.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:53 am
Quite a nice collection of Haas machines...

Can the moderators ask people to post images, rather than just writing text, as it's no help to those of us who are unable to get the webcast. Thanks.

Sorry, my snap missed what I saw, got about 5 seconds later image.  It's really tough to capture the stream that we're getting...

I'll keep trying. :-)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 12:53 am
Falcon 1 is at 98% helium mass load, but as we all know, that last 2% is a bitch. (Asymptotically approaching the limit of the heat exchanger)

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:54 am
Quite a nice collection of Haas machines...

Can the moderators ask people to post images, rather than just writing text, as it's no help to those of us who are unable to get the webcast. Thanks.

Sorry, my snap missed what I saw, got about 5 seconds later image.  It's really tough to capture the stream that we're getting...

I'll keep trying. :-)

This is the reason they need to either not use flash or use a Hybrid. There is no way the media is showing this live when the quality is so low.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:54 am
From the blog:
http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/

Quote

Hold is due to extended time needed to cryochill the helium.

Falcon 1 is at 98% helium mass load, but as we all know, that last 2% is a bitch. (Asymptotically approaching the limit of the heat exchanger).
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: shuttle_buff on 08/03/2008 12:54 am
I think Elon decided to just blow-us-away with his company's efforts!

As you watch the video, we are looking at hundreds of millions-of-dollars of infrastructure. Elon funded some of this.

I can't record the streaming video. It's not based on standard/normal methods. It's going through Flash or something.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jongoff on 08/03/2008 12:54 am
Falcon 1 is at 98% helium mass load, but as we all know, that last 2% is a bitch. (Asymptotically approaching the limit of the heat exchanger)

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/

Ah, so they may be temporarily offloading some of the fuel to make sure that it doesn't get too cold while they finish topping off the helium?

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 12:55 am
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nathan.moeller on 08/03/2008 12:55 am
15 minutes into the hold.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:56 am
Falcon 1 is at 98% helium mass load, but as we all know, that last 2% is a bitch. (Asymptotically approaching the limit of the heat exchanger)

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/

Ah, so they may be temporarily offloading some of the fuel to make sure that it doesn't get too cold while they finish topping off the helium?

~Jon

Very possibly, it's a trick of the trade.  The more energy you get in the propellant before you burn it, the more chamber pressure you get when you fly...  Within limits, of course.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:57 am
Quite a nice collection of Haas machines...

Can the moderators ask people to post images, rather than just writing text, as it's no help to those of us who are unable to get the webcast. Thanks.

Sorry, my snap missed what I saw, got about 5 seconds later image.  It's really tough to capture the stream that we're getting...

I'll keep trying. :-)

This is the reason they need to either not use flash or use a Hybrid. There is no way the media is showing this live when the quality is so low.

Can capture easily with HyperSnap.

Let's keep this thread on task of updates with the launch, not how to capture flash video screenshots.  ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: hektor on 08/03/2008 12:57 am
It's fascinating that the guys in charge of the comment hadn't a word about the hold under way.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 12:57 am
They are going to refuel!!

Edit: They do not know yet when they will do so.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 12:57 am
"Still detanking, no estimated time on refueling."
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:58 am
LC- countdown 1: on the loop:

Refuel no estimate on refuel, still de-tanking.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 12:59 am
RTS asking RCO to call on land line.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 08/03/2008 01:00 am
According to SpaceflightNow, the delay is due to the helium system.  The launch window goes until midnight, EDT.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 01:01 am
FTS powered down, carrier off.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: hektor on 08/03/2008 01:01 am
Any clue about at which mark they would restart the countdown ?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pbreed on 08/03/2008 01:01 am
It could also be too hot,  from sitting in an uninsulated tank in the hot wind.

The fuel density goes down as it gets warmer.
If I remember the last flight they fired up realized the Chamber pressure was low and off loaded and reloaded the fuel to lower the temp if
I remember correctly.

(I'm 99% sure the fuel offload reload was for temp, I'm only 75% asure it was to cool the fuel.




Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: shuttle_buff on 08/03/2008 01:03 am
Looks like Elon made good on his promise to automate the launch countdown. (Aviation Week article interview).

He can hold this puppy anywhere!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 01:05 am
Max just now acknowledging the hold. Taking a break.  Asking us to join back in 30:00
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 01:07 am
Very possibly, it's a trick of the trade.  The more energy you get in the propellant before you burn it, the more chamber pressure you get when you fly...  Within limits, of course.

It goes both ways.  Cold for higher density, hot for more energy
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 01:08 am
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jongoff on 08/03/2008 01:08 am
(I'm 99% sure the fuel offload reload was for temp, I'm only 75% asure it was to cool the fuel.

Paul, I'm pretty sure you have that backwards.  The kerosene shares a common bulkhead with the LOX.  If it gets too cold, it can throw off the chamber pressure on the low side.  Remember one of the second or third order benefits of going with a regen cooled engine is that the heat from the chamber gets hauled back into the chamber, increasing the Isp by a tiny bit.  Also, I can't help but think that if the kero gets too cold (it's freezing point is a lot higher than alcohol), it can't be good for the pumps, and probably doesn't help injection efficiency either.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 01:10 am
Looks like Elon made good on his promise to automate the launch countdown. (Aviation Week article interview).

He can hold this puppy anywhere!

That is not a function of automation and also not not unique to spacex.  Hold points are for convenience  not hardware or software driven
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/03/2008 01:12 am
Defueling is to ensure that the helium does not cool the fuel.

For those that heard 'Depowering the FTS'. That means Flight Termination System. Just powering down to ensure that we don't overheat.

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 01:13 am
Launch Control is working a minor issue. We are still very confident we will launch during today's window. Please stay tuned on this page, we will be back in approximately 30 minutes. (6:30 PDT / 9:30 EDT / 01:30 UTC)

The above is from SpaceX's site.


Fuel offload shutdown complete.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 08/03/2008 01:13 am
Starting fuel load sequence.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/03/2008 01:14 am
Not official yet, but based on reports from Kwaj, expected T-Zero is around 7pm PDT.

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: simonbp on 08/03/2008 01:17 am
When does the window close?

Simon ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 01:19 am
When does the window close?

Simon ;)
04:00 GMT
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jongoff on 08/03/2008 01:19 am
When does the window close?

I think someone said 12pm EDT, which gives them another 2hrs, 40min to get the launch off today.  They have plenty of time.  Of course, I'd rather have them scrub this than have it end up in the drink.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: shuttle_buff on 08/03/2008 01:20 am
Ok, fine Jim.

It still appears Elon has automated the launch sequence so it's all handled by computers. This was not the case in launch attempt #1 or #2.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 01:26 am
Ok, fine Jim.

It still appears Elon has automated the launch sequence so it's all handled by computers.

Just like everyone else
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 01:30 am
Webcast resumed!

Having some issues with the last loading of Helium.  Taking longer than expected to load the helium.  We're going to load the rest of the helium, reload the rest of the tank, and then try to launch within the window - PAO

Good luck, guys!

Another 'break' while this happens, so will be a few minutes for this to finish.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 01:31 am
Webcast resumed!

And ended....
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Andrewwski on 08/03/2008 01:32 am
Will return at 10 EDT...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 01:34 am
"Webcast will resume at 7:00 (PDT) / 02:30 (UTC)".

Which one?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Quindar on 08/03/2008 01:35 am
very annoying, every little issue halt the web cast ,bummer, want to listen to the thing end to end, especially if there is an issue...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: braddock on 08/03/2008 01:35 am
I thought the part where he mentioned that they had learned from experience that colder fuel resulted in lower thrust in a prior "campaign" was interesting.

Was that a factor in the lower than expected thrust in the last attempt?  I thought that was attributed to something else.  I know they had a scrub due to a temperature alarm on a prior attempt.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 01:37 am
The clock is holding at T-16 minutes. We are loaded to 97% and it is taking longer than expected to load the final 3%. To prevent fuel from getting too cold, we are detanking. Max will be back on-air at 7:00 PDT / 10:00 EDT / 02:00 UTC with further information. Updates will be posted here as available.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 01:39 am
The clock is holding at T-16 minutes. We are loaded to 97% and it is taking longer than expected to load the final 3%. To prevent fuel from getting too cold, we are detanking. Max will be back on-air at 7:00 PDT / 10:00 EDT / 02:00 UTC with further information. Updates will be posted here as available.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 01:39 am
Helium as a pressurant is a love/hate relationship.  Helium as anything, for that matter.  Mostly hate.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 01:39 am
Gotta love Google and WunderMap for their awesome service. Here's an image capture from a minute ago. Weather looks great!

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 01:41 am
Was that a factor in the lower than expected thrust in the last attempt?

No, it was the reason they aborted after ignition about an hour before that.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 01:42 am
... Max will be back on-air at 7:00 PDT / 10:00 EDT / 02:00 UTC with further information. Updates will be posted here as available.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php

It would be nice if the streamed video also showed those times.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 01:42 am
Now over an hour into the hold.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 01:56 am
1Hr 15Min into hold.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 02:00 am
Clock reset to T-55.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: amon on 08/03/2008 02:01 am
If the fuel chills too much, it does not mix at the right temperature and the ISP will be down a bit. In flight 2 this put it just below the low limit and caused a shutdown. They then detanked the fuel to warm it up, retanked a bit later and flew.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: braddock on 08/03/2008 02:03 am
It is hot and humid out there.  Heat index 102.4 deg F

Temp: 86.5°F (30.3°C)
Heat Index: 102.4°F (39.1°C)
Humidity: 82%
Dew Point: 80.6°F (27.0°C)
Wind: E at 13 MPH
Pressure: 29.83" (1010 mb)
Sky: partly cloudy

(http://www.rts-wx.com/data/satellite/latest_images/thumbnails/POES-IR.gif)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 02:03 am
Clock re-set to T-55 minutes. Still holding.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: NUAETIUS on 08/03/2008 02:04 am
Strange, the condensation off the rocket makes it look like a section of the 2nd stage has pealed away.  Are my eyes playing tricks on me?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:06 am
T-55 minutes and counting.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 02:06 am
Strange, the condensation off the rocket makes it look like a section of the 2nd stage has pealed away.  Are my eyes playing tricks on me?
I think that's part of the ground equipment.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dunderwood on 08/03/2008 02:06 am
That's the support structure.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: cdhutch on 08/03/2008 02:09 am
Can anyone post the constraints that are driving the launch window and what the orbital inclination and altitudes are?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 02:11 am
T- 50 Mins and counting!

Still no audio... view is of the rocket
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: catdlr on 08/03/2008 02:11 am
Latest Update form webcast page.

Posted August 2, 2008 - 19:03 PDT

We are still holding at T-16 minutes. We are very confident that we will launch before today's window closes at 9:00pm PDT / 12:00am EDT / 04:00 UTC. Please check back in 30 minutes for further updates.

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 02:14 am
They are targeting launch for 03:00 GMT.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 02:14 am
We have re-entered procedures at T-55 minutes and are reloading fuel. Liftoff is now expected at 08:00pm PDT / 11:00pm EDT / 03:00 UTC.

http://spacex.com/webcast.php
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:21 am
T-40 minutes and counting.

No PAO so far...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:23 am
Audio back.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 02:23 am
Starting Fuel Load!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 02:24 am
Starting to reload fuel.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:24 am
Executing fuel loading.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:25 am
LOX Topping starting.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:26 am
T-35min and counting!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:27 am
Sure looks like the flag is flapping faster...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:28 am
First Stage fuel loading is complete.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 02:28 am
Fuel loaded. T-33 mins.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:29 am
Wow loading the 1st stage RP-1 was fast....
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: braddock on 08/03/2008 02:29 am
Sure looks like the flag is flapping faster...

Range weather has the wind now at 10 mph.  But look at that heat index!

Temp: 86.9°F (30.5°C)
Heat Index: 107.4°F (41.9°C)
Humidity: 88%
Dew Point: 82.9°F (28.3°C)
Wind: ESE at 10 MPH
Pressure: 29.81" (1009 mb)
Sky: mostly cloudy
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/03/2008 02:30 am
How long does it take to the load Falcon 1 fuel tank, and is that on par with other similar vehicles?

Also, are there any known wind limits at liftoff that might come into play today? It does look windy.

JB
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:31 am
T-30min and counting.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 02:31 am
T-30 mins and counting!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 02:31 am
New view of the vehicle.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:31 am
And here's T-30:00 (again)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:32 am
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: infocat13 on 08/03/2008 02:32 am
  well  lets fix our minor problems and................light this candle!

wait somebody already owns this qoute. :)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:32 am
No significant weather changes.  Weather is green.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 02:33 am
Weather Green!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:33 am
GNC: 30-40% cloud cover, no big change, weather green.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 02:33 am
Weather is green.

Cloud cover increased, but not a constaint.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 02:33 am
T-28 mins and counting!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:35 am
The narrators are back!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 02:36 am
T-25 Mins and Counting!

He is good!

Fully Fueled!

Looks good!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:37 am
Back to the canned footage.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:38 am
"Doors limit communication"

Everyone but a few (e.g. HR) are in open space. 
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:39 am
This is a rerun of the earlier roll...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 02:41 am
T-20 Mins and counting!!!

Seems to be going well!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:41 am
Conference room naming at SpaceX
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:42 am
T- 20:00, counting
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/03/2008 02:43 am
audio much louder for me with quality set to standard instead of high. Little control just to the right of the counter
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 02:43 am
Not again.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: simonbp on 08/03/2008 02:43 am
Crashed again...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:43 am
DOH! 2.0
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: NUAETIUS on 08/03/2008 02:43 am
Video froze again, Steve Jobs is not looking good right now
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: braddock on 08/03/2008 02:44 am
They produced some nice content for this...QuickTime exception not withstanding.  It is a shame the late notice of launch probably kept viewership low.  But I'm sure they'll reuse it over and over...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:44 am
... Darn Macs!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 02:44 am
Well so much for that Bitgravity! What an embarrassment in my view!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 02:45 am
Well Back again!! Sorta
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: docmordrid on 08/03/2008 02:45 am
QT crashed on their end -again
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:45 am
And it's back up!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 02:45 am
Past T-16 this time.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:45 am
Video froze again, Steve Jobs is not looking good right now

For all we know, this is a multicast networking problem at SpaceX and not anything with MacOS...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 02:45 am
*Chuckles at Macs* - at least it's happening now and not during ascent.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 02:45 am
T-15 mins and counting!

Clear for Launch!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/03/2008 02:45 am
audio much louder for me with quality set to standard instead of high. Little control just to the right of the counter

Thanks - excellent call, TBW.

JB
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:45 am
Much faster recovery that time.  They're alert for it now.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:45 am
NO hold at T-7, and are GO for launch!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/03/2008 02:45 am
Video froze again, Steve Jobs is not looking good right now

This isn't Steve Jobs fault. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: manlymissileman on 08/03/2008 02:46 am
Something quit unexpectedly over there.  Now it's back on. 
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 02:46 am
Both stages are full of liquid oxygen, fuel (RP-1), and helium. We are ready to go into the terminal count, which is the last 10 minutes of automated countdown. Step 110 has been completed; reports are we are clear for launch.

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/03/2008 02:47 am
*Chuckles at Macs* - at least it's happening now and not during ascent.

Were it a PC, they'd have to reboot the entire machine - not just the software...  ;D
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 02:47 am
And it's back up!

They're getting better at reconfiguring that Mac, eh?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:49 am
Both stages are full of liquid oxygen, fuel (RP-1), and helium. We are ready to go into the terminal count, which is the last 10 minutes of automated countdown. Step 110 has been completed; reports are we are clear for launch.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 02:51 am
T-10 minutes, we're into the terminal count.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:52 am
Strange- I just jumped from ~T-11:10 to T-09:14.

And Elon's canned reel is back on.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:53 am
Strongback being retracted:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 02:53 am
Strange- I just jumped from ~T-11:10 to T-09:14.

And Elon's canned reel is back on.

View of hardware in the loop simulator.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:54 am
Fully retracted:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 02:54 am
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:54 am
Strongback going down...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 02:55 am
We are in terminal count; the arms are opening, transporter erector is retracting, and the strongback is retracting. Winds are good.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 02:56 am
Ok folks, we'll take as much help as possible with images.

Text updates are COVERED - so don't go post crazy with text updates unless you're a regular launch coverage member.

Everyone else is welcome to post images.

Thanks :)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:56 am
T-5 minutes and counting.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 02:56 am
Here's what T-5:00 looked like on the webcast:

Looks like it's less cloudy than an hour ago.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 02:57 am
Fuel bleed ended T-4 mins.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:57 am
Helium topping is ending.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 02:58 am
Ignition enabled.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 02:59 am
LOX top ending:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 02:59 am
T-2 minutes.

SpaceX is Green.

Range is Green.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:00 am
T-60 Seconds.

Go Falcon 1.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:01 am
ABORT!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:01 am
ABORT
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:02 am
Abort at T-0. Vehicle safing.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:02 am
Strongback heading back to the rocket.

Looking to figure out what happened with the data.  Possibly another launch attempt shortly.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 03:02 am
Looked like the engine fired about 20 seconds after the abort was called.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:02 am
Looks like the engine started, then aborted.

One parameter out of bounds.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jaythehokie on 08/03/2008 03:02 am
didn't this happen with flight 2?  Abort at like 0.5 sec.?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:03 am
didn't this happen with flight 2?  Abort at like 0.5 sec.?

Yes.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 03:03 am
T+2 mins. Looks like they forgot to stop the clock.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:03 am
Same as attempt 1 on launch 2 last time round. They still turned it around for a launch, but window is tight now.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: simonbp on 08/03/2008 03:04 am
And Flight 1 had an error at the same timeframe, but it was (disastrously) ignored...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: ZeeNL on 08/03/2008 03:04 am
There was some sort of ignition after T0.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:04 am
Strongback at the rocket.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/03/2008 03:05 am
didn't this happen with flight 2?  Abort at like 0.5 sec.?

Yes.

With all the software and hardware updates reportedly made after the second flight, you'd think the exact same problem would be avoided again ... ?

JB
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 03:05 am
I will admit tho I have never been so excited about the launch. PAO gets a big thumbs up for leaving a mic on the crowd..
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/03/2008 03:05 am
There was some sort of ignition after T0.

Delay in the video feed.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:05 am
We have had an abort and are looking at data. The vehicle and the pad system are fine. Please stay tuned, liftoff could still occur tonight.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:05 am
Looks like the engine started, then aborted.

One parameter out of bounds.

I think the feed is WAY lagging.. There is no way the engine fired for the heck of it.

Agreed, the cheers from the HQ seemed to be oddly placed to me- by about 15-20 seconds, just about what I saw the odd looking engine start/abort be lagged by the abort call.

Lets hope they don't find one silly thing .0002% out of tolerance again. :-)p
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jaythehokie on 08/03/2008 03:06 am
Looks like the engine started, then aborted.

One parameter out of bounds.

I think the feed is WAY lagging.. There is no way the engine fired for the heck of it.

that's an understatement... why else would it look like the engine fired at T + 20sec.??  An automated countdown wouldn't let that happen unless there was a SERIOUS software flaw...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JesseD on 08/03/2008 03:06 am
I think the feed is WAY lagging.. There is no way the engine fired for the heck of it.

Yeah, I figured the same... afterward....but hey, everybody can use a shot of adrenaline late at night! :) ;D
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Andrewwski on 08/03/2008 03:06 am
This is by far the most interesting launch I've followed to date.  Long holds, countdowns, aborts, and still more chances for launch.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 03:08 am
Anyone know how much window time is left?

If I remember right it was 2.5 hours 2 hours ago... Something tells me they just wont risk another try tonight.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: manlymissileman on 08/03/2008 03:08 am
Some kind of flare so the ignition part worked?  Then abort within seconds? 
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JesseD on 08/03/2008 03:08 am
window closes at 12pm EST
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:09 am
One of the propulsion data was about 1% out of range.  Looking promising for restarting the clock at T-10min.  Not confirmed yet. - Max
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: NUAETIUS on 08/03/2008 03:09 am
Thank god they don't have SRB.  That would have made that one a whole lot more tragic.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:09 am
Very fast turnarounds on all the mode changes- the strongback comes up fairly quickly, fueling is fast, etc.

I wonder how much of that is an actual advantage versus just less conservatism than found in a typical (ULA for example) launch. 

When your customer  has hundreds of millions to billions of dollars flying on your launcher, you don't act in a cavalier or hurried manner.

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jaythehokie on 08/03/2008 03:09 am
They've re-cycled the countdown clock to about 10mins.  Seems to me if this is a propulsion 1% error like they're talking...we could still get a liftoff tonight!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 03:10 am
Did anyone hear someone say bandwidth a bit before the launch? Is it possible it was related to the lag?

Because for some reason that was some SERIOUS lag with the camera view. Not even being hooked up through a Sat feed has that much lag.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JesseD on 08/03/2008 03:10 am
One of the propulsion data was about 1% out of range.  Looking promising for restarting the clock at T-10min.  Not confirmed yet. - Max
lol... if I recall, last launch attempt this was announced rather unofficially (and colorfully) by an engineer who forgot to turn his mic off?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:10 am
Clock has been reset to T-11min and we are still holding.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 03:11 am
Webcast announcer said one parameter was 1% out of range and that a countdown reset to T-10 minutes was possible
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 03:11 am
Not that I am a superstitious person, but I am getting some bad vibes....
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sawtooth on 08/03/2008 03:11 am
Well, the clock is currently showing T-11 minutes so that leaves them some time yet if they can launch from that point.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 08/03/2008 03:11 am
Can we please stop talking about individual technical issues with the webcast. People are here for launch updates. Thanks.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 03:12 am
Webcast announcer said one parameter was 1% out of range and that a countdown reset to T-10 minutes was possible

Possible but they are REALLY eating up whatever window time is left. The big drain hold was already pushing the limit.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 03:12 am
Thank god they don't have SRB.  That would have made that one a whole lot more tragic.


No, SRB's don't light until the main engine are at thrust and checked out.   This wouldn't have been a problem for vehicles with SRM's

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:13 am
Webcast announcer said one parameter was 1% out of range and that a countdown reset to T-10 minutes was possible

Possible but they are REALLY eating up whatever window time is left. The big drain hold was already pushing the limit.

They've got just about 35 minutes to figure out if they can launch or not.  They'll do it in their own time, if they can't launch today, tomorrow will be there.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: braddock on 08/03/2008 03:14 am
Some kind of flare so the ignition part worked?  Then abort within seconds? 

That is how the hold down clamps work to my understanding.  They ignite, check that everything looks good, and then either abort or release the vehicle.

The delays are all the whacky video and audio piping setup - although I wouldn't be surprised if they have an intentional delay on the video from the island, because a 15 second delay to their remote command center at SpaceX HQ seems like a problem.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: bad_astra on 08/03/2008 03:14 am
If this thing happens, it will be the most drama filled launch I've seen.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 03:16 am
Some kind of flare so the ignition part worked?  Then abort within seconds? 

That is how the hold down clamps work to my understanding.  They ignite, check that everything looks good, and then either abort or release the vehicle.


Which is the standard for Atlas, Delta and Shuttle
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:16 am
Wonder what they are looking at, or just setting the focus of the camera...?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:17 am
Taking a closer look here:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: hyper_snyper on 08/03/2008 03:17 am
If this thing happens, it will be the most drama filled launch I've seen.

Same thing happened with flight 2.  SpaceX is awesome, their countdowns are more exciting than the actual flights.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:17 am
Lots of camera panning around, zooming.  Looks like a quick check that everything on the pad is still OK.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jaythehokie on 08/03/2008 03:17 am
Some kind of flare so the ignition part worked?  Then abort within seconds? 

That is how the hold down clamps work to my understanding.  They ignite, check that everything looks good, and then either abort or release the vehicle.

The delays are all the whacky video and audio piping setup - although I wouldn't be surprised if they have an intentional delay on the video from the island, because a 15 second delay to their remote command center at SpaceX HQ seems like a problem.


the camera seems to be focusing on those holddown clamps... damage maybe??
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: ZeeNL on 08/03/2008 03:18 am
I have a capture from T -3 minutes to +1 or so.

At least they are learning fast this way. If they'd scrub for every problem, they would have been on the pad for a couple of days already.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 03:18 am
Zoomed in on some part of the vehicle.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:19 am
Engineers are reviewing data. No decision has been made yet, but it is looking promising that we will recycle and reset the clock to T-10 minutes. We have 50 minutes left in today's launch window.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php

(This was posted 10 minutes ago)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:21 am
Abort analysis

No biggie: 0.5 psi off on turbopump purge pressure. Adjustments are being made. Countdown should resume soon

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 03:21 am
Countdown to resume in 15min

Should be at T-10min when we start up again.

posted at 11:16 EST

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:24 am
T-11 minutes and COUNTING!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: kkattula on 08/03/2008 03:24 am
T-11 and counting
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: rdale on 08/03/2008 03:24 am
Countdown to resume in 15min

Should be at T-10min when we start up again.

posted at 11:16 EST

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/

Watch timezones with all the international readers - that was posted at 11:16pm EDT
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 03:24 am
T-10 minutes and counting
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/03/2008 03:25 am
Restart count!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:25 am
Terminal count started.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jaythehokie on 08/03/2008 03:25 am
someone enlighten me.... why didn't they have to recycle the fuel loads like last time?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: kkattula on 08/03/2008 03:26 am
Strongback coming down
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 03:26 am
T-11 minutes and COUNTING!

They are certainly "steely-eyed rocket men!"
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:26 am
Strongback retracting again:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:26 am
someone enlighten me.... why didn't they have to recycle the fuel loads like last time?

Because the pressurant (Helium) tanks are full.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 03:27 am
Well it will either be a launch, A historic 2nd ground firing of a flight engine in such a short time, or they will call it for the night...

Ought to be great!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:27 am
Strongback fully retracted:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:28 am
Try again shall we. Strongback retracted.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: ZeeNL on 08/03/2008 03:29 am
I wonder if they have simulated these kind of conditions, with all the holds etc. I can imagine they've simulated a lot, but not these exact conditions. I imagine that is why the big guys scrub a lot faster.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:29 am
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:30 am
T-5 minutes and counting.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:30 am
Fuel bleed on.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:31 am
Battery heaters are ending.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:31 am
T-3:30.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:32 am
Cheering again at SpaceX.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:32 am
Ignition enabled.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:32 am
LOX top ending.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:33 am
T-2 minutes and counting.  Battery chargers ending.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:33 am
LD - SpaceX is green.
RCO - Range is green.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:33 am
Rocket on internal power.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 03:34 am
LD - SpaceX is green.
RCO - Range is green.

View down the vehicle.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:34 am
T-30 sec, all go.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:35 am
LAUNCH!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:35 am
In first stage.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:35 am
OK She's a flying this time!!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:35 am
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:36 am
First stage nominal flight.

Mach 1.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:36 am
Mach 1
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:36 am
Max Q, all nominal.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:36 am
T+1 min. Max Q.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:37 am
Some rolling back and forth on first stage.

FAILED!!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:37 am
Vehicle working on downrange:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: lcs on 08/03/2008 03:37 am
There was no delay between the T=0 call and video liftoff...so much for video lag.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:37 am
Anomaly in vehicle!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: zappafrank on 08/03/2008 03:38 am
Anomaly


0 for 3
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: lcs on 08/03/2008 03:39 am
Boy, they must have someone's finger poised on the censor button.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:39 am
That's.. impossible.

I feel so bad for these guys at Space X.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: zappafrank on 08/03/2008 03:39 am
As usual, no word from Spacex, just the end of the broadcast.

I'd like them more if they would take their lumps in real time.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:39 am
Another big lag jump for me, then  this:
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Nate_Trost on 08/03/2008 03:39 am
That seems like it was really close to first stage MECO/sep....
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/03/2008 03:40 am
Oh, that's trashy!

Detect a vehicle anomaly and just pull the video feed and cut to adverts?

REALLY BAD FORM from Space-X.   With coverage that poor, I don't think they're going to keep their current levels of public support for long.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: daver on 08/03/2008 03:40 am
I've never seen a rocket roll back and forth like that.  BUMMER
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/03/2008 03:40 am
Does anyone recall seeing the [small] roll oscillation last time?

JB
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Nonproliferator on 08/03/2008 03:40 am
Not impossible (evidently) just very unfortunate.

That's.. impossible.

I feel so bad for these guys at Space X.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: lcs on 08/03/2008 03:41 am
I suspect that 20 sec late firing after the aborted launch was for real.  Maybe related to the anomaly, maybe not.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 03:41 am
Oh, that's trashy!

Detect a vehicle anomaly and just pull the video feed?   Bad form from Space-X.

Ross.

This is why I have just lost hope for them. Whenever something goes wrong they pull the broadcast and hide like chickens.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:42 am
Oh, that's trashy!

Detect a vehicle anomaly and just pull the video feed?   Bad form from Space-X.

Ross.

This is why I have just lost hope for them. Whenever something goes wrong they pull the broadcast and hide like chickens.

What else are they supposed to do if the vehicle exploded, show everyone that image on the web?
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: zappafrank on 08/03/2008 03:42 am
I'd feel sorry for them if they kept the broadcast.

But this is 3 times they censored their failures.

Not the way to win peoples hearts over.

Hope they like all that COTS money.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/03/2008 03:42 am
Does anyone recall seeing the [small] roll oscillation last time?

I do not recall that, and I thought it was very noticeable this time.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 03:42 am
I suspect that 20 sec late firing after the aborted launch was for real.  Maybe related to the anomaly, maybe not.

It was not, it was web delay
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 03:42 am
Not that I am a superstitious person, but I am getting some bad vibes....

I really wanted to be wrong too..... :-[
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: MikeM. on 08/03/2008 03:42 am
Does anyone recall seeing the [small] roll oscillation last time?

JB


I don't recall seeing it in the first stage but it did occur in the second stage of the last flight if I'm remembering right.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: libs0n on 08/03/2008 03:42 am
That's a shame.  Took out that cool solar sail demo too.

edit: Better luck next time SpaceX.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dmc6960 on 08/03/2008 03:42 am
That was not there in the 1st stage flight last time.

Does anyone recall seeing the [small] roll oscillation last time?

JB

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: braddock on 08/03/2008 03:43 am
Am working on the video of the launch now with Ford.  Should be up soon for your review, just need to make some conversions....
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Quindar on 08/03/2008 03:43 am
As usual, no word from Spacex, just the end of the broadcast.

I'd like them more if they would take their lumps in real time.

I totally agree! Either do a live realtime feed with no censorship or just do it in secret and let us know if it Ever gets to obit...
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 03:43 am
Oh, that's trashy!

Detect a vehicle anomaly and just pull the video feed?   Bad form from Space-X.

Ross.

This is why I have just lost hope for them. Whenever something goes wrong they pull the broadcast and hide like chickens.

What else are they supposed to do if the vehicle exploded, show everyone that image on the web?

Yes, just like everyone else
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 03:43 am
Looked like a first stage guidance problem. It was flying like the last one did during S2.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Paul Adams on 08/03/2008 03:43 am
Oh, that's trashy!

Detect a vehicle anomaly and just pull the video feed?   Bad form from Space-X.

Ross.

This is why I have just lost hope for them. Whenever something goes wrong they pull the broadcast and hide like chickens.

What else are they supposed to do if the vehicle exploded, show everyone that image on the web?

Well said Ford, give these guys a break. Lets show a bit of support shall we!!!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jbk024 on 08/03/2008 03:43 am
JonS

I don't recall the small roll adjustments last flight - but it didn't look stable in roll early on - I was hoping it was ok because the oscillations didn't seem to be increasing in frequency.

Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JWag on 08/03/2008 03:43 am
Does anyone recall seeing the [small] roll oscillation last time?

To my amateur eye, the first two flights had excellent roll control.  I'm catching this one late, so I haven't seen any video from this flight yet.

If their customers stay with them after this, then I guess they'll be all right even if they're really annoying the crap out of the non-customer audience.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 03:43 am
There was no first stage oscillation last time
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/03/2008 03:43 am
time to go cry 5 minutes the start writing another sad story.

the webcast was but wasn't pulled, as it were. there was a 15-second-ish delay on the video feed from omelek and the rocket (I have a friend who lives on Kwaj and the communications with the outside world SUCKS). something happened to the rocket suddenly and it was destroyed. at that point the webcast was stopped. but we didn't get to see what happened in those last 15 seconds. my guess is a tumble and boom :(

good god what about F-9.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:44 am
From http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Quote
Anomoly in launch

Waiting for more information.

We have two more Falcon 1's right behind this one, no matter what happened.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: ZeeNL on 08/03/2008 03:44 am
I don't think the slight roll oscillations were the problem. I have seen those in other launch videos (of other vehicles, I must admit.)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 03:46 am
We had a few people working on recording the launch, so we'll see what we can do about a replay.
Very sad, and let's not see too much bashing for cutting the webcast. Commercial company - Sea Launch did the same thing.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: PurduesUSAFguy on 08/03/2008 03:46 am
Great, tonight Alt.Space died and with it all hope of making the space program viable in the long term.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/03/2008 03:46 am
There was no first stage oscillation last time

In second stage last time I believe that was exacerbated by fuel slosh (no baffles?) - and that wasn't initially a roll oscillation as I recall. What's used in first stage roll control here? RCS?

JB
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: simonbp on 08/03/2008 03:47 am
F-9 has already been paid for out of NASA's pocket...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/03/2008 03:47 am
Oh, that's trashy!

Detect a vehicle anomaly and just pull the video feed?   Bad form from Space-X.

Ross.

This is why I have just lost hope for them. Whenever something goes wrong they pull the broadcast and hide like chickens.

What else are they supposed to do if the vehicle exploded, show everyone that image on the web?


Sealaunch showed their explosion, and hats off to them.
No, Sealaunch just didn't cut the video feed fast enough to blank out the explosion.  SeaLaunch did cut that feed within 5 seconds of the boom. Then went straight to a SeaLaunch logo screen without any commentary.
 
SpaceX was probably just a little faster on the gun this time.  Last time SpaceX showed the launch until the video transmission failed.  It could have been the same this time, we just don't know yet.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: lcs on 08/03/2008 03:47 am
I suspect that 20 sec late firing after the aborted launch was for real.  Maybe related to the anomaly, maybe not.

It was not, it was web delay

There was no delay between the T=0 call by the commentator and liftoff.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 03:47 am
I'll give them one more try.   And I'll give them one more chance to get the PR gig right.   After that, I'll just start saying 'leave it to the professionals' - in both respects.

Ross.

There are plenty of us who will "give them" as many chances as they wish to take.... So long as they aren't gambling with our money!
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 03:47 am
I don't think the slight roll oscillations were the problem. I have seen those in other launch videos (of other vehicles, I must admit.)

It is not normal  and it is not in other vehicles.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dmc6960 on 08/03/2008 03:47 am
There was no first stage oscillation last time

In second stage last time I believe that was exacerbated by fuel slosh (no baffles?) - and that wasn't initially a roll oscillation as I recall. What's used in first stage roll control here? RCS?

JB


Gas generator exhaust.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 03:47 am
Another thing about this...  What about flights to the space station? You think censoring the feed is going to be tolerated?

They can't do it then.. Why do it now?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Oberon_Command on 08/03/2008 03:48 am
Did anyone else notice a puff of flame around the engine shortly after liftoff? That's about when I noticed the roll oscillations started.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/03/2008 03:48 am
That seems like it was really close to first stage MECO/sep....

Yes.  Video was stopped at about 2 min 20 sec.  Second stage pressurization was supposed to be at 2 min 25 sec, then MECO at 2 min 38 sec. and stage sep at 2 min 39 sec. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/03/2008 03:48 am
Nope you keep the camera on the PR person. You relay anything you can and calmly shut down the broadcast after a few mins worth of conclusion. You don't cut the feed and run. That is bad form and scares investors.

The worst was that last Proton that failed. First, we all watched it shutdown right at 2nd stage ignition and the merrily carry on with ascent color commentary, clueless, for minutes longer, then when THEY were told there's a problem, the lady summarily handed it off to her counterpart who said it's over bye. Sheesh.

I want to see those last 15 seconds. I will get on the phone as soon as things chill a bit over at SpaceX. I'm trying to figure out how I can write this up without sounding objectively dejected, or however you want to put it.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 03:49 am
Did anyone else notice a puff of flame around the engine shortly after liftoff? That's about when I noticed the roll oscillations started.

Regen nozzle? First flight
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: simonbp on 08/03/2008 03:49 am
What's used in first stage roll control here? RCS?


IIRC, it's the GG exhaust, while TVC is hydraulic using RP-1 from the tanks...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: hop on 08/03/2008 03:51 am
Oh, that's trashy!

Detect a vehicle anomaly and just pull the video feed and cut to adverts?

REALLY BAD FORM from Space-X.

Ross.
Huh ? Pretty much the same as what the big boys do. Sometimes it takes more or less time for to happen, but everyone cuts the feed when the rocket goes boom. Except the Russians, sometimes they show you a pre-programmed "telemetry" plot of what was supposed to happen.

The rolling did look odd like it was fighting some consistent torque in the other direction. I don't recall that from last time.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 03:51 am
We have heard from launch control that there has been an anomaly. More details will be posted to the website as available.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:51 am
Great, tonight Alt.Space died and with it all hope of making the space program viable in the long term.

Nothing is dead.  SpaceX learned another valuable lesson. Bought it the hard way.  Bet they wish now they stopped to inspect that launch vehicle to see why the turbopump pressure was low.  (if that is indeed why they had the first abort)

If it was hosed, remember that the gas generator exhaust is used for roll control...

Maybe next time they actually scrub for a day and go out and inspect the vehicle- like the mature providers do.

Maybe they also put formal rules in place about just what limits exactly someone can tweak on the spur of the moment without analysis.  You'd think after the first embarrassing abort that they'd have thoroughly reviewed EVERY limit, and that tweaking one in a fit of launch fever would be less likely, not more.

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Rocket Rancher on 08/03/2008 03:52 am
Did anyone else notice a puff of flame around the engine shortly after liftoff? That's about when I noticed the roll oscillations started.

 I saw it too but thought it was noise in the video feed
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pbreed on 08/03/2008 03:52 am
My post to Arocket before the launch.....

I wish them the very best.
I hope they make orbit with 100%  of mission objectives met.

If I had to make guesses where things might go wrong:

5% chance roll problems with the new Merlin 1C, this is a new  chamber design.
I hope they have enough roll authority.


10% chance that the 2nd stage was not slosh but something else.
It would be real easy to write a spacecraft simulator where one made assumptions about things that might matter in the real world.
I'm thinking of things like the electric motors in the TVC actuators imparting a torque offset from the CG,
leading to the sort of conning error we saw last time.




Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: shuttle_buff on 08/03/2008 03:53 am
It appeared there was a fire (again) on the engine below. Hard to tell. I saw it and was concerned.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Oberon_Command on 08/03/2008 03:54 am
Did anyone else notice a puff of flame around the engine shortly after liftoff? That's about when I noticed the roll oscillations started.

 I saw it too but thought it was noise in the video feed

That's what I thought as well, but I didn't see it again... the replay will probably show it better.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: DaveS on 08/03/2008 03:54 am
It appeared there was a fire (again) on the engine below. Hard to tell. I saw it and was concerned.
Nope. That was nominal plume expansion due to lower ambient pressure on the exhaust plume. Happens on all launch vehicles.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: EE Scott on 08/03/2008 03:55 am
From website:
T+140s: Vehicle switching to inertial guidance mode. 1050 m/s, altitude of 35 km

Any possible issue with inertial guidance system?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 03:55 am

I'm thinking of things like the electric motors in the TVC actuators



They are hydraulic
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: CzarB on 08/03/2008 03:56 am
That seems like it was really close to first stage MECO/sep....

Yes.  Video was stopped at about 2 min 20 sec.  Second stage pressurization was supposed to be at 2 min 25 sec, then MECO at 2 min 38 sec. and stage sep at 2 min 39 sec. 

 - Ed Kyle

2 min 11 sec according to the onscreen counter.    Below is last frame captured by my stream before Quicktime splashscreen.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dmc6960 on 08/03/2008 03:56 am
It appeared there was a fire (again) on the engine below. Hard to tell. I saw it and was concerned.
Nope. That was nominal plume expansion due to lower ambient pressure on the exhaust plume. Happens on all launch vehicles.

Yes, but almost immediately I recall there being extra brightness and extra buldgyness in the exhaust plume in the upper right of our view.  That could have been the GG exhaust if the rocketcam was in a different spot this time.  Hard to tell.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 03:56 am
Well seeing as thinking about what happened before they give us any PR info is rather useless I would like to talk future...

This is the 3rd failure... And worse than that it is the 3rd failure of a LONG period. So if you say "so they will just do an investigation and fix it" Fix what? Problem 3 out of 100? What will go wrong next?

The solar sail spacecraft is the worst loss yet in my view.. It had the means to actually give a historic first for SpaceX because solar sails have been dreamed of for decades...

3 failures done THIS bad with PR would kill a public funded company. Especially when launches took this long....

So what now? Obviously they Can't pack up and go to Tesla... They have a COTS mission to do...

They need to fail and fail and fail until they fix this thing. No more .gov payloads... No more student projects... No more anything. They need to build and launch build and launch. That is how the best aircraft engines ever made were built to last.. They were run and run and run until they fell apart...

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: ZeeNL on 08/03/2008 03:57 am
I still don't think it was the roll "oscillations." They were not getting bigger before the feed was cut, maybe smaller even.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pbreed on 08/03/2008 03:57 am
>The rolling did look odd like it was fighting some consistent torque in the other >direction. I don't recall that from last time.

The old chamber was ablative, the new chamber extension is a helically wound
tube wall chamber, it WILL induce a consistent rolling torque  on the vehicle.

Note in  the time line that at 2:20 about where it went bang the system shifts to "inertial guidance mode".  so it could also have been an inertial guidance failure.






Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/03/2008 03:58 am
Yeah, but Sealaunch showed their defeat.

We still have never seen the first flight failure from the ground.

I doubt we will see this one.

Geez, I wish I had gotten the job on Kwaj a few years back, I could report what really happened.

While SeaLaunch did show their explosion, I think it was only because it happened DURING launch, a time when a lot of fire and smoke is expected.  I think the only reason we saw that SeaLaunch explosion is because they weren't as quick on the kill-switch as they would liked to have been.

SeaLaunch DID quickly (like within 5 seconds) cut the entire video feed and went right to a SeaLaunch logo screen with no explanations at all.

SpaceX actually did more than SeaLaunch, in that they at least went back to their commentators and explained that there was an anomaly.  As for why they quickly went off the air, likely because SpaceX won't know the exact cause of the anomaly was for days or weeks. 

I guess we're all so used to the press endlessly speculating on things like this that we fail to remember that the answers to these things are usually weeks or months in coming. 

Had their commentators stayed on air, what could they possibly have said?  What intelligent observations could they have made?

At this early stage, probably none.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Oberon_Command on 08/03/2008 03:58 am
Solar sails seem to have bad luck with LVs... Wasn't there a solar sail spacecraft that was supposed to be launched on a Russian rocket, but that failed as well?

Is it possible that they only lost telemetry and that the vehicle is still going?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pbreed on 08/03/2008 03:59 am
>They are hydraulic
Not on the 2nd stage, if you read the comment I posted carefully the rool refered to the first stage, and the tvc sim question had to do with possible issues with the 2nd stage other than slosh. The TVC's on the 2nd stage are electric.


Paul
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: DaveS on 08/03/2008 04:00 am
Solar sails seem to have bad luck with LVs... Wasn't there a solar sail spacecraft that was supposed to be launched on a Russian rocket, but that failed as well?

Is it possible that they only lost telemetry and that the vehicle is still going?
Yep, Cosmos-1. Launched on converted SLBM called Volna that had a terrible track-record.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 04:01 am
Solar sails seem to have bad luck with LVs... Wasn't there a solar sail spacecraft that was supposed to be launched on a Russian rocket, but that failed as well?

Cosmos-1, which was supposed to be orbited by a Volna. IIRC, the rocket launched and was never seen or heard from again.

Japan's solar sail failed to contact the ground after launch in 2006, but the launch was successful.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 04:01 am
There was nothing they could say. At least they had the courtesy to say there had been an anomaly and that they would get back to us as soon as they had something to say. Only then did they cut the feed. Really, what else could they do, just sit there and smile?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: tnphysics on 08/03/2008 04:02 am
Hope problem doesn't carry over to F9.
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Seattle Dave on 08/03/2008 04:03 am
Some rolling back and forth on first stage.

FAILED!!

Wow, very sad news. Now we wait for the delay to flight 4.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 04:04 am
Ok, we're working on the video. Will be on our video section (free, but need to be logged in) asap.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: EE Scott on 08/03/2008 04:04 am
It does seem that they need to try again as quickly as prudently possible, this time with a simple demosat that would confirm correct orbit insertion.  If there is a wait as long as last time until next launch, well I just don't see that as possible.

More test flights, please.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/03/2008 04:06 am
Hearing loss during sep. 

We must have been viewing on a 30 second delay.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 04:07 am
It does seem that they need to try again as quickly as prudently possible, this time with a simple demosat that would confirm correct orbit insertion.  If there is a wait as long as last time until next launch, well I just don't see that as possible.

More test flights, please.

No they need to be conservative and figure out the problem, not shoot rockets off like fireworks.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 04:08 am
Hearing loss during sep. 

We must have been viewing on a 30 second delay.

Now this is where we all need to be careful. Where are you hearing this?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Oberon_Command on 08/03/2008 04:08 am
Hearing loss during sep. 

That's just a telemetry loss, correct? So it DID get to staging?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/03/2008 04:10 am
...
They need to fail and fail and fail until they fix this thing. No more .gov payloads... No more student projects... No more anything. They need to build and launch build and launch. That is how the best aircraft engines ever made were built to last.. They were run and run and run until they fell apart...

I read this somewhere recently and thought it was relevant enough to save:

"It's amazing how NASA took charge of itself in those days. We had pure, raw leadership, incredibly talented and capable people, and by November, ten months later, we were launching our first all-up Saturn V, a very gutsy move by George [E.] Mueller to conduct what was called "the all-up testing," and this was every time you fly you're going to test everything. You're going to test all three stages of the booster. You're going to test the spacecraft. You're going to test inside the spacecraft, the guidance and navigation controls. There is no test that will not be a complete entity.
The obvious advantage of this was, if you're successful, you're buying yourself time on the schedule. If you see a bunch of problems, you've got time to fix them, but if you're unsuccessful, you've got a whole bunch of space hardware that's reduced to junk. So it's a go-for-broke kind of approach that he kicked off that really paid off and, I think, was the real key in getting to the Moon."


I hope they have a lot of good telemetry.

They'll get it right eventually.

JB
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: bodge on 08/03/2008 04:11 am
Hearing loss during sep. 

We must have been viewing on a 30 second delay.

Now this is where we all need to be careful. Where are you hearing this?

If you rewatch the video you'll notice that the crowd in the background begins to cheer roughly 30 seconds prior to the video cutout. Immediately after the background noise goes silent and the video presses on til the cut out. This seems to support the delay if you assume the crowd noise cut-out corresponds to the 'oh no!' that was actually occurring as we watched the final 30 seconds of flight.

Not proof, but just some supporting evidence that the anomaly may have occurred right around the next major event the crowd was cheering for (MECO / sep)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: EE Scott on 08/03/2008 04:13 am
It does seem that they need to try again as quickly as prudently possible, this time with a simple demosat that would confirm correct orbit insertion.  If there is a wait as long as last time until next launch, well I just don't see that as possible.

More test flights, please.

No they need to be conservative and figure out the problem, not shoot rockets off like fireworks.

Viable and credible programs need to work off of real-world data that can only come from launch, fix, launch, fix, etc.... until real reliability comes.  Look at all the rockets that were blown up in the 50s and 60s -- that's just part of the journey.  No more paying customers' sats until they verify their design.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 04:13 am
Yeah, I want the announcers to sit there and think of something to say, that is their job.

Then you are wrong.  Knowing why the vehicle was lost is going to take a WHOLE lot of review.  There's telemetry from before and after launch, a physical inspection of the launch pad, reviews of closeout photos and documentation, procedures, tons of things.

Some knucklhead on the internet wondering aloud what might've gone wrong is one thing (e.g. ME).  The commentators talking out their backsides without all the facts is another.

The best thing the commentators could possibly do is to say that it appears to have been a serious launch anomaly, that they will provide more detail when it is known, and then sign off.  If they'd heard for certain that the vehicle was destroyed, then add that.

Pretty much anything beyond that at the moment of loss will only work against them and their company.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/03/2008 04:13 am
Hearing loss during sep. 

We must have been viewing on a 30 second delay.

Now this is where we all need to be careful. Where are you hearing this?

A source of totally unknown reliability.

Take it with the largest possible grain of salt.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 04:14 am
Hearing loss during sep. 

We must have been viewing on a 30 second delay.

Now this is where we all need to be careful. Where are you hearing this?

If you rewatch the video you'll notice that the crowd in the background begins to cheer roughly 30 seconds prior to the video cutout. Immediately after the background noise goes silent and the video presses on til the cut out. This seems to support the delay if you assume the crowd noise cut-out corresponds to the 'oh no!' that was actually occurring as we watched the final 30 seconds of flight.

Not proof, but just some supporting evidence that the anomaly may have occurred right around the next major event the crowd was cheering for (MECO / sep)

Understood, but let's worth on information, rather than assumption (which isn't a bad thing - just needs to be tagged as such - rather than "I hear that" - which suggests a source etc.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 04:14 am
http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/2008/08/rocket-is-lost.html

Rocket is lost.........
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 04:15 am

Just about everyone but Nasa do less than SpaceX did.


Not everyone, Not ULA (Atlas and Delta), not OSC, not Ariancespace.  Only Spacex and Sealaunch
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/03/2008 04:17 am

Just about everyone but Nasa do less than SpaceX did.


Not everyone, Not ULA (Atlas and Delta), not OSC, not Ariancespace.  Only Spacex and Sealaunch
I've seen the Russians cut video, I've seen ESA cut as well.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: EE Scott on 08/03/2008 04:17 am
Sorry for the basic/stupid question, but does SpaceX use active explosive devices on their LVs or do they just let it run out of fuel and crash.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 04:19 am
Sorry for the basic/stupid question, but does SpaceX use active explosive devices on their LVs or do they just let it run out of fuel and crash.

Thrust termination on F1.  In other words, shut down and fall to your doom.  No explosive termination systems in the F1.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: EE Scott on 08/03/2008 04:20 am
Sorry for the basic/stupid question, but does SpaceX use active explosive devices on their LVs or do they just let it run out of fuel and crash.

Thrust termination on F1.  In other words, shut down and fall to your doom.  No explosive termination systems in the F1.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/03/2008 04:21 am
Thinking about it some more ... any kind of oscillation would be bad at sep. I wonder if they took out the stage 2 nozzle this time? Pointless speculation, I know. Time will tell.

JB
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 04:21 am
Sorry for the basic/stupid question, but does SpaceX use active explosive devices on their LVs or do they just let it run out of fuel and crash.

Thrust termination on F1.  In other words, shut down and fall to your doom.  No explosive termination systems in the F1.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Doesn't range safety at the Cape require an active destruct system?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 04:21 am
Commercial company. Why the hell should they sit there and try and tell you things they've got NO way of knowing, surrounded by replays of the vehicle failing.

Come on people. We should be wishing SpaceX the best for their next flight, not jumping up and down on their webcast PR.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: guru on 08/03/2008 04:23 am
Solar sails seem to have bad luck with LVs... Wasn't there a solar sail spacecraft that was supposed to be launched on a Russian rocket, but that failed as well?


Off topic, but wouldn't it be nice if they could fit that solar sail spacecraft, or anything other payload, with an escape rocket, like they do with manned capsules, so it doesn't get lost as often as the rocket does?  (Shroud serves as heat shield, add parachute.  I know there a lot of issues like reduced payload capacity and increased vehicle complexity, but it's just a thought.)

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 04:24 am
Commercial company. Why the hell should they sit there and try and tell you things they've got NO way of knowing, surrounded by replays of the vehicle failing.

Come on people. We should be wishing SpaceX the best for their next flight, not jumping up and down on their webcast PR.

Just like this time, I will be here next time cheering them on. And the next, and the next, however many it takes. This guy is doing what all of us wish we could do, so cut him some slack. Quit being jealous.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Aviator on 08/03/2008 04:24 am
More for the huge grain of salt

Found a reference to a twitter feed coming from inside SpaceX California

There was an issue in the separation stage. A glitch that resulted in the engine exploding
      Italics Mine

Looking for a giant salt shaker for this little tidbit.  More If I find it

Larry
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: amon on 08/03/2008 04:25 am
Did anyone else have some misgivings about the plume just before the video cut out? Not the expansion, but the appearance of lines that moved counter clockwise. I was also wondering if the exhaust was looking a bit 'smoky'. Could we be seeing problems with the  regen channels around the bell failing?

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: EE Scott on 08/03/2008 04:28 am
Commercial company. Why the hell should they sit there and try and tell you things they've got NO way of knowing, surrounded by replays of the vehicle failing.

Come on people. We should be wishing SpaceX the best for their next flight, not jumping up and down on their webcast PR.

Just like this time, I will be here next time cheering them on. And the next, and the next, however many it takes. This guy is doing what all of us wish we could do, so cut him some slack. Quit being jealous.

I think we will all be here cheering them on next time.  It feels kind of like getting punched in the stomach to see them fail on this 3rd try. I look forward to the official explanation.  Bring on the next rocket and let's execute lessons learned. :)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pbreed on 08/03/2008 04:29 am
Rocket Science is really hard.
Cut them some slack.

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: punkboi on 08/03/2008 04:30 am
Solar sails seem to have bad luck with LVs... Wasn't there a solar sail spacecraft that was supposed to be launched on a Russian rocket, but that failed as well?

Is it possible that they only lost telemetry and that the vehicle is still going?

Yes.  The solar sail was built by The Planetary Society of Pasadena, CA.  They're planning to build a second one
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Wolverine on 08/03/2008 04:37 am
Commercial company. Why the hell should they sit there and try and tell you things they've got NO way of knowing, surrounded by replays of the vehicle failing.

Come on people. We should be wishing SpaceX the best for their next flight, not jumping up and down on their webcast PR.

Well said!  The thread is moving so fast that it would be much easier to follow without the unnecessary melodrama.  Some people act as if Space X just dumped their own property into the ocean.  It's a new frontier for private rocketry, and exact science is not an exact science.  They'll get it right eventually.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: braddock on 08/03/2008 04:39 am
All their PR guys needed to do when they cut away was issue a pre-prepared statement - something along the lines of:

Remember, the webcast hosts were NOT PR guys.  Max is an engineer and program manager - I don't know who the other host was, but she was obviously not a professional broadcaster.  Despite that I thought they were doing a fantastic job - and we got a tour of the SpaceX factory to boot.

SpaceX was trying to tell it to you straight and homegrown, but it bit them because they weren't prepared for a graceful failure.

Gwynne Shotwell from sales hosted the Press Calls on prior attempts, and she always handled the anomalies gracefully - staying on the line until some sort of statement or information could be extracted from the very busy team on the island, or even getting Elon on the phone.

But I wouldn't hold the abrupt cut-to-credits against the whole enterprise just because they got a little over their head in the amateur broadcasting department.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 04:42 am
SpaceX Falcon I Flight 3 Failure video now available, located in the FREE video section: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13944.0

EDIT:  The thread also includes the first attempt scrub engine firing, nothing more.  No sound, but it was the best that my video acquirer could grab at the time.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: ppnl on 08/03/2008 04:46 am

She looked like she was about to cry. These announcers were not really qualified to handle a failure. Maybe not good PR but in its way they were far more honest than some talking head PR type. I'm glad they cut the feed.

I'm not an investor so all I can say is better luck next time. I would really like to see this work.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Oberon_Command on 08/03/2008 04:46 am
Just watched the replay, looks like the oscillations started at around T+30s, in small scale, T+57 in large scale. That "flare" I mentioned was at  T+43 seconds.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 08/03/2008 04:46 am
I'm going to trim back the thread to make it flow better. The PR argument is not related to the failure, so it's not personal. Opinions are fine, but we can have a separate thread for that tomorrow. This is about the launch itself.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sawtooth on 08/03/2008 04:47 am
I feel sorry for SpaceX and I still wish them all the best in the future.   Flying rockets is hard work.

I think the biggest issue here is that fact that the second test flight made it much longer than the first.  This one, however, didn't get to check out the new updates to the 2nd stage.  Of course, they will still have the data to look over to see what can be done to improve the rocket and try again.

It will be interesting to see what will happen to the future launch manifest and payloads though.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 04:48 am
The most disappointing thing about this entire event is the negative and outright absurd posts by some members on this list that obviously have personal agendas.

I totally agree. I'm disgusted by some of the comments, and we'll have a long hard think about trimming this thread back, as I see some comments as distruptive, which is not the style of this site's forum.

The best part about NSF is the exceedingly high signal-to-noise ratio. 

Here are some positives to think about:

+  This appears to be the 2nd straight time that SpaceX has flown a 1st stage at least very close to the 1/2 staging event. 

+  SpaceX just had a substantially different 1st stage engine get the vehicle at least close to staging.  There's got to be at least some working processes over there.

+  The ability to abort a launch without destruction of the vehicle is fairly well demonstrated.  Yes, the big boys all do this.  Yes, we don't know if whatever killed this launch is related.  At least the fundamentals of getting off the pad seem to be working.

+  They just had a 9 engine firing succeed.

+  They have 2 more F1s in the pipeline, they can get more learning in. 

+  Even with all the crazy webcast technical issues, they had good sense to say that they had a problem and then sign out.  All those glitches expose more things that can be improved.  Let's assume that they will fix them.

Here's hoping they fix more things with these expensive lessons, and come back to put launch 4 into a flawless orbit.

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Aviator on 08/03/2008 04:49 am
Found the link to the Twitter feed here

https://twitter.com/tikitosca (https://twitter.com/tikitosca)

Last Post to it

Sitting in the Space X hanger as Elon writes his update of the launch. Mood is pretty somber
   Italics mine again

Larry
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 04:49 am
Elon's sent an e-mail:

It was obviously a big disappointment not to reach orbit on this flight.  On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect.  Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together.  This is under investigation and I will send out a note as soon as we understand exactly what happened. 

The most important message I’d like to send right now is that SpaceX will not skip a beat in execution going forward.  We have flight four of Falcon 1 almost ready for flight and flight five right behind that.  I have also given the go ahead to begin fabrication of flight six.  Falcon 9 development will also continue unabated, taking into account the lessons learned with Falcon 1.  We have made great progress this past week with the successful nine engine firing.


As a precautionary measure to guard against the possibility of flight 3 not reaching orbit, SpaceX recently accepted a significant investment.  Combined with our existing cash reserves, that ensures we will have more than sufficient funding on hand to continue launching Falcon 1 and develop Falcon 9 and Dragon.  There should be absolutely zero question that SpaceX will prevail in reaching orbit and demonstrating reliable space transport.  For my part, I will never give up and I mean never. 

Thanks for your hard work and now on to flight four.


Elon
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 04:58 am
\but the appearance of lines that moved counter clockwise. I was also wondering if the exhaust was looking a bit 'smoky'. ]


All are standard for this type of engine.  It can be seen in Delta II engine
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: guidanceisgo on 08/03/2008 04:59 am
A significant investment as a precautionary measure ... now Elon will have to account to investors.  I get the feeling that the Falcon 1 will now just be a testbed for Falcon 9.  Maybe thats the way it has to be to make COTS a reality. Kind of an interesting statement.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Firehawk153 on 08/03/2008 04:59 am
Great news that the first stage performed as expected, I know today is still a disappointment but at least there's that.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: G-pit on 08/03/2008 04:59 am
So the problem was with stage separation. A question to all you experts out there: Is it fair to assume that the oscillation seen in the video had nothing to do with the staging issue at hand?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 05:00 am
]
Off topic, but wouldn't it be nice if they could fit that solar sail spacecraft, or anything other payload, with an escape rocket, like they do with manned capsules, so it doesn't get lost as often as the rocket does?  (Shroud serves as heat shield, add parachute.  I know there a lot of issues like reduced payload capacity and increased vehicle complexity, but it's just a thought.)


Not really practical.   The payload would have be designed for the abort accel.  Also how to deal with landing loads. 

Insurance is cheaper
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 05:00 am
Sorry for the basic/stupid question, but does SpaceX use active explosive devices on their LVs or do they just let it run out of fuel and crash.

Thrust termination on F1.  In other words, shut down and fall to your doom.  No explosive termination systems in the F1.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Doesn't range safety at the Cape require an active destruct system?

yes it will
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 08/03/2008 05:01 am
Ok, thread now trimmed back. Please hit the "report to a moderator" if we've missed any posts that are out of place on this live update thread.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/03/2008 05:02 am
Awesome job, Chris, for having a site that Elon chooses to use.  Straight, unhindered knowledge from the man himself.  Kids, be glad we have this resource here at NSF to get the best information mere minutes after it happened.  And be glad Alt.Space has a patron like Elon willing to risk his own coin to do this.  Anyone who believes in space should be helping him or at least staying out of the way.

This second-guessing is for amateurs.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 05:10 am
Rocket Science is really hard.
Cut them some slack.

This can be deleted if necessary

No,  I won't give them slack.  They brought this on themselves with their spin on cost and reliability.

First perform and then pound your chest
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dnavas on 08/03/2008 05:13 am
Heartbreaking.  Best wishes to all of the folks at SpaceX.

Building rockets is a humbling experience, clearly.

Thanks for the info from Elon, and the video feed.  My feed here was quite laggy, and the roll was essentially obscured.  I await with interest to see what tiny thing(s) went wrong this time. 

-Dave
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ford Mustang on 08/03/2008 05:13 am
spacex says the stages failed to separate.

Posted 20 minutes ago by Chris, from an email from Elon himself.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 05:22 am
Great news that the first stage performed as expected, I know today is still a disappointment but at least there's that.

Agreed. But being careful Elon only wrote the first stage of flight under Merlin 1C power performed as expected. He did not assert all hardware on the first stage of the vehicle performed as expected. Something prevented successful stage sep!
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 08/03/2008 05:27 am
But was not stage seperation one of the things that doomed flight 2?  Is stage seperation very hard?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/03/2008 05:35 am
But was not stage seperation one of the things that doomed flight 2?  Is stage seperation very hard?

The problem on F2 was very different. On that flight, the top of the first stage hit the second stage engine during separation. From the reports on this flight, it sounds like it just didn't separate at all.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Seattle Dave on 08/03/2008 05:36 am
Elon's sent an e-mail:

It was obviously a big disappointment not to reach orbit on this flight.  On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect.  Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together.  This is under investigation and I will send out a note as soon as we understand exactly what happened. 

The most important message I’d like to send right now is that SpaceX will not skip a beat in execution going forward.  We have flight four of Falcon 1 almost ready for flight and flight five right behind that.  I have also given the go ahead to begin fabrication of flight six.  Falcon 9 development will also continue unabated, taking into account the lessons learned with Falcon 1.  We have made great progress this past week with the successful nine engine firing.


As a precautionary measure to guard against the possibility of flight 3 not reaching orbit, SpaceX recently accepted a significant investment.  Combined with our existing cash reserves, that ensures we will have more than sufficient funding on hand to continue launching Falcon 1 and develop Falcon 9 and Dragon.  There should be absolutely zero question that SpaceX will prevail in reaching orbit and demonstrating reliable space transport.  For my part, I will never give up and I mean never. 

Thanks for your hard work and now on to flight four.


Elon



Chris, can you e-mail Elon back with our best wishes?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 08/03/2008 05:37 am
Flight 4 is scheduled for Sept...so what happens with that now?  Does anyone see Flight 4 taking place before the end of the year. 

Let's "assume" it was a seperator event, investigation, finding cause, report and fixing it.. etc any ...you are in the holiday season again.  Would you look at the whole vecheal again or just the part that failed? 

Remember--Falcon 9 is learning lessons from Falcon 1 and it is meant to fly in Q1 '09. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/03/2008 05:38 am
I honestly wonder if they'll go look for the vehicle.  Could be very interesting evidence in there on this non-sep event.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 05:39 am

Chris, can you e-mail Elon back with our best wishes?

I already have. I knew I didn't have to ask you all....as the vast majority of people on this site wouldn't wish him - and SpaceX - anything else.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 05:41 am
I honestly wonder if they'll go look for the vehicle.  Could be very interesting evidence in there on this non-sep event.

Oh I'm sure that there will be radar tracks of the parts coming down. 

I doubt that they would turn down any parts that could be found.

Having said that, I wouldn't expect much to be left of that hardware after igniting the 2nd stage engine into a still-attached 1st stage/interstage.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 05:44 am
Elon's email is now also at http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/03/2008 05:46 am

Having said that, I wouldn't expect much to be left of that hardware after igniting the 2nd stage engine into a still-attached 1st stage/interstage.

That may not necessarily have happened.  It could have been a sequencing issue.  It might not be possible to start the Kestrel engine until separation is confirmed, for example.  Before staging, there needs to be a Merlin 1C shutdown signal, most likely.  Before the Merlin can shut down, a tank depletion sensor may have to trip.  Etc.. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 08/03/2008 05:48 am
What are the possible causes of an non seperation of the 1st stage?  And how does Falcon and other rockets try to prevent no seperation events? 

From the Falcon webpage
"
Stage separation occurs via dual initiated separation bolts and a pneumatic pusher system. All components are space qualified and have flown before on other launch vehicles."
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Stowbridge on 08/03/2008 05:58 am
Do we know if the vehicle had range safety? Or was it allowed to crash?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 06:04 am

Having said that, I wouldn't expect much to be left of that hardware after igniting the 2nd stage engine into a still-attached 1st stage/interstage.

That may not necessarily have happened.

The tiki blogger wrting as "Tosca Musk" apparently thinks the stage seperation issue was, "A glitch that resulted in the engine exploding." (See https://twitter.com/tikitosca.) She doesn't indicate which engine exploded, but it isn't difficult to believe a Kestrel firing into an attached first stage would result in an event indistinguishable from an engine explosion.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Damon Hill on 08/03/2008 06:13 am

Having said that, I wouldn't expect much to be left of that hardware after igniting the 2nd stage engine into a still-attached 1st stage/interstage.

That may not necessarily have happened.

The tiki blogger wrting as "Tosca Musk" apparently thinks the stage seperation issue was, "A glitch that resulted in the engine exploding." (See https://twitter.com/tikitosca. Is that a photo of Justine?) She doesn't indicate which engine exploded, but it isn't difficult to believe a Kestrel firing into an attached first stage would result in an event indistinguishable from an engine explosion.

Titan II and some other rockets normally did separation >after< second stage ignition, and I recall Gemini flights that resulted in a spectacular cloud of debris while going on to orbit.  But it's not the normal sequence for Falcon.

But we still don't know what the >exact< sequence of events were, and won't until the investigation has gathered all the available facts, and reports them. 

Consequently, continued speculation on our part as outsiders is all but useless.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: yinzer on 08/03/2008 06:30 am

Having said that, I wouldn't expect much to be left of that hardware after igniting the 2nd stage engine into a still-attached 1st stage/interstage.

That may not necessarily have happened.

The tiki blogger wrting as "Tosca Musk" apparently thinks the stage seperation issue was, "A glitch that resulted in the engine exploding." (See https://twitter.com/tikitosca. Is that a photo of Justine?) She doesn't indicate which engine exploded, but it isn't difficult to believe a Kestrel firing into an attached first stage would result in an event indistinguishable from an engine explosion.

Titan II and some other rockets normally did separation >after< second stage ignition, and I recall Gemini flights that resulted in a spectacular cloud of debris while going on to orbit.  But it's not the normal sequence for Falcon.

These rockets (Proton is another example) all have vented interstages.  Without the vents, bad things are likely to happen to the upper stage shortly after ignition.

Quote
But we still don't know what the >exact< sequence of events were, and won't until the investigation has gathered all the available facts, and reports them. 

Consequently, continued speculation on our part as outsiders is all but useless.

Yup.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nathan.moeller on 08/03/2008 06:31 am
Space X - I hope you guys keep trying and wish you all the best along the way.  Good luck in your future attempts and achievements.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Maverick on 08/03/2008 06:51 am
Space X - I hope you guys keep trying and wish you all the best along the way.  Good luck in your future attempts and achievements.

Absolutely agree!
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Maverick on 08/03/2008 07:02 am
On the video, they knew it had failed before the point of which 1-2 seperation was even due. What am I missing?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pm1823 on 08/03/2008 07:10 am
Quote
These rockets (Proton is another example) all have vented interstages.  Without the vents, bad things are likely to happen to the upper stage shortly after ignition.


That's why Falcon-1 as other rockets, that use same "cold separation" sequence, should ignite second stage only after confirmed 1st stage separation. I don't think that Kestrel ignition was performed in this case, more likely that mission was aborted nominally, when no confirmation of 1st stage separation received about ~T+2:40-T+:2:50.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 07:51 am
A source apparently claiming inside knowledge has written:
Quote
The aft facing onboard camera showed the first stage violently recontacting second stage seconds after the separation. Several seconds later major portions of the second stage were torn away with the first stage. The second stage was observed to tumble and propellent covered the camera lens. Shortly thereafter a major explosion was observed and the video signal was lost by the receivers on the ground. Telemetry data continued as the second stage re-entered on a trajectory slightly north of the first stage. The second stage appeared to never ignite.
Please note there is no reason to trust this source, who apparently created the "Kwajrco" account on the english language wikipedia specifically to post this as unsubstantiated rumor. The language, however, indicates an author with some knowledge of space launches.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Carl G on 08/03/2008 08:02 am
On the video, they knew it had failed before the point of which 1-2 seperation was even due. What am I missing?

Good point.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: mtakala24 on 08/03/2008 08:14 am
On the video, they knew it had failed before the point of which 1-2 seperation was even due. What am I missing?

The webcast was delayed (and webcasts are always with some delay as encoding and buffering takes time). They pulled the plug on it as it failed, and viewers never got that far.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/03/2008 08:35 am
Okay, to reiterate what has already been said, there was a delay of 15-30 seconds between the video feed from Kwaj to us. The commentators and clock online were in realitime, but what was actually happening didn't show up on the video feed until 15 seconds later. They didn't claim an anomaly "before the screen went blank" or anything like that. What we heard, and the clock, was in realtime. The video from Kwaj and from the rocket was about 15 seonds delayed. Commmunications abilities from Kwaj are not good, to say the least. So put away your conspiracy theories about webcasts being cutoff and they knew stuff but wouldn't tell us. If you think that, you are wrong.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: cb6785 on 08/03/2008 08:37 am
Anyone knows if the Celestis Payload was onboard? It was not mentioned in the official presskit, online launch information, etc.
Perhaps it was bad charm not having Scotty on board... ;)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/03/2008 08:38 am
The first stage burn and ascent were normal. Something happened to prevent 1st/2nd separation. It wasn't inadvertent or deliberate engine firings screwing things up. Pyro bolts or something failed to fire, and they'll figure out why. Nobody "knew it had failed before the point of which 1-2 seperation was even due".
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Skyrocket on 08/03/2008 08:46 am
Anyone knows if the Celestis Payload was onboard? It was not mentioned in the official presskit, online launch information, etc.
Perhaps it was bad charm not having Scotty on board... ;)

According to the Celestis website it was:

http://www.celestisexplorersflight.com/
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/03/2008 08:47 am
spacex says the stages failed to separate.

Posted 20 minutes ago by Chris, from an email from Elon himself.

Elon sent the email to employees, friends, etc. of SpaceX. It's available on www.spacex.com now, as previously posted.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/03/2008 08:49 am
On the video, they knew it had failed before the point of which 1-2 seperation was even due. What am I missing?

Good point.

Incorrect. The video from the rocket was 15 or so seconds behind realtime, realtime data and commentary. That's why the failure was called before the video showed. Comm from Kwaj SUCKS A**. No landlines to the mainland. It's slow. That should be obvious to people on here. It's not instantaneous communications.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/03/2008 08:50 am
A significant investment as a precautionary measure ... now Elon will have to account to investors.  I get the feeling that the Falcon 1 will now just be a testbed for Falcon 9.  Maybe thats the way it has to be to make COTS a reality. Kind of an interesting statement.

SpaceX is invested almost entirely by Elon himself, not venture capitalists. For the most part, not entirely, he has to answer to himself.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/03/2008 08:56 am
There was nothing they could say. At least they had the courtesy to say there had been an anomaly and that they would get back to us as soon as they had something to say. Only then did they cut the feed. Really, what else could they do, just sit there and smile?

Obviosuly the launch failed. Obviosuly they don't know why (5 minutes later lol). So there's nothing Spacex could say that would add any new information, so why say anything? That's how they are. No wasted "blah blah blah" press releases. When there's something new to add, they will, and issue a press release. Until then, um, they're busy trying to figure out what happened so let's leave them alone. We're NOT mission critical, no matter what you armchair engineers might wish.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dirkthefirst on 08/03/2008 08:56 am
A significant investment as a precautionary measure ... now Elon will have to account to investors.  I get the feeling that the Falcon 1 will now just be a testbed for Falcon 9.  Maybe thats the way it has to be to make COTS a reality. Kind of an interesting statement.

SpaceX is invested almost entirely by Elon himself, not venture capitalists. For the most part, not entirely, he has to answer to himself.


This is no longer the case.
Quote from: Elon Musk
As a precautionary measure to guard against the possibility of flight 3 not reaching orbit, SpaceX recently accepted a significant investment.

Someone invested in SpaceX. They will now have to answer to whoever that person/company/organisation is.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/03/2008 09:04 am
yes it will

For CCAFS, the requirement for active destruct depends on the vehicle. for Falcon 9, yes (as of what I least heard) it does require active FTS, i.e. command destruct.

A ballistic sounding rocket would not.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/03/2008 09:08 am
This second-guessing is for amateurs.

After over 20 years in this business I've learned two things. 1) Never call someone an amatuer; and 2) we ALL started out as amatuers. I'll never be condescending and arrogant and call someone an amateur as a slight when I know full well that that person could be the next von Braun or Goddard. Neither I, you nor anyone else is at the top of the pyramid, so we all should keep our egos, and attitude, in check.

And as soon as you think you're not an amateur, and start acting like you aren't.... then you are one of them. And von Braun was always a "rocket kid" at heart... amateur and all.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: landofgrey on 08/03/2008 09:11 am
Look up how many of the first Atlas or Thor missiles failed before a successful launch. It may have been 50 years ago, but physics, rocket science and basic engineering and manufacturing hasn't changed. People should remember that.

Go SpaceX

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dirkthefirst on 08/03/2008 09:24 am
Look up how many of the first Atlas or Thor missiles failed before a successful launch. It may have been 50 years ago, but physics, rocket science and basic engineering and manufacturing hasn't changed. People should remember that.

One thing that has changed, however, is the amount of experience we now have. 50-60 years of launching rockets is a long time, and we've researched a great many failure modes in that half century.
It seems to me that on occasion SpaceX haven't fully examined what has gone before, and that some of their problems could've been avoided had they heeded warnings from other launch vehicles.

(the tank issues on Flight 2 being a prime example)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zachstar on 08/03/2008 09:32 am
Look up how many of the first Atlas or Thor missiles failed before a successful launch. It may have been 50 years ago, but physics, rocket science and basic engineering and manufacturing hasn't changed. People should remember that.

One thing that has changed, however, is the amount of experience we now have. 50-60 years of launching rockets is a long time, and we've researched a great many failure modes in that half century.
It seems to me that on occasion SpaceX haven't fully examined what has gone before, and that some of their problems could've been avoided had they heeded warnings from other launch vehicles.

(the tank issues on Flight 2 being a prime example)

Great point!!
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 08/03/2008 09:42 am
Not again! Just read the news..

Hope the next one goes better than the last 3!
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/03/2008 09:45 am
Look up how many of the first Atlas or Thor missiles failed before a successful launch. It may have been 50 years ago, but physics, rocket science and basic engineering and manufacturing hasn't changed.

One thing that has changed, however, is the amount of experience we now have.

Another change is the availability of high fidelity computational simulations. SpaceX uses these techniques extensively. The lessons we are all learning by watching SpaceX, and for which we should be truly obliged to them, are about how even the best available computational models aren't the same as flight experience.

We should all be heartily congratulating SpaceX for having what it takes to collect real-world flight data that validates or disproves the models. They have now done that again, and next Elon says they will move forward with full vigor. More power to 'em!
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: CentEur on 08/03/2008 01:26 pm
Elon's sent an e-mail:

On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect.

The problem I have with this statement is that I've seen both live and replayed that the first stage stubbornly tried to roll just to be corrected several times. It was unusual, and did not occur in Flight 2. Thus Elon assessing yesterday's first stage flight as "picture perfect" reminds me one of Woody Allen's characters asking "Who do you believe? Me or your lying eyes?"  ::)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 01:45 pm
Elon's sent an e-mail:

On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect.

The problem I have with this statement is that I've seen both live and replayed that the first stage stubbornly tried to roll just to be corrected several times. It was unusual, and did not occur in Flight 2. Thus Elon assessing yesterday's first stage flight as "picture perfect" reminds me one of Woody Allen's characters asking "Who do you believe? Me or your lying eyes?"  ::)

It did not occur on F2 because the Merlin engine was an ablative nozzle. F3 used the new Merlin Regen nozzle which introduces some roll momentum to the engine. The movements you saw were the TVC successfully  countering, as programed. This is a known phenomena on Regen nozzles. Based on Elon's statements, the engine performed exactly as predicted, nozzle-induced "roll" and all.

There is no problem here. Don't look for hidden problems that don't exist. He has already told us what the main problem was; a 1st/2nd stage separation event. Once the details of what caused that problem become available, he will tell us those as well.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 01:48 pm
Elon's sent an e-mail:

On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect.

The problem I have with this statement is that I've seen both live and replayed that the first stage stubbornly tried to roll just to be corrected several times. It was unusual, and did not occur in Flight 2.

This flight used the new Merlin 1C, with a regeneratively cooled chamber.  That chamber has a spiral winding.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if that induces a tendancy to roll. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Namechange User on 08/03/2008 02:00 pm
Great, tonight Alt.Space died and with it all hope of making the space program viable in the long term.

No it didn't.  If it did, then it was never meant to be then in the first place if it was all based on everything working perfectly in the very short term. 

Reading through this thread everyone seems to be under the impression that launching rockets is easy and a new company like SpaceX should be on the moon by now. 

Well, it's not easy and there will be failures.  Everyone has to expect that.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 02:15 pm

There is no problem here. Don't look for hidden problems that don't exist. He has already told us what the main problem was; a 1st/2nd stage separation event. Once the details of what caused that problem become available, he will tell us those as well.

There is an "issue"  The oscillation is not normal.  There is a mode that the vehicle control system is having "trouble" with ala Delta-III
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 02:17 pm
Reading through this thread everyone seems to be under the impression that launching rockets is easy and a new company like SpaceX should be on the moon by now. 


The issue is that nuspace thinks Spacex can.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/03/2008 02:20 pm
Great, tonight Alt.Space died and with it all hope of making the space program viable in the long term.

No it didn't.  If it did, then it was never meant to be then in the first place if it was all based on everything working perfectly in the very short term. 

Reading through this thread everyone seems to be under the impression that launching rockets is easy and a new company like SpaceX should be on the moon by now. 

Well, it's not easy and there will be failures.  Everyone has to expect that.
A big part that was the credo of alt.space indeed did:
That if you enter the stage with an entrepreneurial approach and a management style derived from the new economy you can do everything "cheaper, faster, more reliable".
That was SpaceX original claim. It may have died already earlier but tonight's failure was the last nail in the coffin.

The other fundamental of alt.space, which is that there will be a transition from public to private funding for space transportation and maybe space flight has not died.
That one stems from political changes, a more mature market and the increasing reluctance from the public to fund spaceflight through taxes. But it is about more than companies like SpaceX, that one includes old.space as well as the rest of the world. Let's see whether Orbital's more experienced guys will in the end be the ones to launch a "privately funded liquid fueled rocket" into orbit...
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Analyst on 08/03/2008 02:21 pm

1) It did not occur on F2 because the Merlin engine was an ablative nozzle. F3 used the new Merlin Regen nozzle which introduces some roll momentum to the engine. The movements you saw were the TVC successfully  countering, as programed. This is a known phenomena on Regen nozzles. Based on Elon's statements, the engine performed exactly as predicted, nozzle-induced "roll" and all.

2) There is no problem here. Don't look for hidden problems that don't exist. He has already told us what the main problem was; a 1st/2nd stage separation event. Once the details of what caused that problem become available, he will tell us those as well.

1) Why are this movements not seen with other vehicles using Regen nozzles?
2) Are you sure of this? TVC doing its work is one thing, but your flight does not get smother. You may lose performace too. At least some work at the control algorithm is needed.

Analyst
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 02:31 pm

1) It did not occur on F2 because the Merlin engine was an ablative nozzle. F3 used the new Merlin Regen nozzle which introduces some roll momentum to the engine. The movements you saw were the TVC successfully  countering, as programed. This is a known phenomena on Regen nozzles. Based on Elon's statements, the engine performed exactly as predicted, nozzle-induced "roll" and all.

2) There is no problem here. Don't look for hidden problems that don't exist. He has already told us what the main problem was; a 1st/2nd stage separation event. Once the details of what caused that problem become available, he will tell us those as well.

1) Why are this movements not seen with other vehicles using Regen nozzles?
2) Are you sure of this? TVC doing its work is one thing, but your flight does not get smother. You may lose performance too. At least some work at the control algorithm is needed.

Analyst

I didn't say that it was perfect - it was not. But the roll inducement was anticipated, and the TVC compensated. I would agree that more work is needed on the control algorithm to smooth it out, but that wasn't what caused the LOM. It was a 1-2 stage separation issue, details forthcoming.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/03/2008 02:35 pm
but that wasn't what caused the LOM. It was a 1-2 stage separation issue, details forthcoming.
How do you know? I can imagine a few scenarios where too much roll induces a separation problem. Flight 2 was already close on this and it did NOT have the roll before engine shutdown. We don't know how the vehicle performed prior to sep.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/03/2008 02:36 pm
It did not occur on F2 because the Merlin engine was an ablative nozzle. F3 used the new Merlin Regen nozzle which introduces some roll momentum to the engine. The movements you saw were the TVC successfully  countering, as programed. This is a known phenomena on Regen nozzles. Based on Elon's statements, the engine performed exactly as predicted, nozzle-induced "roll" and all.

There is no problem here. Don't look for hidden problems that don't exist. He has already told us what the main problem was; a 1st/2nd stage separation event. Once the details of what caused that problem become available, he will tell us those as well.

Come on Chuck!  The Shuttle has three of them, and when a 5 degree roll was imparted by the SRBs during the last flight, and quickly and smoothly corrected by those regen engines, an investigation was still launched into the cause!  This stage didn't start to roll back and forth until it went supersonic, so I can't believe that roll wiggle was normal and expected.  Just because it didn't go unstable like the second stage in flight 2 doesn't mean it's acceptable.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: just-nick on 08/03/2008 02:43 pm
I think that the roll issue is both interesting and fair game.  It is something different and therefore, for us armchair steely-eyed-rocket-men, one of the few things we have to go on for our back of the envelope postmortems.

My thoughts: 

(1) if the nozzle was inducing some roll I'd imagine that it would be relatively steady and that the system would therefore eventually reach some sort of equilibrium where it was applying the right amount of roll force to counter the nozzle-induced roll.  It didn't, so the loop wasn't closed as well as all that.  I'm no control systems expert, but I do know that tuning all of the various constants and gains in a system can be a bear -- even in this age of simulation.  If I was flying in an airplane with an autopilot that compensated for some sort of semi-steady state force (like prop torque) that roughly my stomach wouldn't feel that good...  Cause of the loss or totally unrelated issue, I couldn't say at all.

(2) What was the ultimate cause of flight 2 again?  Wasn't it recontact that started some oscillations that the system couldn't damp out?

That's all.  My wife and I had two very good friends over for dinner last night who were understanding enough to pause the meal and come watch the launch with me.  We then drank a lot.

  --Nick


Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: toddbronco2 on 08/03/2008 02:47 pm
On the video, they knew it had failed before the point of which 1-2 seperation was even due. What am I missing?

Good point.

Incorrect. The video from the rocket was 15 or so seconds behind realtime, realtime data and commentary. That's why the failure was called before the video showed. Comm from Kwaj SUCKS A**. No landlines to the mainland. It's slow. That should be obvious to people on here. It's not instantaneous communications.

I don't doubt that communication with Kwaj is problematic, but I do feel like I heard recently that there were transoceanic fiber optic cables laid to kwaj just a few years ago.  Is that not correct?

As for the other posts that complained about the webcast cutting out; I'd say that we should lay off SpaceX.  It's true that WE want to see the full video regardless of whether it turns out well or not, but let's not forget what happened to Sea Launch.  Sea Launch is a company that deserves a lot of respect but they were the joke of YouTube for a few weeks.  they recovered from that just fine, but if they have pride in what they do, then its no wonder to me that they don't relish others laughing at their disaster that they worked so hard to make a success. 

SpaceX has NO obligation to entertain us with their webcast.  The fact that we see any of the launch in near real time is testament to their good will.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JWag on 08/03/2008 02:50 pm
Reading through this thread everyone seems to be under the impression that launching rockets is easy and a new company like SpaceX should be on the moon by now.

That's an unfair exaggeration.  "Everyone" is not under any such impression.

It's disconcerting that so many people are taking this personally. It's a business and it's fair to say SpaceX's "product" is not quite where it should be, given the current state of the art.  Two clear failures out of three launches, even for a new company, seems excessive.

SpaceX have their own gauges for where they are, and as long as Elon is willing to fly, and as long as there is money and payloads to fly, they will keep trying.  Whether the people like me are behind them or not should be irrelevant to them because they're professionals.

I am glad SpaceX is privately held and not subject to the whims of people like me, whose enthusiasm and "support" might wax or wane based on my own impressions or mood.

Spaceflight is the most comprehensively demanding work an organization of humans can do (in my opinion), and requires the absolute best out of everyone in the organization.  Anyone that sets out to do it gets my full enthusiasm and respect, and I am inspired by them.


Put a different way: Spaceflight demands perfection.  The fact that SpaceX cannot quite deliver the perfection needed in no way belittles what they've already accomplished.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2008 02:58 pm


Reading through this thread everyone seems to be under the impression that launching rockets is easy and a new company like SpaceX should be on the moon by now. 

Well, it's not easy and there will be failures.  Everyone has to expect that.

Drop the "everyone" and replace with "a couple of people" - and hopefully the vast majority of others are explaining how it is anything but easy.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: synchrotron on 08/03/2008 03:09 pm
Put a different way: Spaceflight demands perfection.  The fact that SpaceX cannot quite deliver the perfection needed in no way belittles what they've already accomplished.

I disagree.  Spaceflight requires adequate margin.  Launch vehicles and spacecraft have to be "good enough", not perfect.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/03/2008 03:14 pm
This second-guessing is for amateurs.
After over 20 years in this business I've learned two things. 1) Never call someone an amatuer; and 2) we ALL started out as amatuers. I'll never be condescending and arrogant and call someone an amateur as a slight when I know full well that that person could be the next von Braun or Goddard. Neither I, you nor anyone else is at the top of the pyramid, so we all should keep our egos, and attitude, in check.

And as soon as you think you're not an amateur, and start acting like you aren't.... then you are one of them. And von Braun was always a "rocket kid" at heart... amateur and all.

I've been misunderstood.  Amateurs are those who think this is simple and who expect private companies to be transparent with us and who expect an answer right away.  We've seen too many of them in the last half-day.

You've captured my point precisely: the worst amateurs don't think they are.  But professionals who don't think pathologically are nearly as bad.  However, there are those of us on this forum who are professionals and/or consistently act like it.  One can discern them by lots of information and nuanced arguments, absent of oversimplification.

My comment is intended to get more people to post like that and further increase NSF's signal-to-noise ratio.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JWag on 08/03/2008 03:17 pm
Put a different way: Spaceflight demands perfection.  The fact that SpaceX cannot quite deliver the perfection needed in no way belittles what they've already accomplished.

I disagree.  Spaceflight requires adequate margin.  Launch vehicles and spacecraft have to be "good enough", not perfect.


You're right; maybe "excellence" is a better word.  "Perfect" is often the enemy of "good enough".
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:39 pm
Put a different way: Spaceflight demands perfection.  The fact that SpaceX cannot quite deliver the perfection needed in no way belittles what they've already accomplished.

I disagree.  Spaceflight requires adequate margin.  Launch vehicles and spacecraft have to be "good enough", not perfect.


Not just good enough, good and consistent. 

This vehicle flew with a significantly modified 1st stage engine.  It also flew with attempts at fixing the problems from the 2nd launch.  We know that one of those fixes had to do with throttling/shutting down the Merlin in anticipation of staging.  The last launch this imparted unexpectedly large motion in the 1st stage.   We also know that there were fixes to deal with the slosh in the 2nd stage- baffling, and probably control system/fsw changes as well.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if they fiddled with the sequencing of the separation hardware to try and avoid 1st stage/2nd stage contact.

There could be plenty of unanticipated consequences of all of those changes.  We've heard rumors that the full video shows a violent recontact of the 1st stage with the 2nd stage, causing the destruction of the vehicle.

This launch might be simply a failure in some system or component in this launch (a new failure.) It could also be that one of those newly changed items behaves differently enough in that situation to invalidate fixes which would've applied to the last launch.

Soon, they'll figure out what thing(s) went wrong- and make no mistake, it could be MANY things.  Then they'll try to fix them.

One of these next few launches, they should fly two F1 vehicles in basically the same EXACT configuration- mechanical, avionics, FSW, operating methodology.  In my opinion, the chances of getting consistent performance go way, way up at that time. 


Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 03:43 pm
Chris “relayed” to us what Elon sent out to all his employees:

Quote
Elon sent an e-mail:

It was obviously a big disappointment not to reach orbit on this flight.  On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect.  Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together.  This is under investigation and I will send out a note as soon as we understand exactly what happened.

A few observations:

1. He did not say the avionics for the TVC performed perfectly. It’s obvious that they didn’t because the regen nozzle-induced roll was not sufficiently dampened. We all saw it, and so did he. The avionics is not located in the first stage, which he said performed correctly. More work is needed in the avionics software to smooth out the TVC. I predict that F4 will be a lot smoother.

2. He DID say that the new Merlin-1C regen engine itself performed perfectly; “picture perfect” were his words.

3. He did not say that the observed regen nozzle-induced roll oscillations caused the problem.

4. He did say that the problem was caused by a “stage separation” issue.

Now - the email was sent to all his employees. All employees have access to the telemetry, most in read-only but they can all see it. He specifically stated that only HR and Finance are behind the firewall. He deliberately created a completely open work environment. It would be super easy for any one of them to look at it to see if Elon was telling them the truth.

Does anybody here seriously think Elon was lying to his own employees in order to cover up what really happened, hoping that a few posters on NSF wouldn’t catch on? Conspiracy theories abound all over the net, but this is a new low.

Elon Musk is doing what I would give my right arm to be able to do, as I suspect the majority of us here would do also. How many times have people in the private sector made billions and spent it on something other than spaceflight? Why do some of you have such a problem with one of the few guys out there that is spending his own hard earned cash to advance spaceflight? What’s wrong with you? Elon Musk does not owe you and me a single thing. Nothing. Nada. If anyone has a problem with that I suggest they go out and make their own billions and spend it on spaceflight. Otherwise, accept the fact that he can do it and you can’t. Be thankful that he is letting us in on so much of what he is doing and is being a lot more open than any one of us have a right to expect.

He has no reason to lie to his employees, to you or to me. He doesn’t have to lie. He doesn't have to coverup anything. He doesn’t have to tell any of us a damn thing. But he tells us. He gives us live webcasts knowing full well they can fail. Why? Because he knows full well we would all do what he's doing if we could. He is in the unique position to be able to do it and he wants to share the dream. Cut the man some slack and enjoy the ride he is giving us that he is paying for.

The man told us he would tell us the details once he actually knew them himself. I, for one, believe him. I will wait for him to tell us what happened, because I believe the man and am willing to take him at his word.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Namechange User on 08/03/2008 03:57 pm
Great, tonight Alt.Space died and with it all hope of making the space program viable in the long term.

No it didn't.  If it did, then it was never meant to be then in the first place if it was all based on everything working perfectly in the very short term. 

Reading through this thread everyone seems to be under the impression that launching rockets is easy and a new company like SpaceX should be on the moon by now. 

Well, it's not easy and there will be failures.  Everyone has to expect that.
A big part that was the credo of alt.space indeed did:
That if you enter the stage with an entrepreneurial approach and a management style derived from the new economy you can do everything "cheaper, faster, more reliable".
That was SpaceX original claim. It may have died already earlier but tonight's failure was the last nail in the coffin.

The other fundamental of alt.space, which is that there will be a transition from public to private funding for space transportation and maybe space flight has not died.
That one stems from political changes, a more mature market and the increasing reluctance from the public to fund spaceflight through taxes. But it is about more than companies like SpaceX, that one includes old.space as well as the rest of the world. Let's see whether Orbital's more experienced guys will in the end be the ones to launch a "privately funded liquid fueled rocket" into orbit...

You are just plain wrong on all of this.  Nothing that SpaceX has done has invalidated their business case and managerial model.  It's an issue with the design, something they still have to work out and hopefully eventually will do so.

If you want to assume that this is the end, everything is done and finished and decry all hope is lost, then do so but when you say it I expect some sort of back-up to such claims.

Rocket science is not easy and there will be bumps on the way but that does not mean by any means it still can't be done more efficiently and at lower cost so relax a bit.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Namechange User on 08/03/2008 04:10 pm

One of these next few launches, they should fly two F1 vehicles in basically the same EXACT configuration- mechanical, avionics, FSW, operating methodology.  In my opinion, the chances of getting consistent performance go way, way up at that time. 




I agree.  Too many modifications can be a bad thing and you are essentially always starting from square 1. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: synchrotron on 08/03/2008 04:11 pm
Now - the email was sent to all his employees. All employees have access to the telemetry, most in read-only but they can all see it.

What does this mean?  Some employees have write permissions on the telemetry data?  I wish I had write permissions on my car's odometer.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 04:19 pm
Now - the email was sent to all his employees. All employees have access to the telemetry, most in read-only but they can all see it.

What does this mean?  Some employees have write permissions on the telemetry data?  I wish I had write permissions on my car's odometer.


When you find mission ops or vehicle ops systems, you often find the capability to broadcast/multicast telemetry.  Many disciplines can then look at and monitor the downlinked telemetry from their own workstations.

This is generally one way- sending a command back to the vehicle or payload is restricted to a very small number of systems and operators.

Commands (uplink) --> generally VERY restricted.
Telemetry (downlink) --> often times broadcast/multicast.

These can also be distributed.  You might let a partner see telemetry or partial telemetry.  You can also have one team flying the mission and switch around whom has what role- even across continents.

All of what I described exist in industry, I have no direct knowledge of SpaceX' actual implementation.

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Namechange User on 08/03/2008 04:20 pm
Now - the email was sent to all his employees. All employees have access to the telemetry, most in read-only but they can all see it.

What does this mean?  Some employees have write permissions on the telemetry data?  I wish I had write permissions on my car's odometer.


No, meaning they don't have command and control ability but just see the data stream.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: just-nick on 08/03/2008 04:43 pm
I've noticed a lot of very close reading of Elon's email.  I'd suggest being wary of reading too much into that message.  Not out of conspiracy/coverup or anything like that but just because of timeline -- that thing was banged out minutes after the loss of the vehicle -- probably more just to say SOMETHING to the troops to head off a lot of moody binge drinking (some of which may still have taken place).  I'm sure it wasn't one of those carefully-vetted-through-legal press releases where the use of a "of" vs. a "with" can make all the difference in the world...
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sandrot on 08/03/2008 04:44 pm
[...]  We've heard rumors that the full video shows a violent recontact of the 1st stage with the 2nd stage, causing the destruction of the vehicle. [...]

Maybe they need to implement the Apollo solution, drop the stage first, then the spacer ring.

http://www.youtube.com/v/q1vy4xXZynI&hl=en&fs=1
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: rolfkap on 08/03/2008 04:48 pm

He has no reason to lie to his employees, to you or to me. He doesn’t have to lie. He doesn't have to coverup anything. He doesn’t have to tell any of us a damn thing. But he tells us. He gives us live webcasts knowing full well they can fail. Why? Because he knows full well we would all do what he's doing if we could. He is in the unique position to be able to do it and he wants to share the dream. Cut the man some slack and enjoy the ride he is giving us that he is paying for.

The man told us he would tell us the details once he actually knew them himself. I, for one, believe him. I will wait for him to tell us what happened, because I believe the man and am willing to take him at his word.


I don't know that he is lying, commenting on a flight with only a quick look at the data as opposed to a more thorough review is difficult, and can lead to getting some things wrong.  However, reading the preview article, there was this comment on the second mission:

Quote
'The things we were most concerned about were the first stage ignition and lift off, and the trajectory of the first stage, because that is the most significant portion of the atmosphere where you can have high winds, and potentially where you can have a structural problem,' said Musk, in a post launch interview with NASASpaceflight.com at the time.

'No anomalies on the first stage. Stage separation went very well. Both the stage separation and the fairing sep went flawlessly. Second stage ignition also went flawlessly.'

We knew in real time, from looking at the webcast, that stage separation did not go well.  Later review also showed that the first stage under performed. I don't think he is lying, I just wouldn't trust anything technical that he says until a more complete look at the data can be performed.

--Rolf
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 04:51 pm
I've noticed a lot of very close reading of Elon's email.  I'd suggest being wary of reading too much into that message.  Not out of conspiracy/coverup or anything like that but just because of timeline -- that thing was banged out minutes after the loss of the vehicle -- probably more just to say SOMETHING to the troops to head off a lot of moody binge drinking (some of which may still have taken place).  I'm sure it wasn't one of those carefully-vetted-through-legal press releases where the use of a "of" vs. a "with" can make all the difference in the world...


Not reading anything into it. It says what it says.
It also says he'll tell us more when he has more to tell.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: CentEur on 08/03/2008 04:53 pm
I've noticed a lot of very close reading of Elon's email.  I'd suggest being wary of reading too much into that message.  Not out of conspiracy/coverup or anything like that but just because of timeline -- that thing was banged out minutes after the loss of the vehicle -- probably more just to say SOMETHING to the troops to head off a lot of moody binge drinking (some of which may still have taken place).  I'm sure it wasn't one of those carefully-vetted-through-legal press releases where the use of a "of" vs. a "with" can make all the difference in the world...

That's my impression too. I even thought that the message had been at least partly pre-prepared and "picture perfect" was deemed to be close enough to the first stage actual performance.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pbreed on 08/03/2008 05:25 pm
Of the first 92 Atlas missile launches only 60 were successful.
The first two had problems and the third was a complete success.
They need to start flying a bunch of falcon 1's.

One big question is will they fly Falcon 9 if they have not yet achieved a successful falcon 1?




Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/03/2008 05:30 pm
Of the first 92 Atlas missile launches only 60 were successful.
The first two had problems and the third was a complete success.
They need to start flying a bunch of falcon 1's.

One big question is will they fly Falcon 9 if they have not yet achieved a successful falcon 1?

The question may be: would NASA sign off on a COTS-demo launch attempt prior to a successful Falcon 1 launch?

I suspect that a Falcon 9 launch attempt is many months away at best, regardless of Falcon 1 status.  2009 seems unlikely to me.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/03/2008 05:50 pm
[...]  We've heard rumors that the full video shows a violent recontact of the 1st stage with the 2nd stage, causing the destruction of the vehicle. [...]

Maybe they need to implement the Apollo solution, drop the stage first, then the spacer ring.

This occurred to me as well. It introduces some complexity, but if they could avoid any possibility of recontact by separating first at the nozzle exit plane, then get the second stage burning so they have some authority to null the rates, I would think that would reduce the chance of recontact with a spacer. Seems logical. What's done on other launchers?

Jon
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: synchrotron on 08/03/2008 05:51 pm
Now - the email was sent to all his employees. All employees have access to the telemetry, most in read-only but they can all see it.

What does this mean?  Some employees have write permissions on the telemetry data?  I wish I had write permissions on my car's odometer.

Commands (uplink) --> generally VERY restricted.
Telemetry (downlink) --> often times broadcast/multicast.

So, just the difference between telemetry and telecommand.

To the matter at hand though, I am a little surprised there isn't proprietary or export control issues that would limit the reviewing rights to groups who need to see the information.  But Elon has mandated full transparency on the telemetered performance data for the launch vehicles?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2008 05:53 pm
Now - the email was sent to all his employees. All employees have access to the telemetry, most in read-only but they can all see it.

What does this mean?  Some employees have write permissions on the telemetry data?  I wish I had write permissions on my car's odometer.

Commands (uplink) --> generally VERY restricted.
Telemetry (downlink) --> often times broadcast/multicast.

So, just the difference between telemetry and telecommand.

To the matter at hand though, I am a little surprised there isn't proprietary or export control issues that would limit the reviewing rights to groups who need to see the information.  But Elon has mandated full transparency on the telemetered performance data for the launch vehicles?

AFAIK, full transparency within SpaceX.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 06:13 pm
According to abc13, it is said that the failure is due to a fuel leak:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/technology&id=6303974

Quote
HOUSTON (KTRK) -- The ashes of a Hollywood astronaut and a NASA astronaut were destroyed after the launch failure of a private rocket due to an appaprent fuel leak.

The Falcon 1 rocket launched from the central Pacific last night. The company sending it up, Space X, says the rocket broke up two minutes after launch. Officials suspect it was caused by a fuel leak.

This is the third time a Falcon rocket launch has failed. The first one happened in March of 2006. Yesterday's rocket was carrying the ashes of more than 200 people who paid to have their remains shot into space. They include astronaut Gordon Cooper and actor James Doohan, best known as Scotty from Star Trek.

The founder of Space X, Elon Musk, posted a notice on the company's web site about the accident and future projects. Read the memo here.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 06:14 pm

So, just the difference between telemetry and telecommand.

To the matter at hand though, I am a little surprised there isn't proprietary or export control issues that would limit the reviewing rights to groups who need to see the information. 

Spacecraft TT&C is full of details like those- controlling whom has and doesn't have access to what.  And yes, ITAR and control of proprietary data and techniques potentially apply to this.  This is an area where SpaceX will no doubt find itself evolving/maturing (or forced to "mature") over time.


Quote
But Elon has mandated full transparency on the telemetered performance data for the launch vehicles?

As Chuck says above, transparency within the building is very different than throwing a stream out to the whole world.  I'll bet that there are more than a couple of SpaceX personnel that spend 100% of their time working exactly this problem of containing sensitive data to within the building.  (and the related problem of making sure that the streams make it to all the needed places in a reliable and deterministic manner).
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sandrot on 08/03/2008 06:18 pm
[...] but if they could avoid any possibility of recontact by separating first at the nozzle exit plane, then get the second stage burning so they have some authority to null the rates, I would think that would reduce the chance of recontact with a spacer. [...]

I recall one Apollo mission had anyway a close call WRT to recontact during spacer jettison.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/03/2008 06:44 pm
A big part that was the credo of alt.space indeed did:
That if you enter the stage with an entrepreneurial approach and a management style derived from the new economy you can do everything "cheaper, faster, more reliable".
That was SpaceX original claim. It may have died already earlier but tonight's failure was the last nail in the coffin.

The other fundamental of alt.space, which is that there will be a transition from public to private funding for space transportation and maybe space flight has not died.
That one stems from political changes, a more mature market and the increasing reluctance from the public to fund spaceflight through taxes. But it is about more than companies like SpaceX, that one includes old.space as well as the rest of the world. Let's see whether Orbital's more experienced guys will in the end be the ones to launch a "privately funded liquid fueled rocket" into orbit...

You are just plain wrong on all of this.  Nothing that SpaceX has done has invalidated their business case and managerial model.  It's an issue with the design, something they still have to work out and hopefully eventually will do so.

If you want to assume that this is the end, everything is done and finished and decry all hope is lost, then do so but when you say it I expect some sort of back-up to such claims.

Rocket science is not easy and there will be bumps on the way but that does not mean by any means it still can't be done more efficiently and at lower cost so relax a bit.

Please read my post again.
I didn't say something invalidated their business case. But they started out by claiming they will have the most reliable rocket on the market, at, when, 4 years ago or so, because they do everything better and faster at an order of magnitude lower cost than others and none of this came true. They had three failures in a row are 4 or 5 years behind schedule on F1 and I doubt that the end result is an order of magnitude cheaper than other designs in the market.

Where did I say it's the end and all hope is lost? Actually I said the opposite but I doubt what SpaceX does will be fundamentally different from what other companies in the market do. Part of this is because others have moved, too, but a lot is due to SpaceX having to find out that rocket science is still not as simple as it seemed.

I DO believe that private spaceflight will become dominant over the coming decade or two and I also believe SpaceX will be part of that. But I also believe the main driver behind this will NOT be that doing things the "New Economy" way brought an order of magnitude in cost reduction, development times or reliability but because it's where the market is heading.

And the Orbital point was just made because if SpaceX continues with their current track reckord (1-1.5 years between launches) it will take them until at least until early 2010 before they have a successful orbital attempt, maybe they speed up, maybe they don't. Will depend a lot on what comes out of the analysis of this failure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/03/2008 06:47 pm
Maybe they should switch Falcon to a wren truss like on Russian vehicles because of the clearance issues with the upper stage engine.

Though a Saturn Style ring interstage also would make this type of failure less likely.

I think one Saturn I had it's interstage stay attached to the second stage but it still managed to achieve orbit.

Oh and some ullage motors to force the stages apart might be a good thing to add on all future vehicles.

The precursor of NASA discover their need the hard way.

They wouldn't have to be very big or expensive they just need to make enough thrust to impart a 2g acceleration into the second stage for just 2 seconds.

A set of stage separation motors also could be fitted to the first stage instead to push it back away from the F1 second stage these could be smaller since the first stage is empty.

Though the second stage would defiantly need a small ullage motor to resettle the propellants since the stage separation motor will expose the upper stage to a negative g for a fraction of a second and the fact the first stage is no longer performing the ullage function.

Before the next all up flight maybe they should take a lesson from Armadillo and do a few incremental tests such as launching a few F1s with just a first stage and a stripped second stage filled with water.

Or just use a big steel weight even and just the bottom of a second stage.

If they can recover the F1 first stage then they should be able to perform a few tests in very rapid succession and get this stage separation gremlin locked in a cage very quickly.

They could kill that bug in just six months with some partial test flights of the hardware.

I think part of their problem is they are depending too much on FEA and CFD simulations a few real world tests will help refine the model and uncover issues that are not showing up in the computer model.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 06:48 pm
Of the first 92 Atlas missile launches only 60 were successful.
The first two had problems and the third was a complete success.
They need to start flying a bunch of falcon 1's.

One big question is will they fly Falcon 9 if they have not yet achieved a successful falcon 1?

The question may be: would NASA sign off on a COTS-demo launch attempt prior to a successful Falcon 1 launch?

I suspect that a Falcon 9 launch attempt is many months away at best, regardless of Falcon 1 status.  2009 seems unlikely to me.

 - Ed Kyle

More like years
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Danderman on 08/03/2008 07:07 pm
Remember, we really don't know anything about the failure, except the approximate time that the vehicle broke up or otherwise exhibited the failure. All this speculation and discussion about possible fixes does not take into account that we have no idea what we are talking about.

It might have been a separation problem, it might have been a catastrophic failure of the engine, perhaps the rocket collided with a passing errant airplane, we don't know.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/03/2008 07:14 pm
Remember, we really don't know anything about the failure, except the approximate time that the vehicle broke up or otherwise exhibited the failure. All this speculation and discussion about possible fixes does not take into account that we have no idea what we are talking about.

It might have been a separation problem, it might have been a catastrophic failure of the engine, perhaps the rocket collided with a passing errant airplane, we don't know.


It could even be something as simple as someone forgot to hook all the explosive bolts up since they had that rocket apart to replace the second stage engine.

With a single plane stage separation like what they use you only need one explosive bolt to not fire to cause a stage separation failure.

I don't know of any airplanes that can reach 32KM except for Heilos and maybe some black aircraft the government says do not exist.

They did say the first stage worked perfectly so that leaves stage separation and the upper stage to blame.

I wish I had access to a higher resolution video because the last few seconds it looked like the pyros fired but the stage was staying attached.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 07:15 pm
Remember, we really don't know anything about the failure, except the approximate time that the vehicle broke up or otherwise exhibited the failure.

Not really- SpaceX itself indicated it was a sep/staging problem, and that fits the timeline. 

Telemetry and analysis will say exactly what things went wrong.

Quote
It might have been a separation problem, it might have been a catastrophic failure of the engine,

Yes, both very possible.  Possibly both, or a chain involving both.  Could also be something else- for example that naggy slow-to-load helium.  A sticky valve could've been a real problem and could lead to failure of the 2nd stage to ignite.

We'll have to wait impatiently and see what SpaceX finds/reveals. 

Quote
perhaps the rocket collided with a passing errant airplane, we don't know.

I'm 100% sure that didn't happen.

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 07:23 pm
It could even be something as simple as someone forgot to hook all the explosive bolts up since they had that rocket apart to replace the second stage engine.

That would be a triple failure:
+  Someone would have had to fail to hook up the sep hardware
+  There would have to be a failure of a QA process to detect that failure.
+  There would have to be a lack of instrumentation to show these as being hooked up.

Many times in the slow space world, that type of failure (which we don't know if it happened here) gets caught by a 2nd person peer inspection , by a QA inspect, by a closeout paper/photo review following the rework, or by telemetry prior to a launch attempt.



Quote
With a single plane stage separation like what they use you only need one explosive bolt to not fire to cause a stage separation failure.

Which would be a design failure if the sep isn't reliable.  (could be the avionics or the harness, not just a problem with the actual bolts- those bolts are pretty damned reliable in the rest of the industry).
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 07:26 pm
SpaceX just sent that same internal email (that Chris quoted from Elon) to subscibers of the news mailing list... 

Bet there's lots of folks whom went in today to see what they could do to help.  I sure would've if it'd been something I worked on...
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/03/2008 07:29 pm
It could even be something as simple as someone forgot to hook all the explosive bolts up since they had that rocket apart to replace the second stage engine.

That would be a triple failure:
+  Someone would have had to fail to hook up the sep hardware
+  There would have to be a failure of a QA process to detect that failure.
+  There would have to be a lack of instrumentation to show these as being hooked up.

Many times in the slow space world, that type of failure (which we don't know if it happened here) gets caught by a 2nd person peer inspection , by a QA inspect, by a closeout paper/photo review following the rework, or by telemetry prior to a launch attempt.



Quote
With a single plane stage separation like what they use you only need one explosive bolt to not fire to cause a stage separation failure.

Which would be a design failure if the sep isn't reliable.  (could be the avionics or the harness, not just a problem with the actual bolts- those bolts are pretty damned reliable in the rest of the industry).

The Russians had some go bad on the Soyuz SM.
 I don't know where Spacex buys their pyro bolts but sice they are going for low cost they might have used a Russian supplier for them and got some from the same bad batch.

But it might have been a helium problem plus I think they fire the second stage while it's still on the first stage eliminating the need for ullage motors.

Most other LVs use stage separation motors and ullage motors to force the stages apart reducing the chances of recontact if there are hiccups in second stage startup.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: sandrot on 08/03/2008 07:53 pm
[...] I think they fire the second stage while it's still on the first stage eliminating the need for ullage motors. [...]

I don't think so. Please see following video starting at 9:25.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-iWxKziLBw&feature=related
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/03/2008 08:10 pm
I guess it's supposed to shut down the first stage and then uses a spring system to push them apart.
 But in the last test I swear the first stage looked like it was still still firing before the video cut off.
I guess maybe they should switch to an interstage ring at least for the near term.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 08:20 pm
[...]  We've heard rumors that the full video shows a violent recontact of the 1st stage with the 2nd stage, causing the destruction of the vehicle. [...]

Maybe they need to implement the Apollo solution, drop the stage first, then the spacer ring.

This occurred to me as well. It introduces some complexity, but if they could avoid any possibility of recontact by separating first at the nozzle exit plane, then get the second stage burning so they have some authority to null the rates, I would think that would reduce the chance of recontact with a spacer. Seems logical. What's done on other launchers?

Jon


Most don't have this.  None of the US liquid launchers don't.  Only Saturn V
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 08:24 pm


Most other LVs use stage separation motors and ullage motors to force the stages apart reducing the chances of recontact if there are hiccups in second stage startup.

Wrong again.  Delta II and IV don't.  None of the OSC's.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2008 08:26 pm
I guess it's supposed to shut down the first stage and then uses a spring system to push them apart.
 But in the last test I swear the first stage looked like it was still still firing before the video cut off.
I guess maybe they should switch to an interstage ring at least for the near term.

no.  that is stupid.  The design is fine, the implementation is bad
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/03/2008 08:37 pm
The design is fine, the implementation is bad

What in your opinion is the best way to fix the problem?  Would the mentioned ullage motors help/hinder the design?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/03/2008 08:39 pm
Quote
The Russians had some go bad on the Soyuz SM.
 I don't know where Spacex buys their pyro bolts but sice they are going for low cost they might have used a Russian supplier for them and got some from the same bad batch.

Somewhere on the SpaceX site it mentions that they use an industry standard explosive bolt that has never caused a mission failure.

I've never been happy with the concept of explosive bolts because they definitely are a single point of failure.  Still, one cannot argue with success, explosive bolts have historically functioned to an extreme level of reliability. 

One reason these bolts are so reliable is that they are typically dual firing.  Two independent charges per bolt, with each charge wired to a different firing circuit to provide a very high level of redundancy.

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: aero313 on 08/03/2008 08:41 pm
The design is fine, the implementation is bad

What in your opinion is the best way to fix the problem?  Would the mentioned ullage motors help/hinder the design?

The BEST way to fix the problem is to find out what the real problem is before speculating about a fix.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/03/2008 08:53 pm
From the SpaceX site.

Regarding F1 separation:

"Stage separation occurs via dual initiated separation bolts and a pneumatic pusher system. All components are space qualified and have flown before on other launch vehicles."
http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php

Regarding the pyros on the F9

"Moreover, the stage separation bolts are all dual initiated, fully space qualified and have a zero failure track record in prior launch vehicles."

They seem to have removed this wording from the active page, but it is still in Google's cache:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:bkgUxkWGqbYJ:www.spacex.com/falcon9.php+site:spacex.com
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pm1823 on 08/03/2008 08:57 pm
Quote
I don't know where Spacex buys their pyro bolts but sice they are going for low cost they might have used a Russian supplier for them and got some from the same bad batch.
LOL. His grenades are of wrong system . (с) White Sun of the Desert :)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Rocket Girl on 08/03/2008 09:27 pm

When the first attempt was aborted , I was certain that the launch would be delayed (several days or weeks).  I was shocked to discover that a second attempt was made within minutes of the first abort.   I find it difficult to believe that a methodical examination was made.  The decision to launch a second time so soon was irresponsible.

Safety is paramount.   A delay to ensure nothing was damaged that could cause harm is crucial.  A delay to ensure that “all systems are go” is also crucial.   

My concern isn’t “why” the failure happened.  My concern is the actions of Space X last night. Had the launch been a success or a failure, an investigation would have proven that SpaceX is a responsible, reputable aerospace company. 

I want SpaceX to have great success,  I wish them the best in the future.

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: rdale on 08/03/2008 09:29 pm

I find it difficult to believe that a methodical examination was made.  The decision to launch a second time so soon was irresponsible.

That's quite an accusation... What evidence do you have that a methodical examination was NOT made? How have you connected the first abort with the mission failure?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/03/2008 09:38 pm

When the first attempt was aborted , I was certain that the launch would be delayed (several days or weeks).  I was shocked to discover that a second attempt was made within minutes of the first abort.   I find it difficult to believe that a methodical examination was made.  The decision to launch a second time so soon was irresponsible.

Safety is paramount.   A delay to ensure nothing was damaged that could cause harm is crucial.  A delay to ensure that “all systems are go” is also crucial.   

My concern isn’t “why” the failure happened.  My concern is the actions of Space X last night. Had the launch been a success or a failure, an investigation would have proven that SpaceX is a responsible, reputable aerospace company. 

I want SpaceX to have great success,  I wish them the best in the future.
So your contention is that Any abort for any reason should require a complete stand down and re-evaluation of every single system component?

Do you get your car engine tuned up every time you have a flat tire?  The point being, a small anomaly doesn't always require a complete stand down. 

As things stand now, it is entirely possible that the reason for the initial abort may have had absolutely nothing to do with the mechanism of failure.   All I read of the first abort was that one of 180 criteria was <1% under nominal.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's unlikely that the mechanism of failure was in any way impacted by the initial abort.  I could be wrong, but that would be my guess.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/03/2008 10:46 pm
Do you get your car engine tuned up every time you have a flat tire?  The point being, a small anomaly doesn't always require a complete stand down. 

True, but if you get a flat tire you at least look over that wheel/tire.  If, for example, you find that the outside edge of the tire was all chewed up, you probably want to at least check for alignment or other problems.

Her point is that the first abort lit the engine briefly.  Lots of things can go wrong with a shutdown of a lit engine- including things that could be induced by the shock of engine start.

Being able to quick turn from an abort at engine start is impressive as all hell.  Needing to do so regularly is not.


Quote
As things stand now, it is entirely possible that the reason for the initial abort may have had absolutely nothing to do with the mechanism of failure.   All I read of the first abort was that one of 180 criteria was <1% under nominal.

Quite true.  Lets see what SpaceX reports as the root cause(s)

Quote
If I had to guess, I'd say it's unlikely that the mechanism of failure was in any way impacted by the initial abort.  I could be wrong, but that would be my guess.

Fair enough.  The 2nd launch flew to staging with a start/abort engine after a quick turn, then had a staging incident which caused slosh.  Possibly corrected in the 3rd LV.

The 3rd LV flew to staging with a start/abort engine after a quick turn, then had a staging incident which most of us have seen nothing of and don't know what happened.

Note that staging happens in both failures, but so does an engine lit abort followed by quick turnaround, followed by launch.  See two things that are common between both failures?

It will be interesting to see what SpaceX find.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: hop on 08/03/2008 10:58 pm
All I read of the first abort was that one of 180 criteria was <1% under nominal.
First of all, I agree that we have know way of knowing if this specific decision was justified or not. It certainly could have been.

However, it still raises some questions in my mind:
If the limit can be raised in a few minutes, how detailed was the analysis that went into setting it in the first place ?

This value being close to the limit should either have been within existing test experience, or outside it.

If it frequently came close to the limit in testing, then the analysis should have been done, and the limit raised before launch. Especially given the short time it took to conclude that raising it was safe. While it's great that F1 can start/abort, it's a pretty violent event, and seems like something you'd rather avoid.

If it normally stayed far away from the limit, then that would suggest that reaching it might have been out of character, and a stand-down would be warranted even if the value itself appears safe. When your hardware talks, you should listen.

OTOH, it's possible that the value was clearly related to some particular environmental condition at the launch, not commonly encountered in testing. E.g. difference in temperature between launch site and test stand.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: bigdog on 08/03/2008 10:58 pm
Anyone know how they execute the separation?  I mean does the second stage avionics do all the work or is there a box on the first stage that's commanded to fire the sep system by the computer on the second?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Rocket Girl on 08/03/2008 11:19 pm

My crystal ball doesn’t work, never has, never will.  I never said that the first abort was the cause of the failure.  I don’t know what happened.  SpaceX will revue the data and discover the cause in due time.

SpaceX’s (falcon‘s) track record isn’t great.  A “complete stand down” would have been prudent under the circumstances. 

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: AresWatcher on 08/03/2008 11:42 pm

SpaceX’s (falcon‘s) track record isn’t great.  A “complete stand down” would have been prudent under the circumstances. 



Incorrect.

The cause of the first abort was due to a turbopump being one percent out of spec, breaching their version of LCC. That is actually a very right LCC, and they may have lauched without issue.

The failure was to do with the separation of the first and second stages.

A standdown due to the first scrub is very unlikely to have made any difference on this same vehicle.

The decision to recycle was based on their own proceedure, and unless you are claiming to know the vehicle better than the engineers who designed such a proceedure....well ;)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: rolfkap on 08/04/2008 12:12 am

OTOH, it's possible that the value was clearly related to some particular environmental condition at the launch, not commonly encountered in testing. E.g. difference in temperature between launch site and test stand.

Well, they did a hot fire of the stage at the end of June, conditions should be pretty similar.  Shutting down for these things means one of these:

1) Hardware does not act the same every time.
2) Limits are set too tightly.
3) Instrumentation is not precise enough.

#1 would be bad, but I'm guessing it is more of a combination of 2 and 3.  I would have thought the abort on flight 2 would have lead to a review of go/no-go limits, but maybe not.  They obviously are convinced of the robustness of the Merlin.

--Rolf
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: yinzer on 08/04/2008 01:14 am
The cause of the first abort was due to a turbopump being one percent out of spec, breaching their version of LCC. That is actually a very right LCC, and they may have lauched without issue.

The one percent is irrelevant.  Setting redlines and aborting when you exceed them is standard practice.  Running close enough to the redlines that you regularly exceed them and have to abort is not standard practice.

SpaceX claimed that they were going to do things very differently than the rest of the rocket industry, and cut out a bunch of expensive stuff that wasn't needed but was only done out of conservatism and paranoia.  They have since gone zero-for-three.

Maybe standard rocket industry practice makes sense after all, or maybe SpaceX is doing something uniquely wrong (letting Elon Musk make technical decisions, perhaps?).  It's hard to say.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: rsnellenberger on 08/04/2008 04:03 am
I think one Saturn I had it's interstage stay attached to the second stage but it still managed to achieve orbit.

That was the Saturn V launch for Skylab -- IIRC, there was some speculation that debris from the insulation and/or solar panel that were lost might have played a role.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/04/2008 04:06 am

SpaceX claimed that they were going to do things very differently than the rest of the rocket industry, and cut out a bunch of expensive stuff that wasn't needed but was only done out of conservatism and paranoia.  They have since gone zero-for-three.

Maybe standard rocket industry practice makes sense after all, or maybe SpaceX is doing something uniquely wrong (letting Elon Musk make technical decisions, perhaps?).  It's hard to say.

While it is certainly true that SpaceX has suffered three launch failures, there is zero evidence that these failures have been caused by SpaceX's "better - cheaper - vertical development" methodology.

As has been pointed out by any number of commentators, many of the current breed of commercial launchers suffered similar losses in their early development.  These launchers had gold plated government contracts and funding that in constant dollars greatly exceeded all of SpaceX's expenditures.  The fact remains that that rockets tend to fail until each of their systems are tested in real flight conditions.

I contend that SpaceX's failures have not been because of their "better - cheaper - vertical development" philosophy.  I believe their failures are simply a result of their updating the launch business to current state of the art.  The breaking of new ground is often risky, in rocket science, especially so.  We all know that the smallest of issues can easily doom an entire mission.   SpaceX may now have experienced all of their show-stoppers, they may be on track to deliver their promises.  Then again, it may take another launch or three for them to reach that goal.

You seem to suggest that it is now impossible for SpaceX to deliver on their "Better, Cheaper" goal.  I really don't see how you arrive at this conclusion.  Whenever they achieve reliability, whether it is the next launch, or three launches from now, as long as they do achieve reliability, they should be able to deliver on their promises.

If they end up with a system that has spotty reliability, you may end up being correct.  If however, they are following the prototypical rocket development path of working out the kinks towards the deployment of a highly reliable system, they your contention will be entirely wrong.

History is clearly on the side of SpaceX's merely working through all the show stoppers towards a reliable system, but only time will tell. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Seattle Dave on 08/04/2008 04:47 am

Reading through this thread everyone seems to be under the impression that launching rockets is easy and a new company like SpaceX should be on the moon by now. 


That's a very strange comment coming from a respected member of this site. I see a few people, as in about three people, thinking this is really bad news for the companies future. I don't see anyone claiming it's easy.

How that is "everyone".......?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: patmamu on 08/04/2008 05:32 am
Been reading threw the thread and I tend to agree that it is to be expected Space X will blow up a few rockets. It happens and the computer scientist have yet to simulate Murphy. The only thing I am confused about is why Space X continues to send up live missions instead of boiler plate missions. I would think that if Space X keeps blowing up missions it would become hard to secure insurence on future missions, Insurers are ardly friendly forgiving types. I think Space X should work out the kinks and get a couple of orbitals before they send another mission up on a still unproven rocket. Any way best of luck to Space X and it should be interesting to find out what exactly went wrong.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/04/2008 06:02 am
If they end up with a system that has spotty reliability, you may end up being correct.  If however, they are following the prototypical rocket development path of working out the kinks towards the deployment of a highly reliable system, they your contention will be entirely wrong.

If, however, they are following the prototypical rocket development path of working out the kinks towards the deployment of a highly reliable system, they may end up with a typical rocket industry cost structure in the process.
Which will let you somewhere in between "they will fail" and "they will blow everybody else out of the market".
Which was at least my point here (albeit it obviously has been perceived differently).
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/04/2008 06:56 am
If, however, they are following the prototypical rocket development path of working out the kinks towards the deployment of a highly reliable system, they may end up with a typical rocket industry cost structure in the process.
Which will let you somewhere in between "they will fail" and "they will blow everybody else out of the market".
Which was at least my point here (albeit it obviously has been perceived differently).

You make the assumption that reaching reliability requires a typical rocket industry cost structure.  I don't believe it is a valid assumption.

If there are definite issues that can be recognized and solved, SpaceX will not have to expand into the typical rocket industry cost structure.  They will fix the issues and achieve a reliable vehicle.  Now if their problems are institutional, you may be right, but I've seen no evidence to suggest this.  In fact, I've seen a lot of evidence to suggest exactly the opposite.  All suggestions are that SpaceX has great respect for quality assurance and maximizing redundancy. 

Consider their launches thus far.  Their first launch failed because of a corroded bolt.  The Marshall Island's low elevation and tiny land mass result in a continual salt breeze.  Corrosion is a Massive issue on the atoll.  Corrosion abatement is a continual issue for the military installations there. 

Had they launched from Vandenberg as initially planned, (quashed by their industry competitors) the corrosion issue may never have appeared.  Vandenberg and the Kwaj are at polar opposites of the rust universe.  Still, it's possible, I believe Likely that the first mission would have still have failed due to either the launch 2 or launch 3 issues.  But if not forced to launch from the Kwaj, they'd only be 2 down now, not three.

After launch 1, the corrosion issue was addressed.  To the best of our knowledge it has not reappeared.

The launch 2 anomaly was caused by fuel sloshing.  Multiple fixes were put in place to resolve this.  Belt and suspenders, software and baffles.  We won't know if this was resolved until SpaceX releases its L3 findings.

As yet we've no information as to what caused the failure in launch 3.  If it was fuel sloshing or a corroded bolt, I would be the first to suggest SpaceX has some level of institutional problems that could potentially be solved with a Big Space Methodology. If it has nothing to do with the previous issues, if the exact cause can be determined and fixed, then I would contend that SpaceX is absolutely on track towards their low-cost goal.

As yet, I've seen No evidence to suggest SpaceX has an institutional issue that could be fixed by adopting the typical rocket industry cost structure.  In fact, I think the evidence suggests exactly the opposite.  It suggests that they are working through problems that can only be tested in a live fire environment.  It suggests that once they've experienced each of these show stoppers, they should reach industry levels of reliability.

Of course, only time will tell.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Analyst on 08/04/2008 08:01 am
1) You make the assumption that reaching reliability requires a typical rocket industry cost structure.  I don't believe it is a valid assumption.

2) If there are definite issues that can be recognized and solved, SpaceX will not have to expand into the typical rocket industry cost structure.  They will fix the issues and achieve a reliable vehicle.

3) Now if their problems are institutional, you may be right, but I've seen no evidence to suggest this.  In fact, I've seen a lot of evidence to suggest exactly the opposite.  All suggestions are that SpaceX has great respect for quality assurance and maximizing redundancy. 

4) Consider their launches thus far.  Their first launch failed because of a corroded bolt.

5) The Marshall Island's low elevation and tiny land mass result in a continual salt breeze.  Corrosion is a Massive issue on the atoll.  Corrosion abatement is a continual issue for the military installations there. 

6) Had they launched from Vandenberg as initially planned, (quashed by their industry competitors) ...

7) If it has nothing to do with the previous issues, if the exact cause can be determined and fixed, then I would contend that SpaceX is absolutely on track towards their low-cost goal.

8 ) As yet, I've seen No evidence to suggest SpaceX has an institutional issue that could be fixed by adopting the typical rocket industry cost structure.  In fact, I think the evidence suggests exactly the opposite.  It suggests that they are working through problems that can only be tested in a live fire environment.  It suggests that once they've experienced each of these show stoppers, they should reach industry levels of reliability.

1) Where do you base your beliefs? Three failure in a row say different.

2) Having quality control takes money. Why do you assume other companies waste money with their "typical rocket industry cost structure"? More likely you need this structure and the costs to have a reliable vehicle. You don't simply fix problems. Others will crop up.

3) Sure they have respect, but this isn't enough. Three failures in a row say different. As does launching minutes after an abort.

4) If it has not been the bolt, probably something different would have doomed F1. As you say yourself.

5) It was their decision to move into the middle of nowhere. Being there has one advantage they seem to like for some reason: Secrecy, no pictures. Corrosion is a factor at CCAFS too.

6) The old Titan 4 myth? Who does prevent them from using Vandenberg, CCAFS, WA? Who?

7) So as long as you don't fail twice for the very same reason you are o.k.? You reduce cost by this strategy? You lost me here.

8 ) I have: Three failures in a row. Everything suggests old spaceflight players have a reason to do stuff the way they do. They want profit too and don't waste money for unneccecary procedures. Doesn't mean everything is perfect there. But there must be a reason, don't you think?

Analyst
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dirkthefirst on 08/04/2008 08:29 am
I can't see how adopting a traditional cost structure would fix anything. What I think is needed is a little more guidance from somewhere, maybe a few "old hands" onboard to steady the ship and keep things on course for the future.
Quite a few of the mistakes SpaceX have made seem like unnecessary errors**, so maybe a little experience will fix that.

** Not that you can really get a necessary error, I'm not quite sure of the right word to use though.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/04/2008 08:35 am
If, however, they are following the prototypical rocket development path of working out the kinks towards the deployment of a highly reliable system, they may end up with a typical rocket industry cost structure in the process.
Which will let you somewhere in between "they will fail" and "they will blow everybody else out of the market".
Which was at least my point here (albeit it obviously has been perceived differently).
You make the assumption that reaching reliability requires a typical rocket industry cost structure.  I don't believe it is a valid assumption.

Analyst has said it well.

I believe it's a pretty valid assumption since if that assumption did NOT hold true it would automatically mean that all others except SpaceX are a bunch of morons while the evidence shows that these morons do successful launches vs. SpaceX so far have three failures in a row on their books.

I agree that there might be some pork to get by, especially in the case of things developed on cost+ contracts but I am pretty willing to bet that SpaceX original assumption of one order of magnitude will not hold true. And if they end up having half the cost of old.space those companies will carefully look at what SpaceX does differently and adopt what's there in improvements for themselves.

And in the end SpaceX is now mainly running for one of these gov. contracts as well, aren't they?

No, I still don't think they will completely fail, there IS an open spot in the market for privately funded launch vehicles that will be filled but  their  original claim to completely change the rules of spaceflight so far looks pretty hard to meet to me.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Analyst on 08/04/2008 08:37 am
The traditional cost structure is not a goal and won't fix anything by itself, but it stems from adopting industry standards and procedures.

Analyst
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/04/2008 08:39 am
I can't see how adopting a traditional cost structure would fix anything.
You don't "adopt a cost structure". You adopt a quality management regime and that lets you end up with a certain cost structure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dirkthefirst on 08/04/2008 08:40 am
I can't see how adopting a traditional cost structure would fix anything.
You don't "adopt a cost structure". You adopt a quality management regime and that lets you end up with a certain cost structure.

You know perfectly what I mean.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/04/2008 08:44 am
Wow. Three failures in a row. That equals the Soviet N-1 Moon rocket failure record. The Europa I and II (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/europa.htm) also had perfect records with six consecutive failures, followed by cancellation. The hard lessons from Europa were applied to Ariane I which successfully worked on its first flight!

By the way, I noticed a lot of hooting and shouting during first stage flight. I consider it extremely bad karma to do this during the launch. You should only rejoice once the payload is safely in orbit.

Anyways, I'm sure the Space-X team will have much soul searching in the coming days. Hang in there! If you keep trying you will eventually succeed.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JWE on 08/04/2008 08:56 am
Right now this looks like a step back for SpaceX. Is it good to get too far ahead with Falcon 9 when the 'model' has significant flaws? QA is key here. After a long delay, Demo 2 failed in large part due to flawed fuel management software (on both stages)--after the obligatory 'first stage nominal' callouts. Another long delay, greater complexity with a first stage throttle down, and another failure. Great design is nothing without great QA. History is being repeated here. Ullage motors probably won't help, but a more rigorous test/redesign loop probably will. It can't be forced and it will drive up cost.

The quick turn around in the field is something the military wants. Does anyone have more information on military applications for F1?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/04/2008 09:20 am
Wow. Three failures in a row. That equals the Soviet N-1 Moon rocket failure record.

N-1 had four failures. Falcon is starting to make the Delta III look reliable, though.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Analyst on 08/04/2008 09:34 am
Yup, Delta III reached orbit, twice. Not the planned one, but an orbit.

Analyst
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2008 11:55 am
1) You make the assumption that reaching reliability requires a typical rocket industry cost structure.  I don't believe it is a valid assumption.

2) If there are definite issues that can be recognized and solved, SpaceX will not have to expand into the typical rocket industry cost structure.  They will fix the issues and achieve a reliable vehicle.

3) Now if their problems are institutional, you may be right, but I've seen no evidence to suggest this.  In fact, I've seen a lot of evidence to suggest exactly the opposite.  All suggestions are that SpaceX has great respect for quality assurance and maximizing redundancy. 

4) Consider their launches thus far.  Their first launch failed because of a corroded bolt.

5) The Marshall Island's low elevation and tiny land mass result in a continual salt breeze.  Corrosion is a Massive issue on the atoll.  Corrosion abatement is a continual issue for the military installations there. 

6) Had they launched from Vandenberg as initially planned, (quashed by their industry competitors) ...

7) If it has nothing to do with the previous issues, if the exact cause can be determined and fixed, then I would contend that SpaceX is absolutely on track towards their low-cost goal.

8 ) As yet, I've seen No evidence to suggest SpaceX has an institutional issue that could be fixed by adopting the typical rocket industry cost structure.  In fact, I think the evidence suggests exactly the opposite.  It suggests that they are working through problems that can only be tested in a live fire environment.  It suggests that once they've experienced each of these show stoppers, they should reach industry levels of reliability.

1.  No, it is quality rigor drives a cost structure.  Additionally, maintaining a launch team that can handle 40 hour work weeks with vacation, sick time and training adds to it.  Spacex can go balls to the hall and work one F-1 at time but it can't sustain it.

2.  Those issues are institutional

3.  see above.  "Great respect for quality assurance"?  Where do you see?  It took the first flight failure to institute QA buyoffs and close out photos.  See here is traditional cost structure creeping in.  "maximizing redundancy"?  Aside from their spin on the multiple engines in the F9, the rest of spin is  a "simple design" for reliability and not redundancy.

4.  That was not the only issue
5.  That would have happened at VAFB and CCAFS also.  Especially, CCAFS.  One, the material selection was wrong. (bad design).  Two, most launch vehicles enclose the engine section and provide AC to prevent this problem.

6.  That is a plain lie. 
A. The competitors had nothing to do with it
b.  The USAF was justified in not allowing a launch until the Titan was gone
c.  Spacex wasn't ready
d.  Spacex can go back if they want

7.  You contention is wrong.  The fixes are going drive spacex to the traditional structure

8. wrong again.  The problems don't need live test, they are basic problems.  They won't reach "industry levels of reliability" because they eschew the industry processes that enable the level of reliability

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: aero313 on 08/04/2008 04:41 pm
The cause of the first abort was due to a turbopump being one percent out of spec, breaching their version of LCC. That is actually a very right LCC, and they may have lauched without issue.

The one percent is irrelevant.  Setting redlines and aborting when you exceed them is standard practice.  Running close enough to the redlines that you regularly exceed them and have to abort is not standard practice.


That's exactly right.  The reason why a responsible launch company develops launch commit criteria is so you do it prior to launch when you have the time to perform the appropriate analyses and tests to validate your criteria.  You specifically DO NOT want to be waiving these criteria at the last minute when your CEO has launch fever.  You may find out that your criteria were overly conservative and thus overly constraining, but you DO NOT make that decision in the last few minutes prior to launch.  The cause of the failure is probably unrelated to the cause of the abort, but the process that led to the waiving of the requirement is fundamentally flawed.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: manlymissileman on 08/04/2008 05:51 pm
There's been a discussion re: viability of SpaceX's claims of significant launch cost reductions while improving reliability.  For most commercial players or government payloads the payload costs override the launch costs.  Those comm sats and probes cost a lot of money to design and build and operate, often much more money over their lifetime than the launchers with launch services combined.  It's a huge, often one-of-a-kind investment for the customer.  There is a premium placed on reliability, not as much on the lower launch costs.  (Hence insurance costs are on the payload)  They'd rather pay more for a launcher with some kind of track record. 

I could actually reverse SpaceX's model and start at at least current industry level costs/reliability and *then* attempt to bring costs down.  The established launch providers also constantly look to lower costs (why wouldn't they?  they like larger profits too)  I don't know what's better a successful 'expensive' rocket on the first flight or 3 'cheap' failures.  All with live payload.  As it is, even if SpaceX offered a free ride to a commercial entity on their future F9 there wouldn't be many takers until there is a track record of at least their F1 which has a lot of commonality. 

Secondly, even if the next F1 flight is successful it would be great of course and I wish them success, but that'll be just the beginning.  There needs to be a track record of several successful deliveries for an insurance company to begin evaluations, and customers to gain confidence (and then of course the non-gov market is currently mostly in heavier telecom sats which is F9 not F1)  SpaceX needs to demonstrate it can keep up the launch production and operations consistently.

Anyway, I wish spacex luck and perseverance regardless this failure.  They are actually building and launching things unlike most of the altspace projects.  Perhaps some re-evaluations and less aversion to 'conventional wisdom'.  But the competion and insights they could bring in is good for the industry as a whole.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: WHAP on 08/04/2008 06:55 pm
6) Had they launched from Vandenberg as initially planned, (quashed by their industry competitors) ...

6.  That is a plain lie. 
a. The competitors had nothing to do with it
b.  The USAF was justified in not allowing a launch until the Titan was gone
c.  Spacex wasn't ready
d.  Spacex can go back if they want

SpaceX can go back, but I doubt the Atlas program would want them launching from SLC-3W (which doesn't really exist any more).  IIRC, parts of the first Falcon 1 flight would have landed directly on SLC-3E.  Given their record, lack of an FTS (more than just an engine shut down command, which would increase costs) is a show stopper for them.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dunderwood on 08/04/2008 06:56 pm
F1 has FTS.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Analyst on 08/04/2008 07:07 pm
Yeh, it terminates every flight before reaching orbit. :) Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Quote
SpaceX can go back, but I doubt the Atlas program would want them launching from SLC-3W (which doesn't really exist any more).  IIRC, parts of the first Falcon 1 flight would have landed directly on SLC-3E.  Given their record, lack of an FTS (more than just an engine shut down command, which would increase costs) is a show stopper for them.

Correct, but it is their (SpaceX) own fault, not the fault of competitors, the range, the government, the big ghost behind the moon or me.

Analyst
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2008 07:38 pm
F1 has FTS.

It has no destruct system,
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2008 07:39 pm

SpaceX can go back,

They can go to SLC-4
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dunderwood on 08/04/2008 08:00 pm
It has no destruct system,

Do you think it needs C4 on it to destruct?  It's a common dome, all you need to do for FTS is vent the fuel tank while leaving the lox tank pressed.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2008 08:03 pm
It has no destruct system,

Do you think it needs C4 on it to destruct?  It's a common dome, all you need to do for FTS is vent the fuel tank while leaving the lox tank pressed.

That isn't enough, too slow.

Standard practice of a linear charge on the outside for ease of production and installation. 

See heritage atlas and centaur destruct systems
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: yinzer on 08/04/2008 08:11 pm
As yet, I've seen No evidence to suggest SpaceX has an institutional issue that could be fixed by adopting the typical rocket industry cost structure.  In fact, I think the evidence suggests exactly the opposite.  It suggests that they are working through problems that can only be tested in a live fire environment.  It suggests that once they've experienced each of these show stoppers, they should reach industry levels of reliability.

Part of SpaceX's approach is based on doing things differently from the rest of the aerospace industry.  This was expected to lower costs, but it's also caused them to lose three flights due to known issues.  Dissimilar metal corrosion is nothing new - I have problems with it on my motorcycles.  Propellant slosh is difficult to model yet critical to launch vehicle control.  Staging requires care to ensure clean separation.

Who knows what other lessons they'll learn the hard way.  Don't load improper constants into GN&C software and don't tape together connectors that are supposed to separate during staging seem like plausible candidates.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: aero313 on 08/04/2008 08:23 pm
As yet, I've seen No evidence to suggest SpaceX has an institutional issue that could be fixed by adopting the typical rocket industry cost structure.  In fact, I think the evidence suggests exactly the opposite.  It suggests that they are working through problems that can only be tested in a live fire environment.  It suggests that once they've experienced each of these show stoppers, they should reach industry levels of reliability.

Part of SpaceX's approach is based on doing things differently from the rest of the aerospace industry.  This was expected to lower costs, but it's also caused them to lose three flights due to known issues.  Dissimilar metal corrosion is nothing new - I have problems with it on my motorcycles.  Propellant slosh is difficult to model yet critical to launch vehicle control.  Staging requires care to ensure clean separation.

Who knows what other lessons they'll learn the hard way.  Don't load improper constants into GN&C software and don't tape together connectors that are supposed to separate during staging seem like plausible candidates.



I've had first hand experience with established launch service providers and some of the alt.space companies.  The fundamental difference between the two is that the alt.space companies invariably do not appreciate the things that can go wrong or the need for rigorous documentation, process control, and mission assurance effort.  These are the things that increase the costs of the established launch providers.  Recall that after the "successful" second flight of Falcon 1, SpaceX proclaimed that all systems through stage 2 ignition had been qualified.  Apparently not.  Established launch providers know that one success does not equate to repeatable reliability.

Orbital learned that mission assurance costs are necessary and that customers understand that and are willing to pay for it.  Apparently SpaceX didn't want to hear that and must learn it again on their own.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/04/2008 09:00 pm
My total conjecture is that this had something to do with the remating of the second stage after the nozzle change-out.  That's not something that would affect the qualification of the design.

Oh and somewhere up on this thread, someone had a comment about NASA signing off on COTS demo launches.  NASA has no say in whether or not SpaceX launches a COTS mission.  The only thing NASA can disallow is berthing with the Station, on the third mission.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: McDew on 08/04/2008 10:19 pm
Marsavian just posted a very interesting video of a Merlin 1C engine test firing under the Merlin 1C engine thread.  After shutdown it clearly shows a very large burp and backfire of the engine.  I have seen some reports blaming the recontact during separation on an engine burp after stage 1 shutdown.  With test data showing this shutdown characteristic, I don't understand how SpaceX could have missed this possibility.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nacnud on 08/04/2008 11:38 pm
I noticed that too, plus there was that rumour of reconnection posted earlier.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: josh_simonson on 08/05/2008 12:32 am
The email said that the stages never separated: "Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together. "   That would seem to invalidate the 'violent recontact' rumor, at least as the root failure.  Certainly they'd shut down the engine long enough before staging that any burps and hiccups seen in testing would subside before the next step. 

Possibly if they were held together by a piece of cable the stages may have pulled apart and bounced back together, or if the second stage fired with a cable attached to the first stage it may have swung around and hit the first stage.  That's the only way a 'violent recontact' can be reconciled with SpaceX's statement.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Carl G on 08/05/2008 02:19 am
Was there a big loss of interest in this launch compared to the last. F1 flight II thread has nearly 160,000 views. This one is only up to 12,000 ???
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: yinzer on 08/05/2008 02:28 am
The email said that the stages never separated: "Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together. "   That would seem to invalidate the 'violent recontact' rumor, at least as the root failure.  Certainly they'd shut down the engine long enough before staging that any burps and hiccups seen in testing would subside before the next step. 

You'd hope so.  In the video from the 2nd launch, MECO happened at about 2:50 and stage separation happened at 2:52.  This is a pretty short time in comparison to the Delta II or Atlas V.  The Delta uses vernier rockets for attitude control after MECO and the Atlas uses booster separation motors.

Quote
Possibly if they were held together by a piece of cable the stages may have pulled apart and bounced back together, or if the second stage fired with a cable attached to the first stage it may have swung around and hit the first stage.  That's the only way a 'violent recontact' can be reconciled with SpaceX's statement.

This happened on a Titan IV / IUS mission in 1999.  Also, keep in mind that the current SpaceX statement is based off of at most a few hours of examination of telemetry, so it could be wrong.  Also note that they said the entire first stage flight of the 2nd Falcon 1 launch went perfectly, despite large angular rates on the vehicle causing the interstage to hit the second stage nozzle.

Wait and see.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/05/2008 02:30 am
Elon Speaks!:

Quote
We're not quite ready to release details on the initial investigation yet, but we should do it very soon. We think we have a very good idea but I don't want to get ahead of ourselves and then be wrong. We definitely know where the problem occurred, but 'why?' is the question. We think we know, but have to be sure. We think it's very small and will require a tiny change, so tiny that if we had another rocket on the pad we could launch tomorrow.

Quote
  Some things can only be tested in space. Bear in mind, Falcon 1 is our test vehicle. The reason we started with F1 isn't because I'm passionate about launching small satellites, but because I want to make mistakes on a small scale and not a large one. And this doesn't appear to be a quality issue or a manufacturing issue. It's a design issue related to new hardware that has only flown on this flight. It was our first with the new Merlin 1C regeneratively cooled engine. The problem we think we've identified is a lesson learned and thus we won't make it on the big Falcon 9, and in that sense it's helpful.

Quote
Yes, we took an investment from the Founder's Fund, a fund run by a bunch of guys I used to work with at PayPal. They've been interested in SpaceX for a long time and I knew that, and thought it might be smart to take an investment from them to increase our war chest in case something didn't go right on flight three. Which turned out to be true.

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/05/2008 02:33 am
Was there a big loss of interest in this launch compared to the last. F1 flight II thread has nearly 160,000 views. This one is only up to 12,000 ???

We're on new forum software and new servers now. Previous forum software worked on page impressions on the view count (as in if you read each of the 47 pages on this thread, it'd add 47 views to the counter). This one works on "unique" views - counts one per different IP address viewing (thus one view is added to the counter, regardless of how many pages you clicked or refreshed).....

We've been well past the point where the previous forum software and server would slow down and timeout a few times now, and this launch was one such example, so we as a site had more watching than the last F1 launch - but we're still a growing site.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: manlymissileman on 08/05/2008 02:37 am
"...We think it's very small and will require a tiny change, so tiny that if we had another rocket on the pad we could launch tomorrow." 

Not to put a fine point on this but - Oy.  Being cavalier like this now is not smart.  A customer has lost a sat that was paid and hard worked for.

[edit] and this:

"The reason we started with F1 isn't because I'm passionate about launching small satellites, but because I want to make mistakes on a small scale and not a large one."

is irresponsible and uncharitable to the ones who trusted F1 with their ("test") payloads.*  Start doing things right form the beginning if you want trust and return business ("the little guys" may become bigger in the future)

*sure they can understand that it's an LV test, but the "who cares" attitude expressed in the phrase?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/05/2008 03:15 am
Looks like they didn't take account of the extra roll momentum after all. Seat of the pants stuff but fun to watch ;) Who's going to be as brave as Scotty, rest his soul, and chance the first Dragon manned flight ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRaeqmYzumc

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/05/2008 03:16 am
Elon Speaks!:
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa

Very interesting read.  Note the following [mods: quoted verbatim, please censor the explative if so inclined]

Quote
Musk: Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work.

The man's arrogance sometimes fraks me off, but you sure as hell can't claim that he's not driven.

Anything so trivial that they could fly another launch tomorrow just has to be software related...

Timing related to that burp of the 1C shown in the other thread, for example, waiting a couple of seconds longer to stage... 

Or some other bit of minutiae...  I can't wait to hear what they found.

I also think that it's unwise for him to claim that the F1 is just a testbed, unless he's actually all out of customers for it...  There are small sats to be launched...
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: zappafrank on 08/05/2008 03:24 am
He may be a maverick and billionaire and all that, but if I had a few million invested in a sat, I'd go to someone who is boring, conservative and reliable.

He is a bit too cheeky, and isn't doing a lot to instill confidence. (at least not in me)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: manlymissileman on 08/05/2008 04:13 am
This band-aid fix might work tomorrow, and I'm not even sure Musk means that seriously or 'just talkin' to a magazine, but the attitude just displayed will continue to cause problems.

[edit] this was in reaction to the "tiny change"
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: manlymissileman on 08/05/2008 06:12 am
Well what do I know.  Strangely enough the customer in question SpaceDev is thankful to SpaceX for "delivering" their sat which was deemed a success:  http://spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=278  without actualy being delivered and doing its thing.  If I had customers like that...
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/05/2008 06:30 am

1) Where do you base your beliefs? Three failure in a row say different.

2) Having quality control takes money. Why do you assume other companies waste money with their "typical rocket industry cost structure"? More likely you need this structure and the costs to have a reliable vehicle. You don't simply fix problems. Others will crop up.

3) Sure they have respect, but this isn't enough. Three failures in a row say different. As does launching minutes after an abort. . .

8 ) I have: Three failures in a row. Everything suggests old spaceflight players have a reason to do stuff the way they do. They want profit too and don't waste money for unneccecary procedures. Doesn't mean everything is perfect there. But there must be a reason, don't you think?

Analyst

You and others here continue to suggest that "Three Failures" is some sort of magic number that damns SpaceX as a company with huge institutional problems.  While it's not good to have three failures, neither is it good to have one, or two.  Yet each of the major players in the industry have suffered far more than three failures during their time in the business. 

Statistically, given the tiny, tiny sample size of rocket launching organizations combined with the very small number of launches per organization, two failures versus three failures is barely statistically significant in defining SpaceX's health.  Before you attack this statement, I am not saying that the failure is insignificant.  I am only saying that your break point of two failures versus three failures is statistically insignificant in defining the institutional health of a rocket company. 

As I said above, I think the evidence demonstrates that the key reason for SpaceX's failures have been that the breaking of new ground is typically troublesome.  There are a number of design issues that can only be tested in a live fire environment.  As I said above, I believe SpaceX is working through these show-stoppers one by one.  Once they have cleared each of these hurdles, they will achieve success and reliability.

We must also consider the fact that SpaceX is competing with companies that have been in the business for 20, or 30, or 40 years.  The Big Rocket companies have certainly accrued institutional knowledge completely irrespective of their large and costly Big Company Cost Structure. 

SpaceX is a company doing everything for the first time.  With or without employing the Big Company Cost Structure, they were bound to stumble over problems that their competition had solved years or decades ago. 

While I will concede that my opinion of SpaceX merely working through design issues is not backed by a tremendous abundance of evidence, your allegation that SpaceX's failures have been caused by a lack of the Big Company Cost Structure and/or institutional problems is an opinion without Any evidence at all.

No, three failures is not evidence of an institutional meltdown.  Three failures is evidence of three failures.

As it turns out, Elon Musk has just commented on the recent issues.  His explanations clearly squares with my take on events.  He states that the latest failure was not a QA issue, it was a design issue.  A hurdle he says can be quickly resolved, allowing them to move forward.

Three launches, no QA issues, no technical defects, ALL design issues.

Looks like I was right, go figure.

"And this doesn't appear to be a quality issue or a manufacturing issue. It's a design issue related to new hardware that has only flown on this flight."
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: manlymissileman on 08/05/2008 07:01 am
...snip...
As I said above, I think the evidence demonstrates that the key reason for SpaceX's failures have been that the breaking of new ground is typically troublesome. 
.. snip...

Sorry for butting into your conversation but what new ground is SpaceX breaking?  (do you know that their key engineers are from the "old industry" background, and rightly so)  Yes they've devloped some new engines but there is nothing extraordinary about them.  On the contrary.  I thought the whole point of SpaceX was NOT to break new ground (so that it might be cheaper to launch them old rockets)

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dirkthefirst on 08/05/2008 07:02 am
Three launches, no QA issues, no technical defects, ALL design issues.

I thought the failure on Flight 2 was caused by the loading of incorrect engine management software into the OBC?
That sounds like a QA issue to me.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: kkattula on 08/05/2008 07:47 am
...  For most commercial players or government payloads the payload costs override the launch costs.  Those comm sats and probes cost a lot of money to design and build and operate, often much more money over their lifetime than the launchers with launch services combined.  It's a huge, often one-of-a-kind investment for the customer.  There is a premium placed on reliability, not as much on the lower launch costs.  (Hence insurance costs are on the payload)  They'd rather pay more for a launcher with some kind of track record.  ...

Have you considered the possibility that comm sats and probes cost a lot of money BECAUSE launches cost so much, and have long lead times?

If I have to pay $100m+ for a launch, 2 or 3 years in advance, I want to be damn sure my comm sat will work perfectly for 10 years. Even if it costs $1b.

On the other hand, if launches were cheap & regular, I'd fly lots of cheap sats, adding capacity or replacing defective units as required. Not to mention constatntly upgrqading technology. I'd probably even maintain spare capacity on orbit.

Making lots of sats & launchers would probaby drop the prices even further.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/05/2008 07:48 am
As it turns out, Elon Musk has just commented on the recent issues.  His explanations clearly squares with my take on events.  He states that the latest failure was not a QA issue, it was a design issue.  A hurdle he says can be quickly resolved, allowing them to move forward.

Fortunately, Elon Musk is a guy who acts smarter than he talks.
He made very similar statements after the first two failures and it took them over a year to launch again after those "quickly to resolve" issues. Expect the same to happen here.

The big argument here is not that SpaceX is institutionally incapable or that 3 failures in a row vs. 2 in a row doom you but that the impression between flight two and three is that they haven't made much progress from a quality POV while claiming that all those costly QA procedures that make spaceflight expensive are not necessary due to their reliable design. No that exact design shows to be unreliable. That makes the original assumption look pretty bad since so far there is absolutely NO evidence I can see that they will be able to be reliable without strict QA.
I haven't worked in spaceflight myself, only aeronautics, defense and automotive, but there QA on complex systems absolutely kills you cost wise. You can get a long way by establishing simple designs but everybody tries to do that and for some problems there are no simple solutions.

Maybe the biggest issue is their talk: Hey, everything's easy, no problems, we lost a flight, not a big issue, dumb error, won't happen again. Oh, you lost a payload? Sorry for that...

Their claim was: 10x more reliable, 10x cheaper. I simply don't believe it.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Analyst on 08/05/2008 08:00 am
1a) You and others here continue to suggest that "Three Failures" is some sort of magic number that damns SpaceX as a company with huge institutional problems.  While it's not good to have three failures, neither is it good to have one, or two.
1b) Yet each of the major players in the industry have suffered far more than three failures during their time in the business. 

2) As I said above, I believe SpaceX is working through these show-stoppers one by one.  Once they have cleared each of these hurdles, they will achieve success and reliability.

3) We must also consider the fact that SpaceX is competing with companies that have been in the business for 20, or 30, or 40 years.  The Big Rocket companies have certainly accrued institutional knowledge completely irrespective of their large and costly Big Company Cost Structure. 

SpaceX is a company doing everything for the first time.  With or without employing the Big Company Cost Structure, they were bound to stumble over problems that their competition had solved years or decades ago. 

4) While I will concede that my opinion of SpaceX merely working through design issues is not backed by a tremendous abundance of evidence, your allegation that SpaceX's failures have been caused by a lack of the Big Company Cost Structure and/or institutional problems is an opinion without Any evidence at all.

5) As it turns out, Elon Musk has just commented on the recent issues.  His explanations clearly squares with my take on events.  He states that the latest failure was not a QA issue, it was a design issue.  A hurdle he says can be quickly resolved, allowing them to move forward.

Three launches, no QA issues, no technical defects, ALL design issues.

Looks like I was right, go figure.

"And this doesn't appear to be a quality issue or a manufacturing issue. It's a design issue related to new hardware that has only flown on this flight."

1a) I said three failures in a row. No successful flight out of three is very uncommon these days.
1b) Having three failures out of 50 flights wouldn't be.

2) Sure they will. But how long and how many failures will it take? And what does it cost and what will be the impact on the price? Other did and do way better.

3) Its the other way arround: The big companies have the cost structure they have because institutional procedures turned out to be needed to achieve constant mission success. SpaceX does repeat failures others did 50 years ago. They didn't learn from these lessons. They were and still are kinda arrogant about the procedures coming from these lessons.

4) Three failures in a row say different. With the right and known (dismissed) procedures in place, some (probably not all) problems would not have shown up.

5) Musk has been wrong before, many times. This is no evidence, its company talk.

"Quickly resolved": With this attitude, the next failures looms behind. This business is never easy nor quick.

Your different reasons for the failures don't matter: Design comes first. If you have design issues in the first place, technical or QA issues are not even needed for a failure. Design issues are the worst, they stem from the (wrong) thinking, not the (wrong) implementation.

Analyst
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Mighty-T on 08/05/2008 08:11 am
Three launches, no QA issues, no technical defects, ALL design issues.

I think the approach chosen by SpaceX is very much the one quoted by Elon in his latest interview: Falcon 1 is a technology testbed; reaching orbit and services to the customers are lower ranking motivations.
Of course it is interesting to see, how the new Merlin 1C and Kestrel 2 perform on a launcher, however, if they were determined to go to orbit asap, they should have stayed with the initial configuration and get that system to work first.
What we see is that they fix one design issue and in the mean time create another. How can anyone expect to quickly succeed with that strategy.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: hop on 08/05/2008 08:17 am
While it's not good to have three failures, neither is it good to have one, or two.  Yet each of the major players in the industry have suffered far more than three failures during their time in the business. 
So ? It's still a 100% failure rate vs. a 2%-4% failure rate. Sure, it could just be a run of bad luck, but it's suggestive.

Three failures in a row doesn't prove that spacex is a fundamentally broken organization, but it definitely suggests they have a problem.

There's more to it than simple statistics:
Historically, two in a row is enough to trigger a major step back to the drawing board and a concerted drive to fix not just the specific problem, but the organizational problems that led to the problem going undetected. Many struggling programs have been turned around this way (often with heavy outside oversight).

If you are correct that it was all "design issues" that suggests that their design validation is among the worst in the industry.

You seem to think this is better than losing rockets to QA problems, but I'm not sure why. If their validation is that bad, design flaws are going to keep popping up for a long time.

Just because something gets to orbit once doesn't mean the design is OK. See STS, or the recent Briz-M failure, or any of dozens of other failures caused by something marginal in an apparently mature design finally going bust.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: DmitryP on 08/05/2008 09:24 am
Now - the email was sent to all his employees. All employees have access to the telemetry, most in read-only but they can all see it. He specifically stated that only HR and Finance are behind the firewall. He deliberately created a completely open work environment. It would be super easy for any one of them to look at it to see if Elon was telling them the truth.

Excuse me, is it possible to find a source of statement that all employees at SpaceX have access to the telemetry. Could not find it through search...
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/05/2008 10:58 am
From Gary, above:
"Changing things on a test launch vehicle that's already had two failures also strikes me as a bad idea. Surely you test the fix then change only what needs to be changed to fix the problem and only after a successful flight do you add enhancements."

I tend to agree with the sentiment. but the fact is, they made massive changes between Falcon 1 #2 and #3, up to and including switching from a successful ablative engine to an unflown regenerative engine. On the one hand, I am not inspired to confidence by what I'm seeing (the very hesitant launch campaign this time around was unnerving, plus Musk's tour of his factory made him look goofy--if someone gave me a few hundred million dollars, and I did the same thing, I'd probably come off the same way, right down to the rumpled polo shirt). On the other hand, _someone_ at SpaceX sure knows what they're doing. The development of the Merlin engine is no mean feat. When was the last time an organization did that without it being a government-funded project. Has it been done since the Verein fur Raumschiffarht did it in the 1930s? This makes me thin it's a top-down management issue.

From the Wired interview:
"Musk: Patience is a virtue, and I'm learning patience. It's a tough lesson."

I know exactly what he means, and maybe even what lesson he needs to learn. I'm more than 20 years older than he is, and I had to learn patience the hard way too. When I'm engaged in a high-pressure project and things start to go wrong, I have learned not to bull ahead. I have learned to stop work, take a deep breath, and step back for a project overview, because I know the mistake isn't with my project team (who are doing tings my way, if they're on my team). The problem is always with _me_, and I need to get outside myself to see what the hell I'm doing wrong.

This might be a good time for him to hunt down the world's best systems engineer and see if he or she will take a seven-figure salary. It's important, because if SpaceX fails (even though it may only be due to top-level mismanagement), it will be taken as evidence that what they're trying to do is "impossible," proof that only the government-based, taxpayer funded large-budget development paradign will work. That would be a bad thing.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/05/2008 11:02 am
The design area where SpaceX appear to be weak at is rocket flight dynamics as opposed to rocket engine design where they seem very strong. Considering Musk was the de facto Chief Designer from basically a pure Physics background I don't believe he's fully aware of what level of personnel they are lacking in until things actually go wrong. Combine extreme confidence with little experience and 0 for 3 is not too hard to envisage.

In his defense though Falcon 1 flight 3 was really Falcon 1c flight 1 as flight 2 was really Falcon1b flight 1 so in effect a new rocket has been tested each time. Also he has tremendous drive, commitment (both mental and financial) and is a quick learner which he will all need. The next Falcon 1 flight will probably work but I expect the first and maybe second flight of Falcon 9 to fail due to some interaction they have not designed for. Fun and exciting to watch though compared to more reliable launchers ;).
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: mr.columbus on 08/05/2008 11:32 am
1. Considering Musk was the de facto Chief Designer from basically a pure Physics background I don't believe he's fully aware of what level of personnel they are lacking in until things actually go wrong.

2. In his defense though Falcon 1 flight 3 was really Falcon 1c flight 1 as flight 2 was really Falcon1b flight 1 so in effect a new rocket has been tested each time.

3. The next Falcon 1 flight will probably work but I expect the first and maybe second flight of Falcon 9 to fail due to some interaction they have not designed for.


ad 1. Musk is not the "Chief Designer" at SpaceX. He is the company's CEO. He has experienced people who know what they are doing. The problem seems to be that he is told were shortcomings in personnel are, and he sometimes just dismisses these deficits.

ad 2. If we apply that logic to other rockets, there bascially wouldn't be any rocket at all with more than one failure. If a failure of a launch vehicle occurs, the problems are analysed and in most instances there are remedies taken that the next launch will be ok. The reality is, small design changes, fixes or new engines don't change Falcon 1's overall design. The rocket failed 3 times. That is a fact.

ad 3. From all we know currently, Falcon 1 is the most unreliable operational vehicle there currently is. That the next flight works is by no means certain. Regarding Falcon 9, we don't have any flight history to base our assumptions on. It could work flawlessly in a dozen launches or could fail 3 times in a row just as Falcon 1 did.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/05/2008 11:44 am
You are wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1292.html

WATTENBERG: So, now we’re on this most remarkable factory floor of SpaceX. I felt I’ve been around. I’ve never quite seen anything like this. What are you doing here?
MUSK: SpaceX is developing markets for taking satellites and people to orbit and beyond. So, we’ve finished development of and done a few test launches in our small rocket, which is the Falcon One, which you see part of over here.
And we have in development a big rocket which is the Falcon 9. And that’s intended to service the space station, as well as deliver very large satellites to orbit.
WATTENBERG: Did you design these or are they your concept?
MUSK: Yes, I’m the chief designer in the company.
WATTENBERG: -- designer and the businessman.
MUSK: Yes.
WATTENBERG: A good combination.
MUSK: Yeah, I think it is a good combination.


Also the regen engine was not a design failure fix.

On a related note ...

SPACEX RECEIVES $20 MILLION INVESTMENT FROM FOUNDER’S FUND

http://spacex.com/press.php?page=47
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: rkoenn on 08/05/2008 12:06 pm
The design area where SpaceX appear to be weak at is rocket flight dynamics as opposed to rocket engine design where they seem very strong. Considering Musk was the de facto Chief Designer from basically a pure Physics background I don't believe he's fully aware of what level of personnel they are lacking in until things actually go wrong. Combine extreme confidence with little experience and 0 for 3 is not too hard to envisage.
;).

The obvious to note here is that with the engines he can do sufficient testing on the stand to validate them and correcting any problems is much easier on the ground.  You can simulate and analyze all you want but ultimately you have to fly the rocket and that is where unknowns will manifest themselves.  Unfortunately that is costly and the community watches much more closely than they do for an engine test.

Also as far a chief designer goes, Elon may have conceptualized the design but I truly doubt he did much more than that as far as in depth engineering.  He may have been the person making certain design decisions when various options were available but if he did not follow the recommendations of the expert/s he has working for him on those decisions then he is not too good of a project manager either.  Elon is somewhat arrogant from what I know of him and likes the glory that he gets, but he needs to be realistic and possibly a bit humble at this point in time.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: mr.columbus on 08/05/2008 12:17 pm
You are wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1292.html

WATTENBERG: So, now we’re on this most remarkable factory floor of SpaceX. I felt I’ve been around. I’ve never quite seen anything like this. What are you doing here?
MUSK: SpaceX is developing markets for taking satellites and people to orbit and beyond. So, we’ve finished development of and done a few test launches in our small rocket, which is the Falcon One, which you see part of over here.
And we have in development a big rocket which is the Falcon 9. And that’s intended to service the space station, as well as deliver very large satellites to orbit.
WATTENBERG: Did you design these or are they your concept?
MUSK: Yes, I’m the chief designer in the company.
WATTENBERG: -- designer and the businessman.
MUSK: Yes.
WATTENBERG: A good combination.
MUSK: Yeah, I think it is a good combination.


Also the regen engine was not a design failure fix.

On a related note ...

SPACEX RECEIVES $20 MILLION INVESTMENT FROM FOUNDER’S FUND

http://spacex.com/press.php?page=47

What Musk says and the reality are two different things. The Falcon 1 and 9 rockets are designed by a large number of people. He may be involved in the process, but he is not the one in charge of the overall design or specific technical issues.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JesseD on 08/05/2008 12:46 pm
You are wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1292.html

WATTENBERG: So, now we’re on this most remarkable factory floor of SpaceX. I felt I’ve been around. I’ve never quite seen anything like this. What are you doing here?
MUSK: SpaceX is developing markets for taking satellites and people to orbit and beyond. So, we’ve finished development of and done a few test launches in our small rocket, which is the Falcon One, which you see part of over here.
And we have in development a big rocket which is the Falcon 9. And that’s intended to service the space station, as well as deliver very large satellites to orbit.
WATTENBERG: Did you design these or are they your concept?
MUSK: Yes, I’m the chief designer in the company.
WATTENBERG: -- designer and the businessman.
MUSK: Yes.
WATTENBERG: A good combination.
MUSK: Yeah, I think it is a good combination.


Also the regen engine was not a design failure fix.

On a related note ...

SPACEX RECEIVES $20 MILLION INVESTMENT FROM FOUNDER’S FUND

http://spacex.com/press.php?page=47

What Musk says and the reality are two different things. The Falcon 1 and 9 rockets are designed by a large number of people. He may be involved in the process, but he is not the one in charge of the overall design or specific technical issues.

more than likely, 'chief engineer' means 'head of the engineering dept'.  which may mean that the team builds it, and then says, 'here's the rocket, okay?' and he just has to sign off on it.

One interesting thought that just occurred to me - having one guy as the CEO, head engineer, chief investor, etc., is taking a LOT of pressure off his people and putting it all on him.  He is personally setting himself up as the target/whipping boy, and letting his people do the nitty-gritty nuts-and-bolts work.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/05/2008 01:38 pm
No guys, he really IS the Chief Engineer ;)


http://beyond438.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/elon-musk-of-spacex/

Musk serves as chief engineer at SpaceX and designed much of the Falcon himself.


http://www.inc.com/magazine/20071201/entrepreneur-of-the-year-elon-musk_Printer_Friendly.html

and its CEO, a man with no prior experience with rockets, doubles as chief engineer.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12484430

In 2002, Musk started Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX). He hired engineers from Boeing, TRW, Lockheed, and the U.S. Air Force. He couldn't lure a chief engineer, so the person doing that job is him.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030422-space01.htm

Musk, who describes himself as "essentially chief engineer of the rocket," said he spends his typical day delving into production details with his team.

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: synchrotron on 08/05/2008 02:13 pm
If I have to pay $100m+ for a launch, 2 or 3 years in advance, I want to be damn sure my comm sat will work perfectly for 10 years. Even if it costs $1b.

On the other hand, if launches were cheap & regular, I'd fly lots of cheap sats, adding capacity or replacing defective units as required. Not to mention constatntly upgrqading technology. I'd probably even maintain spare capacity on orbit.

No sir.  Leaving dead comm sats in valuable GEO slots is a very bad thing.  You want to leave enough margin at EOL to graveyard up a couple hundred kilometers.  Leaving your cheap junk lying around will kill your own business model and that of others who want to use those slots.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jongoff on 08/05/2008 02:15 pm
Well what do I know.  Strangely enough the customer in question SpaceDev is thankful to SpaceX for "delivering" their sat which was deemed a success:  http://spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=278  without actualy being delivered and doing its thing.  If I had customers like that...

Well, you have to remember what the purpose of that satellite was (as opposed to the secondary payloads).   It was an ORS launch.  Their main purpose was to show that you could on short notice integrate a satellite and launch it quickly.  So, in a way, in this case, just by getting off the pad on such short notice, they fulfilled at least one of the key goals of that payload.  That's not a normal situation though, and I'm sure the secondaries didn't appreciate a fishing orbit.

Interestingly enough, there were 3 ORS satellites from which the SpaceDev one was selected.  So, there's a non-zero chance that one of those other satellites (which likely wouldn't have had a flight opportunity otherwise) might be on F1 Take-4 or F1 Take-5. 

~Jon
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jongoff on 08/05/2008 02:23 pm
Three launches, no QA issues, no technical defects, ALL design issues.

Dalon, I'm not saying this as a detractor (I'm on fairly good terms with several members of the SpaceX team), but launch number 2 was definitely a QA issue.  The wrong code was loaded into the engine controller (probably an outdated lookup table like a throttle map).  The incorrect code led to lower thrust, lower staging, more aerodynamic forces at staging, and the 2nd stage nozzle hit that initiated the slosh.  If the payload on that flight had been a full, max capacity payload, then even if the slosh hadn't happened, the payload wouldn't have made it to orbit.  That was a QA issue.

The first was definitely a design issue.  As for the third?  We'll see. 

Elon's got a pretty solid team there, and fortunately has enough money to see things through.  For me the question isn't if he'll be able to get Falcon 1 to fly.  For me the question is, once they have that first successful flight, will they be able to consistently duplicate it.  I hope so.

~Jon
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: aero313 on 08/05/2008 02:27 pm
As it turns out, Elon Musk has just commented on the recent issues.  His explanations clearly squares with my take on events.  He states that the latest failure was not a QA issue, it was a design issue.  A hurdle he says can be quickly resolved, allowing them to move forward.

Three launches, no QA issues, no technical defects, ALL design issues.

Looks like I was right, go figure.

Elon also said the design was fully qualified after the second, "successful" mission.

Go figure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/05/2008 03:02 pm
Ewwww, I know Wired like to be all "blog trendy" with their interview style, but that line of questioning seemed a bit patronizing. Just a personal take.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: synchrotron on 08/05/2008 03:17 pm
Well what do I know.  Strangely enough the customer in question SpaceDev is thankful to SpaceX for "delivering" their sat which was deemed a success:  http://spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=278  without actualy being delivered and doing its thing.  If I had customers like that...

Well, you have to remember what the purpose of that satellite was (as opposed to the secondary payloads).   It was an ORS launch.  Their main purpose was to show that you could on short notice integrate a satellite and launch it quickly.  So, in a way, in this case, just by getting off the pad on such short notice, they fulfilled at least one of the key goals of that payload.

Poor demonstration of short notice integration.  Yeah, the test plugs say everything is o.k. etc.; that could all be done just as well in the integration facility.  Integrating ballast on short notice would have been just as useful.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: guru on 08/05/2008 03:21 pm
Well what do I know.  Strangely enough the customer in question SpaceDev is thankful to SpaceX for "delivering" their sat which was deemed a success:  http://spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=278  without actualy being delivered and doing its thing.  If I had customers like that...

Well, you have to remember what the purpose of that satellite was (as opposed to the secondary payloads).   It was an ORS launch.  Their main purpose was to show that you could on short notice integrate a satellite and launch it quickly.  So, in a way, in this case, just by getting off the pad on such short notice, they fulfilled at least one of the key goals of that payload.

Poor demonstration of short notice integration.  Yeah, the test plugs say everything is o.k. etc.; that could all be done just as well in the integration facility.  Integrating ballast on short notice would have been just as useful.


The customer, who is always right, apparently thought otherwise.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/05/2008 05:20 pm
Well what do I know.  Strangely enough the customer in question SpaceDev is thankful to SpaceX for "delivering" their sat which was deemed a success:  http://spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=278  without actualy being delivered and doing its thing.  If I had customers like that...

Well, you have to remember what the purpose of that satellite was (as opposed to the secondary payloads).   It was an ORS launch.  Their main purpose was to show that you could on short notice integrate a satellite and launch it quickly.  So, in a way, in this case, just by getting off the pad on such short notice, they fulfilled at least one of the key goals of that payload.  That's not a normal situation though, and I'm sure the secondaries didn't appreciate a fishing orbit.

Interestingly enough, there were 3 ORS satellites from which the SpaceDev one was selected.  So, there's a non-zero chance that one of those other satellites (which likely wouldn't have had a flight opportunity otherwise) might be on F1 Take-4 or F1 Take-5. 

~Jon

More specifically, those with decent reading comprehension will note that the article never said SpaceX successfully delivered the satellite. It said SpaceDev did so (delivered to SpaceX), according to the requirements of their part of the contract with the Air Force.

And the real customer was the Air Force, not SpaceDev.

My take on it is they needed the satellite built for the program, they apparently wanted a launch for the program, and losing the satellite in a launch failure was no worse than leaving it sitting on the ground indefinitely, so they decided to go ahead with the satellite instead of a ballast payload.

I'm guessing SpaceDev will still get paid and doesn't have too much to feel bad about from this launch failure.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/05/2008 05:28 pm
Dalon, I'm not saying this as a detractor (I'm on fairly good terms with several members of the SpaceX team), but launch number 2 was definitely a QA issue.  The wrong code was loaded into the engine controller (probably an outdated lookup table like a throttle map).  The incorrect code led to lower thrust, lower staging, more aerodynamic forces at staging, and the 2nd stage nozzle hit that initiated the slosh.  If the payload on that flight had been a full, max capacity payload, then even if the slosh hadn't happened, the payload wouldn't have made it to orbit.  That was a QA issue.

I'd almost contend that it's a combination of QA and design. The staging implementation wasn't robust enough to accomodate the drag at the lower altitude. Might the same have happened with a full payload but a proper 1st stage burn? Anyways, they did, it sounds like, alter the staging design in addition to addressing the QA.

If I may make a quick nitpick, according to SpaceX, the nozzle hit was not the issue. It was the hard slew back to the proper orientation immediately after Kestrel ignition that caused the sustained slosh.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/05/2008 05:37 pm
There were QA problems on the first mission otherwise why would they institute all the QA changes after the failure
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/05/2008 05:40 pm
^ In fact, their initial reaction before they found the failed part was that a technician had left the nut loose after an inspection, so they knew right away they had some QA problems.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: just-nick on 08/05/2008 05:46 pm
I think a lot of this QA vs. design issue is in the spin and the underlying assumptions:

"We've got a sound design, we just need to make minor improvements in some of our processes." vs. "We've got sound processes and just to make a couple of tweaks to the design." 

If you believe that designs are hard but processes are easy to fix, you'll buy the former.  If you believe that engineering is easy but process is hard, you buy the latter.  Personally, both sound TOO glib.  And I feel like we've seen variations of both come out of SpaceX at some point, depending on which was easier to say.

The company seems to have a "software" mindset.  Now I've never built a rocket since my Estes days, but I have written a fair bit of code.  And it is very easy to fall into a "run it, see what breaks, change something, run it again and see if it fixes the problem" mentality (I never said I wrote good code!) and to start accepting the inevitability of bugs.  That works fine when you can kill your program, tweak, recompile, and re-test.  But that starts to run into problems in other arenas...and could lead to problems in the fundamental conceptualization of your design and the underlying culture.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Cretan126 on 08/05/2008 07:00 pm
And the real customer was the Air Force, not SpaceDev.

My take on it is they needed the satellite built for the program, they apparently wanted a launch for the program, and losing the satellite in a launch failure was no worse than leaving it sitting on the ground indefinitely, so they decided to go ahead with the satellite instead of a ballast payload.

I'm guessing SpaceDev will still get paid and doesn't have too much to feel bad about from this launch failure.

The customer for the satellite was originally MDA and it was essentially a 'hangar queen' looking for a ride.  And, yes, I'm sure SpaceDev has already been paid the bulk of their money.  You'll note that they ARE listed as a customer for a later F1 mission, so they have a vested interest in staying in Elon's good graces.

The ORS office really wanted to launch the Plug-n-Play sat, but it wasn't ready in time. So, the silver lining is that it still has a shot at another launch opportunity.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/05/2008 07:31 pm
The SpaceDev website says they've already been paid the full amount for this.

Ross.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/05/2008 07:34 pm
The comment that they're going to go straight on to flight 4 has me curious.

It sounds to me as though they think they've already identified the problem and its a fairly fast thing to fix.

I can only guess, but that doesn't sound like a major piece of hardware went wrong, that its something small and won't take long to correct and test.   I'm beginning to think that it might be something like an electrical connector to something like a separation charge, or a single line of computer code which did something it shouldn't have.   But it does sound as though, whatever it is, it was found pretty quickly.

It will be fascinating to see what comes out eventually about it.

Ross.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/05/2008 08:06 pm
Musk didn't actually say they're going straight on to flight 4 or that they had conclusively identified the cause yet, unless I missed something. He said he thinks they've found the problem and therefore can recover quickly. At this point, it's not just the usual speculation on our part. It sounds like speculation on Musk's part.

It will be several days, probably several weeks before we know if this will actually impact flight 4.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: synchrotron on 08/05/2008 08:52 pm
A posting by Henry Spencer:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/08/why-did-latest-falcon-1-rocket-fail.html
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/05/2008 09:35 pm

It will be several days, probably several weeks before we know if this will actually impact flight 4.

I think we'll know real soon.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/05/2008 10:33 pm
A posting by Henry Spencer:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/08/why-did-latest-falcon-1-rocket-fail.html


I do so wish Henry would post here.  His Usenet posts on sci.space.* are legendary and very rarely inaccurate.  I myself have long-coveted an "I Corrected Henry" t-shirt, but the best I ever managed was the much less prestigious "I Corrected Henry's Arithmetic" abacus . . . :)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/05/2008 10:33 pm
A posting by Henry Spencer:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/08/why-did-latest-falcon-1-rocket-fail.html


I do so wish Henry would post here.  His Usenet posts on sci.space.* are legendary and very rarely inaccurate.  I myself have long-coveted an "I Corrected Henry" t-shirt, but the best I ever managed was the much less prestigious "I Corrected Henry's Arithmetic" abacus . . . :)

I agree with pretty much everything Henry said.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: guidanceisgo on 08/06/2008 04:38 am
And the real customer was the Air Force, not SpaceDev.

My take on it is they needed the satellite built for the program, they apparently wanted a launch for the program, and losing the satellite in a launch failure was no worse than leaving it sitting on the ground indefinitely, so they decided to go ahead with the satellite instead of a ballast payload.

I'm guessing SpaceDev will still get paid and doesn't have too much to feel bad about from this launch failure.

The customer for the satellite was originally MDA and it was essentially a 'hangar queen' looking for a ride.  And, yes, I'm sure SpaceDev has already been paid the bulk of their money.  You'll note that they ARE listed as a customer for a later F1 mission, so they have a vested interest in staying in Elon's good graces.

The ORS office really wanted to launch the Plug-n-Play sat, but it wasn't ready in time. So, the silver lining is that it still has a shot at another launch opportunity.
Is there a "ballastSat" on the SERB list?  Thats my vote for the next spacex reentry vehicle!
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Analyst on 08/06/2008 06:44 am

It will be several days, probably several weeks before we know if this will actually impact flight 4.

I think we'll know real soon.

I get the impression you know something more?

Analyst
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/06/2008 12:32 pm
Is there a "ballastSat" on the SERB list?  Thats my vote for the next spacex reentry vehicle!

reentry implies they made it past the 50 mile line in the sky... Someone will correct me, but currently they are 1 for 3 in crossing the line.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: marshallsplace on 08/06/2008 01:33 pm
News on one of the payloads... ::)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7543807.stm

beam me up......
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: manlymissileman on 08/06/2008 01:39 pm
This link was posted in a comment on rlv news:  http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/state_news/news.php?id=350849&cat=ct  The Malaysians who are supposed to fly their sat on Falcon 1 in September say something about delaying it 2 years for one reason or another. [edit] 2 paragraphs at the end
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dchill on 08/06/2008 02:24 pm
Is there a "ballastSat" on the SERB list?  Thats my vote for the next spacex reentry vehicle!

As someone who's worked on satellites, that's my vote too.  I've heard those called a "Rinkersat" in honor of the concrete materials supplier closest to CCAFS/KSC (http://www.rinkermaterials.com/Locations/States/listAllST/allFL_4.shtml).

Rinkersats are the preferred payload when the final orbit is most likely going to be measured in fathoms ;^)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: KEdward5 on 08/06/2008 04:59 pm
Is there a chance this site could get exclusive angles of the failure, the same as with the Sea Launch failure videos and images.

I'll link the non L2 content as an example:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6927.0
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/06/2008 05:12 pm
Never say never, but I doubt it. Sea Launch is a much bigger company if you take into account of its parents. SpaceX is a tightly knit family. Thus I doubt someone at SpaceX is going to go to the media with new footage when that person might as well stand on his desk and shout "it was me!!" ;)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: psloss on 08/06/2008 09:07 pm
Anybody in on this telecon?
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: hyper_snyper on 08/06/2008 09:26 pm
Anybody in on this telecon?
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php



Hmm...  If that's all it was I think I feel a little better about it.  On the other hand, they should have caught this.  I'm curious to see that video or a detailed report later on.  Anyway, on to flight 4.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/06/2008 09:33 pm
Am I correct in assuming this has to do with the "grunt" we heard at cutoff on the Merlin 1C test video, and the big billow of flame at the end of the F9 nine-engine test?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nacnud on 08/06/2008 09:35 pm
So it was the shut down burp mentioned earlier. That's two down due to staging transients. :(
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Kolgate on 08/06/2008 09:37 pm
Yup, I remember Pbreed had suggested this over in the opinion thread. Here's his post:

"The real difference between this mission and the 2nd mission that came oh so close is the new main engine.

At stage seperation both the 2nd stage and the 1st stage are pretty much above the atmosphere. Both are in free fall after MECO, so any anomaly that causes the main engine to burp before the 2nd lights and flies away
will potentially cause the 1st stage to smack the 2nd.
The rumors seem to indicate that this is what happend.

A Regen motor has a lot more places to hide a "burp" or propellants than the ablative motor. Look at the ball of "Stuff" that is burning for several seconds after the Merlin 1C shuts down in the falcon 9 9 engine test.

The time line has  5 seconds from "Approaching Main engine Cut Off" to
"2nd Stage Ignition confirmed."

Only 1 sec from Approaching Main Engine cutoff to "Stage Seperation confirmed"

A burp 1.5 sec after shutdown could smack the 2nd stage pretty hard.

I would dearly love to see the un-broadcast part of the video."
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/06/2008 10:19 pm
If this "burp" manifested on the test stand, why wouldn't they have been able to account for it in the flight?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: manlymissileman on 08/06/2008 10:28 pm
That's a very good question, a poster (or a couple) on this forum saw this as a potential problem looking at the video of the test.  Why wouldn't a bunch of professional engineers identify this as a problem.  (perhaps they did, but were given no time to solve it?)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/06/2008 10:35 pm
That's a very good question, a poster (or a couple) on this forum saw this as a potential problem looking at the video of the test.  Why wouldn't a bunch of professional engineers identify this as a problem.  (perhaps they did, but were given no time to solve it?)

Most likely, they never measured the thrust of the post-shutdown "burp" and so didn't take the resultant acceleration of the near-empty stage into account.   This could easily be the result of something as simple as data measurement routines that stop recording data at the engine shutdown command, or of a control algorithm that wasn't updated to take such data into account.

Again, not to beat the dead horse further into glue, but if the failure is indeed due to little slips likes these possibilities, it goes back to the idea that these lessons have been learned by everyone else in the industry of decades of hard work.  Tossing all those procedural-type lessons aside in the interest of doing things in a new way is not always the best approach.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Hootz on 08/06/2008 10:45 pm
So the plan will be to extend the staging gap if I understand it correctly? If they go with too big of a gap, how long can a rocket run under minimal thrust before there is going to be a repeat of the "slew" when the second stage finally fires?? By no means an engineer, just curious.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jongoff on 08/06/2008 10:55 pm
That's a very good question, a poster (or a couple) on this forum saw this as a potential problem looking at the video of the test.  Why wouldn't a bunch of professional engineers identify this as a problem.  (perhaps they did, but were given no time to solve it?)

Most likely, they never measured the thrust of the post-shutdown "burp" and so didn't take the resultant acceleration of the near-empty stage into account.   This could easily be the result of something as simple as data measurement routines that stop recording data at the engine shutdown command, or of a control algorithm that wasn't updated to take such data into account.

Again, not to beat the dead horse further into glue, but if the failure is indeed due to little slips likes these possibilities, it goes back to the idea that these lessons have been learned by everyone else in the industry of decades of hard work.  Tossing all those procedural-type lessons aside in the interest of doing things in a new way is not always the best approach.

Actually, if you read what Elon said in the quoted article, he said that due to the fact that there's much higher back pressure on their sea level test stand than there is at staging, the data they got on the shutdown transient underestimated the effect at altitude.  Remember, the big billowing flame at the end is more due to the fact that you're firing in air, which has plenty of oxidizer to oxidize the rest of that now very fuel rich flame.  The actual thrust transient was probably much harder to get an accurate measurement of on a sea level test stand.

Also, Paul mentioned that theory after Henry Spencer mentioned it on aRocket, and after it came out that there was the rumor of the stage recontacting after separation.  This wasn't a case of someone looking at it beforehand and saying "golly I hope they handle the staging right".  Hindsight is 20/20.  It's not like the primes never make stupid mistakes like this.

Of all the "easy to solve" errors it could've been, this is one of them that I think makes SpaceX look least bad. 

Now, what I wonder is how many other "minor" "issues" came up on the flight.  Stuff like why do they keep having issues with the Helium fill taking a lot longer than expected?  Why are they always tripping abort sensors during startup?  While I think there's a good chance that had the timing been right they would've made it farther, I'm sure there was still a decent length squawk list, and I hope they make sure to be careful before next time.

~Jon
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/06/2008 11:26 pm
Geeze...this still seems like something too big to miss to me. However, according to the spaceref article: (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1302)

Quote
When we tested at sea level we had higher ambient pressure than what you have in a vaccuum, so this effect was effectively masked on our test stand during testing.

Ok, the pressure difference is true, but still, they saw that low-pressure billow of flame on the test stand. Surely they recognized it was different on the regen engine than on the ablative one? I guess either that didn't trigger any warning bells, or they were ignored.

I'm wondering how much thrust that is? Using a full 14.7 psi is probably way too high and I don't know the nozzle size, but guessing 0.5 m I get about 4500 pounds.

I also wonder if they're completely confident in their assessment. I guess if they've got accellerometer data that should be pretty conclusive, but they don't seem to have shared how they reached that conclusion.

As far as the question of whether increasing the staging delay will allow too much rotation to occur: the drag should be fairly consistent so that I think it may be possible to give the rocket an appropriate rotation in the opposite direction at MECO if this is expected to be a problem.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/07/2008 12:03 am
Good to hear it's something simple but I still think they should maybe had some means to give the second stage more of a push away from the first stage.
Since the recovery parachutes got cooked by the second stage engine firing after it made recontact maybe they should add a couple of stage separation motors.
 
Either put them on the first stage to pull it away from the second stage or put them on the second stage to give it a kick to get it away from the first stage before the Kestrel starts so the chutes don't get fried again.

I'd still do a dummy payload test to make sure it's fixed before carrying a satellite.
 But since nothing exploded I guess using a dummy stage to sort out the staging is no longer necessary.

It's a good thing that the F9 second stage has a full RCS so it should be a lot less likely to do what the second F1 did.

But they should also take that burp in account on F9 and maybe add some separation motors to it just to be safe.

I also wonder if the Ares Ix or later Ares Is could experience a similar failure since a RSRM is still making some thrust normally when it's discarded.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 12:16 am
Good to hear it's something simple but I still think they should maybe had some means to give the second stage more of a push away from the first stage.
Since the recovery parachutes got cooked by the second stage engine firing after it made recontact maybe they should add a couple of stage separation motors.
 
Either put them on the first stage to pull it away from the second stage or put them on the second stage to give it a kick to get it away from the first stage before the Kestrel starts so the chutes don't get fried again.

Only a clueless person would suggest a significant design change,  when  simple change to a software constant will do the trick


You don't understand the design changes, the impacts to logistics (spacex doesn't have SRM storage facilities at kwaj), impacts to GSE (the need to access the vehicle at the pad), safety impacts and documentation impacts for licensing and range use, it would take to add ullage rockets or retros.   It is not just snap your finger and it happens.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/07/2008 12:25 am
Actually, if you read what Elon said in the quoted article, he said that due to the fact that there's much higher back pressure on their sea level test stand than there is at staging, the data they got on the shutdown transient underestimated the effect at altitude.  Remember, the big billowing flame at the end is more due to the fact that you're firing in air, which has plenty of oxidizer to oxidize the rest of that now very fuel rich flame.  The actual thrust transient was probably much harder to get an accurate measurement of on a sea level test stand.

Again, this is a lesson that anyone who's actually analyzed performance data for any type of jet or rocket engine should just KNOW from undergraduate studies even if not past institutional knowledge.  Missing the significance of something like this is a common "oops" tossed into an exam by sneaky professors. 

The fact that they saw the burp at all and even CONSIDERED it, yet failed to realize that the magnitude of the resultant force would change under different ambient conditions shows they don't have enough "greybeards" on their payroll.  An AE professor or consulting propulsion engineer hired to evaluate their test data and design plan for staging would have caught that in an instant, for a lot less money than the cost of a failed launch (let alone the harder-to-estimate loss of prestige and confidence from yet another failure).  This is exactly the type of probem caught and dealt with in the industry-standard PDR/RID process (you know, that expensive, wasteful old-fashioned way to fly vehicles).
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 08/07/2008 12:26 am
I know there are some pretty big vacuum chambers out there.  Is there any which could handle the test of shutting down an engine the size of the F1 (after a second or two of burn) to measure any residual thrust or reactions in a near vacuum environment?  My first thought is that even one or two seconds of firing would put enough pressure in the chamber to negate any testing.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 12:27 am


1.  I'd still do a dummy payload test to make sure it's fixed before carrying a satellite.
 But since nothing exploded I guess using a dummy stage to sort out the staging is no longer necessary.

2.  It's a good thing that the F9 second stage has a full RCS so it should be a lot less likely to do what the second F1 did.

3.  But they should also take that burp in account on F9 and maybe add some separation motors to it just to be safe.

4.  I also wonder if the Ares Ix or later Ares Is could experience a similar failure since a RSRM is still making some thrust normally when it's discarded.

1.  A dummy stage would be more work and it wouldn't show the problem.  The stage would have to be exactly like the real one to be of benefit.  It is called test like you fly.   Also the stage couldn't be a dummy since the 2nd stage has the guidance system

2.  Nonsense and clueless statement .  A.  RCS has no bearing on this failure  B.  The F1 has a "full" RCS too. 

3.  It is not needed.  The D-IV doesn't have them.  "Making sure" is doing your design right and not adding unneeded hardware.  That is called rocket science. 

4.  Ares I has retro and ullage rockets
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/07/2008 12:29 am
I know there are some pretty big vacuum chambers out there.  Is there any which could handle the test of shutting down an engine the size of the F1 (after a second or two of burn) to measure any residual thrust or reactions in a near vacuum environment?  My first thought is that even one or two seconds of firing would put enough pressure in the chamber to negate any testing.

You don't need to measure it in a vacuum.  As noted in my post above, ambient conditions are just part of the equations used in the design process, and those conditions change with every millisecond of flight.  Experienced designers realize this without even really thinking about it.  They know cutoff conditions for any kind of trajectory will be different from launch conditions and design accordingly.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 12:30 am
I know there are some pretty big vacuum chambers out there.  Is there any which could handle the test of shutting down an engine the size of the F1 (after a second or two of burn) to measure any residual thrust or reactions in a near vacuum environment?  My first thought is that even one or two seconds of firing would put enough pressure in the chamber to negate any testing.

not needed.  other first stage engines are not tested in vacuum chambers.   Also it is not just the engine, it is the propulsion system, which includes the stage.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nacnud on 08/07/2008 12:47 am
Could anyone elaborate on the F1 RCS? Is it enough to keep the stack orientated while any burps or transients occur during first stage shut down? Does it rely on either the first stage or second stage engine being in operation. I couldn't find the info on the spacex website.

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/07/2008 12:58 am
3.  It is not needed.  The D-IV doesn't have them.  "Making sure" is doing your design right and not adding unneeded hardware.  That is called rocket science.

4.  Ares I has retro and ullage rockets

Talk about contradicting one's self yes I know that Ares has separation motors but it also has one big unknown the five segment SRB also an RSRM has never been staged in that manner either so there might be some surprises.

By RCS I meant a full three axis RCS vs just roll control and a steerable main engine.
 
BTW the Saturn did use separation motors and ullage rockets Von Braun preferred to error on the side of caution.
Having some margin in a design is called sound engineering he was a real rocket scientist.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 01:07 am

Talk about contradicting one's self yes I know that Ares has separation motors but it also has one big unknown the five segment SRB also an RSRM has never been staged in that manner either so there might be some surprises.
 
BTW the Saturn did use separation motors and ullage rockets Von Braun preferred to error on the side of caution.
Having some margin in a design is called sound engineering he was a real rocket scientist.

There is no contradiction.   They are complely different designs  Ares is an SRM and therefore needs one.

1.  Von Braun didn't design the Saturn V, he was only in charge of the people that did.  He had no involvement in sep and ullage motors.

2.  Extra margin is called waste and not sound engineering.   

Using sep and ullage motors when not needed is plain stupid.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 01:08 am
Could anyone elaborate on the F1 RCS? Is it enough to keep the stack orientated while any burps or transients occur during first stage shut down? Does it rely on either the first stage or second stage engine being in operation. I couldn't find the info on the spacex website.


The 2nd stage RCS is not uncovered (available) until after staging.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nacnud on 08/07/2008 01:23 am
Ok so between MECO and second stage engine start the F1 is unguided, as i suspect most rockets are.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/07/2008 01:27 am
I know there are some pretty big vacuum chambers out there.  Is there any which could handle the test of shutting down an engine the size of the F1 (after a second or two of burn) to measure any residual thrust or reactions in a near vacuum environment?  My first thought is that even one or two seconds of firing would put enough pressure in the chamber to negate any testing.

not needed.  other first stage engines are not tested in vacuum chambers.   Also it is not just the engine, it is the propulsion system, which includes the stage.

I thought these big engine test stands were capable of simulating low pressure environments using some method involving water that I don't understand.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 01:28 am
Delta II is a perfect example of sound and efficent engineering.  It uses no sep or ullage motors.  Just push off springs.  The 2nd stage is "submerged" in the interstage more that 60% of it length.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/07/2008 01:29 am
That's a very good question, a poster (or a couple) on this forum saw this as a potential problem looking at the video of the test.  Why wouldn't a bunch of professional engineers identify this as a problem.  (perhaps they did, but were given no time to solve it?)

I suspect that the underlying problem is there is no process for modifying the software when the hardware design is changed (or the process is inadequate).

Remember this from page 3 of the Falcon 1-002 launch report
"Stage 1 Trajectory Performance

This anomaly is two-fold. First, an incorrect propellant utilization file was loaded into the engine
computer. This error caused the engine mixture ratio to be lean on lift-off and rich at altitude. Therefore,
thrust was slightly lower than intended early in the flight, resulting in increased gravity losses and causing
the first stage trajectory to be slightly lower and slower than predicted. SpaceX has adjusted its
configuration management system to ensure that this will not recur.
"
http://spacex.com/F1-DemoFlight2-Flight-Review.pdf (http://spacex.com/F1-DemoFlight2-Flight-Review.pdf)

Translation: SpaceX changed to hardware to use a different fuel with out changing the software.

On the third flight the programmers were not ordered to change the software to allow for the longer time the new engines take to shut down.

p.s.  Does every hardware and specification change need reviewing to see if a software change is needed?


Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 01:30 am
Ok so between MECO and second stage engine start the F1 is unguided, as i suspect most rockets are.

Delta II and Atlas I used vernier motors.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 01:31 am

I thought these big engine test stands were capable of simulating low pressure environments using some method involving water that I don't understand.

For upperstage engines, not large first stage engines
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/07/2008 01:33 am

I thought these big engine test stands were capable of simulating low pressure environments using some method involving water that I don't understand.

For upperstage engines, not large first stage engines

Okay, but isn't the Merlin around 1/3 the size of the J2x?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 01:37 am

By RCS I meant a full three axis RCS vs just roll control and a steerable main engine.

Duh!  That is SOP, every non spinning upperstage has a three axis RCS.    There would be no way of pointing the spacecraft and stage once on orbit.   
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 01:49 am

1.  I suspect that the underlying problem is there is no process for modifying the software when the hardware design is changed (or the process is inadequate).

2.  SpaceX has adjusted its configuration management system to ensure that this will not recur.
Translation: SpaceX changed to hardware to use a different fuel with out changing the software.

3.  On the third flight the programmers were not ordered to change the software to allow for the longer time the new engines take to shut down.

4.  p.s.  Does every hardware and specification change need reviewing to see if a software change is needed?


1.  There is a process

2.  Wrong translation.  No hardware changes were made. This was a procedural change to ensure that proper software version is used and loaded on the vehicle. 

3.  Wrong and absurd interpretation.   The programmers wouldn't know to make the change unless someone told them, so they couldn't be "ordered" not to make change.  It would be a flight design person would come up with the change.

5.  System Engineering dictates that all systems and processes are reviewed when there is a change.

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jongoff on 08/07/2008 01:56 am
You don't need to measure it in a vacuum.  As noted in my post above, ambient conditions are just part of the equations used in the design process, and those conditions change with every millisecond of flight.  Experienced designers realize this without even really thinking about it.  They know cutoff conditions for any kind of trajectory will be different from launch conditions and design accordingly.

The problem is that you need to know what the pressure was in order to estimate how much of a delay you need.  In other words, you need some sort of measurement.  You can't just do the math without a measurement.  And Elon's point was that with ambient pressure, it screwed up the measurements enough that it was hard to get a real number that you could use in those equations.  Also, the big fireball was due to the fact that you have a fuel rich exhaust that's shooting into air, which down where we live provides a lot more oxidizer than up at 35km altitude.  Once again, it isn't entirely obvious that they had enough data to really know.  Sure, I agree in hindsight that with the fact that the shutdown transients were qualitatively different, that the fact they didn't have detailed data should still have led them to conservatism, but I don't think this is as much a case of ameteurism as you're claiming.

I respect what you're saying, but have to disagree.

~Jon
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/07/2008 02:21 am

2.  Wrong translation.  No hardware changes were made. This was a procedural change to ensure that proper software version is used and loaded on the vehicle. 

At some point SpaceX changed the fuel, that is a big hardware/requirements change.  Several years later the software was still trying to burn the original fuel.

Quote
3.  Wrong and absurd interpretation.   The programmers wouldn't know to make the change unless someone told them, so they couldn't be "ordered" not to make change.

Re-read exactly what I wrote.
Quote

  It would be a flight design person would come up with the change.
True.  Flight design or integration person.
Quote
5.  System Engineering dictates that all systems and processes are reviewed when there is a change.


Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/07/2008 02:28 am
Should this type of "burp" happen during engine shut down?  What I mean is, is this type of engine behavior considered acceptable industry practice, or should things have been changed in the shutdown sequence to eliminate this behavior?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/07/2008 02:35 am
You don't need to measure it in a vacuum.  As noted in my post above, ambient conditions are just part of the equations used in the design process, and those conditions change with every millisecond of flight.  Experienced designers realize this without even really thinking about it.  They know cutoff conditions for any kind of trajectory will be different from launch conditions and design accordingly.

The problem is that you need to know what the pressure was in order to estimate how much of a delay you need.  In other words, you need some sort of measurement.  You can't just do the math without a measurement.

I know what you're saying but I sort of disagree, but let me explain.  A nominal first stage trajectory will put the second stage into a condition where it can complete the mission.  Sure there is a targeted "perfect" altitude and for that altitude there will be a standard-atmosphere set of conditions.  Of course, the reality is that the first stage may over- or under-perform to some degree and still fall within the performance range of the second stage to complete the mission.  If the first stage under-performance is too great, the mission fails because it cannot reach orbit.  If the first stage over-performs, the second stage guidance should be able to compensate and still complete the mission.  In either case, however, the standard atmosphere model will give very close estimates of the ambient conditions to be expected at staging altitude. 

Prudent engineering means quantifying your level of uncertainty in each case and designing to deal with it.  The design may or may not require ambient condition measurements at shutdown in order to dynamically calculate the delay before staging but there are myriad practical difficulties in getting accurate measurements in the wake of a supersonic vehicle at altitude.  Robust engineering practices would be to recognize the "burp" phenomenon and plan for the range of separation conditions which could reasonably exist within the relatively narrow window of acceptable first stage performance.  The range of conditions outside that window don't matter because the stage will have performed so far out of spec that the second stage cannot over come the shortfall.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 02:38 am

1.  At some point SpaceX changed the fuel, that is a big hardware/requirements change.  Several years later the software was still trying to burn the original fuel.

2.  Re-read exactly what I wrote.

1.  there ha been no change in fuel .  It has been always RP-1.   Incorrect  software was loaded (propellant utilization file) which adjusts the mixture ratio.   There was no change in hardware.  Just a wrong (older) version of software was loaded. 

2.  I reread it and it didn't change that you are wrong.  Put it this way, no one at spacex knew enough to change the parameter for staging delay, least of all, the programmers
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Gov't Seagull on 08/07/2008 02:38 am
Should this type of "burp" happen during engine shut down?  What I mean is, is this type of engine behavior considered acceptable industry practice, or should things have been changed in the shutdown sequence to eliminate this behavior?

Shutdown transients are common, and if they are properly characterized there are well-known methods for ensuring they do not doom the mission.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 02:40 am
Should this type of "burp" happen during engine shut down?  What I mean is, is this type of engine behavior considered acceptable industry practice, or should things have been changed in the shutdown sequence to eliminate this behavior?

All engines have a shutdown transient.   The process is to wait until things settle down. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: yinzer on 08/07/2008 02:43 am
The problem is that you need to know what the pressure was in order to estimate how much of a delay you need.  In other words, you need some sort of measurement.  You can't just do the math without a measurement.  And Elon's point was that with ambient pressure, it screwed up the measurements enough that it was hard to get a real number that you could use in those equations.  Also, the big fireball was due to the fact that you have a fuel rich exhaust that's shooting into air, which down where we live provides a lot more oxidizer than up at 35km altitude.  Once again, it isn't entirely obvious that they had enough data to really know.  Sure, I agree in hindsight that with the fact that the shutdown transients were qualitatively different, that the fact they didn't have detailed data should still have led them to conservatism, but I don't think this is as much a case of ameteurism as you're claiming.

I respect what you're saying, but have to disagree.

Hindsight is always 20/20.  But the previous flight also featured stage recontact that eventually caused loss of vehicle, which clearly indicates that this is part of the flight that deserves close attention.

I know it's easy to heckle from the sidelines, but this seems like something that should have been caught.

The Atlas V, Delta IV, and Delta II all wait 8 seconds between MECO and staging.  The Falcon waited less than 2 seconds.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/07/2008 02:43 am
Anyone lobbying for dummy payloads on the next Falcon 1 is naive.  If someone wants to pay SpaceX to fly, SpaceX should take their money.  The customers are aware of the risks.  Just like Eutelsat on the first of each EELV.  We're capitalists here.

I'm not sure how a roll control nozzle and a vectorable main engine do not constitute "full three axis RCS."

I am somewhat disappointed that SpaceX missed this since there are so many former Delta guys working there.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dunderwood on 08/07/2008 02:48 am

At some point SpaceX changed the fuel, that is a big hardware/requirements change.  Several years later the software was still trying to burn the original fuel.


Where the heck did you read that they changed the fuel?  It's been LOX/RP-1 for as long as they've been around.  Given that the quotes refer to mixture ratios, it simply sounds like an incorrect profile was loaded (in terms of when to run rich/lean).
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/07/2008 02:54 am
Should this type of "burp" happen during engine shut down?  What I mean is, is this type of engine behavior considered acceptable industry practice, or should things have been changed in the shutdown sequence to eliminate this behavior?

All engines have a shutdown transient.   The process is to wait until things settle down. 

There's a story of a guy at Stennis with a hybrid motor.  He actually drove it in with his pickup truck.  He didn't use any kind of purge after shut down and it took hours to stop burning since ambient oxygen was flowing back up the pipe.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: CJM on 08/07/2008 03:44 am
Message from Elon at the spacex website.

Anyone get a hold of the full footage they're supposed to release late Wednesday night (i.e tonight?).

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php#Update080608
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: STS Tony on 08/07/2008 05:01 am
Nothing yet. Should make for an interesting rocketcam view.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 08/07/2008 05:26 am
It's 10:30pm over on the West coast, so maybe not today.

Can I also, add, as I've seen this on a few threads here. There's no point linking multiple sites up when they are all based on the same press releases. The SpaceX site will be enough.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/07/2008 05:37 am
Falcon 1 Flight 3 Liftoff image from SpaceX.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: blazotron on 08/07/2008 06:08 am
I know there are some pretty big vacuum chambers out there.  Is there any which could handle the test of shutting down an engine the size of the F1 (after a second or two of burn) to measure any residual thrust or reactions in a near vacuum environment?  My first thought is that even one or two seconds of firing would put enough pressure in the chamber to negate any testing.

not needed.  other first stage engines are not tested in vacuum chambers.   Also it is not just the engine, it is the propulsion system, which includes the stage.

I thought these big engine test stands were capable of simulating low pressure environments using some method involving water that I don't understand.

You wouldn't be able to use a simple vacuum chamber (for the reasons you give, as well as others such as the lack of systems to supply fuel to the engine for the test).  However, there are test facilities specifically designed to test rocket engines at altitude conditions.  The Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tullahoma, TN has facilities that use large vacuum chambers and continuous pumping with steam ejectors to maintain pressures around the engine simulating altitudes up to about 100 kft (this is about 0.15 psia) for the full duration of the rocket test (including full mission-length tests).
 
Rocket Development Test Cell J-3 can test liguid fueled engines of up to 200,000 lb thrust at 125 kft simulated altitude in a test chamber of 17 ft diam x 40 ft high.
http://www.nimr.org/systems/images/rockets.htm

Rocket Development Test Cell J-4 can test liquid fueled engines of up to 1,500,000 lb thrust (test stand design load, but the thrust cell currently installed is limited to 500,000 lb) at 100 kft simulated altitude in a test chamber of 48 ft diam x up to 125 ft (in other words, large enough to contain the entire falcon 1 rocket).  This is the largest liquid rocket altitude test cell in the world.
http://www.arnold.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070131-086.pdf

There are also other facilities around the country, but I am most familiar with the ones at AEDC.

It is interesting to note that one of the specifically cited uses of these facilities is staging tests, and I have to agree with several who have posted that the shutdown thrust profile really should have been known, sea-level pressure masking or not.  Unless I have mis-understood and the profile was known but just not adjusted for in the staging timeline parameters in the software, but that is an entirely different, and no less serious, problem, imo.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Comga on 08/07/2008 06:11 am
You don't need to measure it in a vacuum.  As noted in my post above, ambient conditions are just part of the equations used in the design process, and those conditions change with every millisecond of flight.  Experienced designers realize this without even really thinking about it.  They know cutoff conditions for any kind of trajectory will be different from launch conditions and design accordingly.

The problem is that you need to know what the pressure was in order to estimate how much of a delay you need.  In other words, you need some sort of measurement.  You can't just do the math without a measurement.  And Elon's point was that with ambient pressure, it screwed up the measurements enough that it was hard to get a real number that you could use in those equations.  Also, the big fireball was due to the fact that you have a fuel rich exhaust that's shooting into air, which down where we live provides a lot more oxidizer than up at 35km altitude.  Once again, it isn't entirely obvious that they had enough data to really know.  Sure, I agree in hindsight that with the fact that the shutdown transients were qualitatively different, that the fact they didn't have detailed data should still have led them to conservatism, but I don't think this is as much a case of ameteurism as you're claiming.

I respect what you're saying, but have to disagree.

~Jon

I think it is between your opinions.  Musk said " ...unburned fuel in the cooling channels and manifold that combined with a small amount of residual oxygen to produce a small thrust..".  They saw the thrust in the burp but seem to have assumed that it was combustion with the ambient oxygen at sea level.  He seems to be saying that there was more *oxygen* than anticipated, so instead of cold "gas" thrust from expelling the fuel, they got combustion in the vacuum environment.  It may not have been the ambient back-pressure that hid the pressure of the burp but the ambient oxygen that masked the fact that there was still combustion going on inside the engine. I cant see how these would be separable with any amount of instrumentation. 

That still doesn't make it prudent to separate while all that fuel is sprting out the engine, combusting or not.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/07/2008 12:51 pm
One thing I worry about with all this is everyone is focusing on the burp transient and saying wait a little longer for staging and all will be good. While waiting the turbine will be spinning down and imparting more and more off axis rotational torque (it is off axis because how far out the single shaft turbine is from the center line). I really hope they are modeling this correctly, and don't just make a correction for the burp. It would suck if the nozzle again recontacts like it did on flight two.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 08/07/2008 01:14 pm
There is no doubt that stage separation is one of the tricky things to get right on a launch vehicle.  It doesn't help that stage separation is closely coupled with things like ignition of the second stage, which requires settling for liquid propellants.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: renclod on 08/07/2008 01:21 pm
nacnud
Quote
Ok so between MECO and second stage engine start the F1 is unguided, as i suspect most rockets are.

Jim
Quote
Delta II and Atlas I used vernier motors.

Big difference, isn't it ?

As I understand the situation, Delta II uses the Rock LR101-NA-11 , quoting now "The vernier engines provide roll control during main engine burn and attitude control after main engine cutoff before the second stage separation.

Falcon 1 has nada. Zip attitude control from MECO to clean separation.

And look what happend with F1 demo flight 2 ! Precisely because of that. What are the odds that at MECO the body rates will be null ?!

F1 Demo 2 at MECO:
- Merlin engine thrust vector not exactly through c-of-mass
- Angle of attack not zero
- Propellant slosh
- Altitude too low = significant asymmetrical aero loads


Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jabe on 08/07/2008 01:27 pm
Falcon 1 Flight 3 Liftoff image from SpaceX.

 - Ed Kyle
Does it seem odd to others that the storage containers seem close to the launch pad?  Not that they have much choice do to the size of the island. :)
Almost makes me want to get out my lawn chair and sit by one of the containers and watch the launch. :)
I hope the problems they have found are the last and we see a long series of successful launches by Spacex.
cheers
jb
BTW I hope they release more than one angle of the launch of the Falcon.. you get a better feel of how fast it lifts off at. 
and
Regarding the turbo pump upgrade that is coming down the line will it consume more fuel to increase the thrust or create more thrust from the same amount of fuel ?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 01:30 pm
nacnud
Quote
Ok so between MECO and second stage engine start the F1 is unguided, as i suspect most rockets are.

Jim
Quote
Delta II and Atlas I used vernier motors.

Big difference, isn't it ?



"Used" is the operative word.  Atlas I is gone and soon will Delta II

Atlas V and Delta IV don't have any verniers.

Also on (Atlas I and D-II) the verniers are still shut down seconds before sep
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 08/07/2008 01:44 pm
I have a couple of questions:

1.  When do people think SpaceX will fly again? 
I think Nov. if not in this timeframe after the Q1 '09.

2.  Do you think SpaceX will do a full review of the vicheal, procedures, etc over the next couple weeks/month before making ANY changes?

3.  Do you think SpaceX will want an independent review of launch 3, like they did for launches 1 and 3?

4.  What other small things, should SpaceX look for that might doom a flight?

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jabe on 08/07/2008 02:31 pm
video is now up...
 launch (http://mfile.akamai.com/22165/wmv/spacex.download.akamai.com/22165/F1-003.asx)
found when clicking picture at update (http://spacex.com/updates.php#Update080608\)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pbreed on 08/07/2008 02:33 pm
I found the video.....
Click on the picture with the update messasge from Elon on the Spacex site.
The video is awesome!

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Rifleman on 08/07/2008 02:44 pm
The video is excellent. I am happy to see that spacex released it. Allot of companies never would have.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: DavisSTS on 08/07/2008 02:59 pm
That upper stage sure was in a spin during fairing sep.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Analyst on 08/07/2008 03:09 pm
Good move to release the video.

Analyst
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Firehawk153 on 08/07/2008 03:16 pm
I love the new farther off perspective of the first few seconds of launch...very impressive. 

Not to mention that the trees are still standing.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JWag on 08/07/2008 03:34 pm
The video is excellent. I am happy to see that spacex released it. Allot of companies never would have.

Indeed!

I wonder what regression testing of rocket guidance software looks like...
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/07/2008 03:36 pm
I'm glad they released this.  There's actually a lot of the flight past where the webcast stopped.

I'm a little unclear as to what happened.  The second stage ignited for about 1 frame of the video, and then the video stopped.  Was the second stage engine damaged by the recontact, and it therefore burned improperly thus causing the tumble or did something else happen as a result of the recontact?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Paul Adams on 08/07/2008 03:47 pm
Congrats on the brave move to release the video and explination of the mishap.

Elon and the team deserve the success they will soon achieve.

Paul

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: DaveS on 08/07/2008 03:49 pm
I'm glad they released this.  There's actually a lot of the flight past where the webcast stopped.

I'm a little unclear as to what happened.  The second stage ignited for about 1 frame of the video, and then the video stopped.  Was the second stage engine damaged by the recontact, and it therefore burned improperly thus causing the tumble or did something else happen as a result of the recontact?
If look closely when the fairing is jettisoned, you can see that the second stage is a violent tumble, so I guess when the Kestrel ignited inside the interstage adapter, it caused the stages to start tumbling rapidly, which led to LOS with Kwaj as the antenna(s) wasn't pointing in correct direction anymore. I guess they were fortunate to recover the signal right before payload fairing unlatch and jettison.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/07/2008 03:53 pm
I know, Dave, I'm wondering what caused the tumble.  Perhaps the engine nozzle was damaged by the recontact, or...something.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2008 04:03 pm
Just a thought, but if S1-S2 separation delay wasn't long enough, I hope they are allowing plenty of time after S2 MECO before Payload Separation too.

Fixing this problem here and not fixing any similar issues there would be a really bad mistake to make.

Ross.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Damon Hill on 08/07/2008 04:18 pm
Just a thought, but if S1-S2 separation delay wasn't long enough, I hope they are allowing plenty of time after S2 MECO before Payload Separation too.

The Kestrel engine is a much simpler pressure-fed design and should shut down much more positively.  I recall that there is a coast period following shutdown, and the three-axis RCS will maintain a stable attitude for payload separation.  I think Flight 2 did successfully demonstrate a payload separation despite the tumbling.

Though maybe the guidance package should be monitoring acceleration rates before separation phases to ensure things have settled down?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dunderwood on 08/07/2008 04:19 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I remembered seeing 10 seconds on timelines between second stage cutoff and payload deployment.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: renclod on 08/07/2008 04:47 pm
Thanks to Space Exploration for the video. Dramatic !

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Damon Hill on 08/07/2008 04:49 pm
Fire in the hole!  (oops, that's not supposed to happen...)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: HMXHMX on 08/07/2008 04:57 pm
Just a thought, but if S1-S2 separation delay wasn't long enough, I hope they are allowing plenty of time after S2 MECO before Payload Separation too.

The Kestrel engine is a much simpler pressure-fed design and should shut down much more positively.  I recall that there is a coast period following shutdown, and the three-axis RCS will maintain a stable attitude for payload separation.  I think Flight 2 did successfully demonstrate a payload separation despite the tumbling.

The impulse is due to trapped propellant volumes in injectors and cooling chambers. Even pressure fed engines will have the problem.

One reason we adopted the rather difficult to develop face-shutoff for our pintle engine (at AirLaunch) was to provide a much cleaner shutdown impulse than upstream valves.  We get very crisp, fractional second shutdowns with no residual thrust.  I suggested this to Elon five years ago but he didn't want to adopt it.  It also makes reuse easier, since after recovery, you don't have to worry about sea water getting into the engine upstream of the injector.  The down side is development is definitely more difficult.

During the second flight, the vehicle was tumbling end over end at quite a rate.  In that case, payload sep would be clean – the payload was on the end of a rotating body and was flung off by centrifugal force.  I don't believe that they ever regained three axis control of Flight 2's second stage, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: aero313 on 08/07/2008 05:05 pm
Just a thought, but if S1-S2 separation delay wasn't long enough, I hope they are allowing plenty of time after S2 MECO before Payload Separation too.

Fixing this problem here and not fixing any similar issues there would be a really bad mistake to make.

Ross.

During ascent you want the staging delay to be as short as possible to avoid gravity losses.  Once the vehicle is in orbit, there's no such constraint.  Typically launch vehicles will wait several minutes to let the engine finish outgassing before payload sep.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: aero313 on 08/07/2008 05:11 pm
The video is excellent. I am happy to see that spacex released it. Allot of companies never would have.

Usually the ability to release video and other flight information is controlled by the customer who paid for the launch, not necessarily the company that built the launcher.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: mheney on 08/07/2008 06:34 pm
Is the roll oscillation I'm seeing usual for a launch?  When you wach the video, the vehicle looks like it rolls clockwise for about a second, then corrects back to over the next second, then rolls, then corrects ...  I can see that causing a few challenges during flight...
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/07/2008 06:50 pm
Mheney, are you talking about the rolling back and forth and slight pitching that grows slowly throughout the 1st stage burn as the rocket gets lighter?

That was noticed during the live launch coverage and several other people commented on it. No it's not normal (at least for other rockets). Speculation seems to be pretty consistent that it's torque from fuel being spun through the cooling channels on the nozzle. The control system kept it from getting out of hand, but hopefully SpaceX will take a look at improving the rocket's ability to deal with it smoothly.

What a great video, however. I didn't expect to be treated to a near HD shot of liftoff. It was almost eery how smoothly the 1st stage essentially "relocked" against the second stage.

Am I correct that there was a second camera inside the payload fairing that provided coverage for that separation event? It seems the down-facing camera must-have been fried by the 2nd stage ignition.

Also, why does the exhaust continually get darker as the rocket ascends? Are they changing the mixture to increase fuel burn-up?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: henryhallam on 08/07/2008 07:07 pm
I guess when the Kestrel ignited inside the interstage adapter, it caused the stages to start tumbling rapidly, which led to LOS with Kwaj as the antenna(s) wasn't pointing in correct direction anymore. I guess they were fortunate to recover the signal right before payload fairing unlatch and jettison.

I call shenanigans - the odds of losing signal immediately then, and then fortuitously recovering it for just a second exactly when fairing sep occurred are pretty slim.  I bed they have video throughout, but aren't releasing the rest of it, very understandably.  Unlike the 30 seconds leading up to 2nd stage ignition, the post-ignition tumbling video would be less technically interesting and more morbidly fascinating.

Also, why does the exhaust continually get darker as the rocket ascends? Are they changing the mixture to increase fuel burn-up?

SWAG: The mixture ratio may or may not change, but it tends to be fuel-rich, so some fuel is remaining in the exhaust.  This burns in air, when there's air, and not when there's not.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/07/2008 07:11 pm
I remember seeing a similar back and forth roll from some early recovered film of space launches, especially the V-2 footage that used to be in the opening of "The Twentieth Century" TV program from the 1950s (a fond memory from my childhood, alongside "Victory at Sea"). It made it look like the V-2 didn't have roll control. Which leads to a question for the rocket scientists: How good was roll control on the V-2 and Redstone, where guidance control was from graphite vanes in the rocket exhaust?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/07/2008 07:21 pm

Also, why does the exhaust continually get darker as the rocket ascends? Are they changing the mixture to increase fuel burn-up?

SWAG: The mixture ratio may or may not change, but it tends to be fuel-rich, so some fuel is remaining in the exhaust.  This burns in air, when there's air, and not when there's not.

Ahhh! Makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jabe on 08/07/2008 07:37 pm

Am I correct that there was a second camera inside the payload fairing that provided coverage for that separation event? It seems the down-facing camera must-have been fried by the 2nd stage ignition.
In the second launch video it has the same thing.  I figure it is a mirror that changes the direction of the camera view to see the fairing then switches back.hence the pause in between the views but I'm probably all wet on that :)

it is a great video..the vid from ground is an added bonus.  I hope they have other angles
If some one is making a documentary of the behind the scene goings on at Spacex during the past few years sign me up for a copy of it now.  The spaceship1 documentary Black Sky (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436126/) is great..this would be even better!!
jb
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: stockman on 08/07/2008 09:16 pm
I would like to thank Elon for releasing this video. It is better quality than I could have hoped for and is very much appreciated. I know there is a lot of criticism from armchair engineers here that criticise this company at what seems every turn... one of those is regarding their PR and secretive behaviour however releasing this video so shortly after the event is definitely an improvement over the last launch where all videos I have seen stop at the 5 minute mark but yet they have video going all the way to orbit. (Yes I would love to see that one).

However, beggers can't be choosers... I appreciate the attempt here at opening up the gates a bit (which they are under no obligation to do). My opinion is thank you for the great view and I wish you the best of luck on launch 4 -

btw - I for one love the last two launch attempts where you had an abort and then recycle within the same launch window - I am no "risk adverse" engineer so I think it shows a lot of guts to show the robustness of the system which allows you to do that. Well done imo.

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: aero313 on 08/08/2008 12:05 am
Is the roll oscillation I'm seeing usual for a launch?  When you wach the video, the vehicle looks like it rolls clockwise for about a second, then corrects back to over the next second, then rolls, then corrects ...  I can see that causing a few challenges during flight...

It depends on the vehicle.  After finally watching the video, even I would say that the roll is a nit.  It appears to simply be limit cycling of the roll control system (the turbine exhaust).  It may be that the regen engine induces more roll torque that the ablative due to the pattern of the tubes, and its possible that they neglected to change gains in the control system, for example, but some LVs (such as Taurus, for example) don't even have or need roll control on the first stage.  Modern IMUs are fast enough to resolve the roll and follow it with the TVC actuators.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/08/2008 12:08 am
Also, why does the exhaust continually get darker as the rocket ascends? Are they changing the mixture to increase fuel burn-up?
SWAG: The mixture ratio may or may not change, but it tends to be fuel-rich, so some fuel is remaining in the exhaust.  This burns in air, when there's air, and not when there's not.
Ahhh! Makes perfect sense.

I'm going to try something a little more nuanced.  As the rocket ascends, the plume undergoes greater expansion.  An expanding gas cools.  So when it expands more, it cools more.  So the unburned fuel and soot is more visible in a wider, cooler plume.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: yinzer on 08/08/2008 12:53 am
It depends on the vehicle.  After finally watching the video, even I would say that the roll is a nit.  It appears to simply be limit cycling of the roll control system (the turbine exhaust).  It may be that the regen engine induces more roll torque that the ablative due to the pattern of the tubes, and its possible that they neglected to change gains in the control system, for example, but some LVs (such as Taurus, for example) don't even have or need roll control on the first stage.  Modern IMUs are fast enough to resolve the roll and follow it with the TVC actuators.

Depending on how much roll you have, naturally.

A solid with one nozzle should produce minimal roll disturbances; misalignment of a gas generator exhaust will produce bigger ones, and a helically wound nozzle will produce even bigger ones.

Thinking about it, the roll moment of inertia of a solid rocket stage should be much higher than a liquid stage throughout the entire flight.  Not sure if it's enough to make a difference or not.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Yegor on 08/08/2008 03:59 am
On the video the first stage pushed the second up to 6 seconds after MECO.
How many seconds there should be a delay between MECO and stages separation?
Is it OK to have stages separation 6 seconds after MECO?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Swatch on 08/08/2008 04:02 am
Where are you getting 6 seconds?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/08/2008 04:41 am
Where are you getting 6 seconds?

I gather he's referring to the video.  MECO at 2:55, stage one is still in contact with stage two until about 3:00.

Somewhere between 5 and 6 seconds.

That said, I'm watching the video with VLC and it doesn't like the .ASX video format one bit.  The time count is a few seconds different each time I play the video.  Still 5 seconds seems about right. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/08/2008 04:50 am
On the video the first stage pushed the second up to 6 seconds after MECO.
How many seconds there should be a delay between MECO and stages separation?
Is it OK to have stages separation 6 seconds after MECO?

It takes what ever it is needed.  There is no hard rule
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: josh_simonson on 08/08/2008 05:21 am
You can't really see from the video if the first stage is still pushing against the second stage, or if they're just stuck together.  Even after any fuel/oxidizer has burned, simply the vapor pressure of boiling fuel coming out of the engine probably gives it a bit of thrust that would hold them together for a while.  They only have to wait long enough for the transient to die down enough that separation gives them enough room to fire the engine.

From their statement they were able to see what was going on through the chamber pressure monitors, so depending on how long the monitors transmitted (they may have cut off at sep) they may have a very good idea how the transient looks in vacuum.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Zonarius on 08/08/2008 06:08 am
Were spacex going to try to recover the first stage of this flight
or have they given up trying to reuse the f1 stages?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/08/2008 07:06 am
Were spacex going to try to recover the first stage of this flight
or have they given up trying to reuse the f1 stages?

I read somewhere that they did plan to recover stage one, but stage two's engines fried the chutes.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: just-nick on 08/08/2008 12:42 pm
Did anything happen to that video?  I try to hit the link and get nothing behind it...   Not calling "CONSPIRACY!" just annoyance...I was excited to see something making it worth getting up this early.

 --N
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/08/2008 01:52 pm
Did anything happen to that video?  I try to hit the link and get nothing behind it...   Not calling "CONSPIRACY!" just annoyance...I was excited to see something making it worth getting up this early.

 --N

Ehhh? ;) Still working for me:


video is now up...
 launch (http://mfile.akamai.com/22165/wmv/spacex.download.akamai.com/22165/F1-003.asx)
found when clicking picture at update (http://spacex.com/updates.php#Update080608\)

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: aero313 on 08/08/2008 02:03 pm
It depends on the vehicle.  After finally watching the video, even I would say that the roll is a nit.  It appears to simply be limit cycling of the roll control system (the turbine exhaust).  It may be that the regen engine induces more roll torque that the ablative due to the pattern of the tubes, and its possible that they neglected to change gains in the control system, for example, but some LVs (such as Taurus, for example) don't even have or need roll control on the first stage.  Modern IMUs are fast enough to resolve the roll and follow it with the TVC actuators.

Depending on how much roll you have, naturally.

A solid with one nozzle should produce minimal roll disturbances; misalignment of a gas generator exhaust will produce bigger ones, and a helically wound nozzle will produce even bigger ones.

Thinking about it, the roll moment of inertia of a solid rocket stage should be much higher than a liquid stage throughout the entire flight.  Not sure if it's enough to make a difference or not.

Actually, the biggest problem on Taurus was aero torques from raceway misalignment.  We hit something like 8 RPM on the first flight.  Back to Falcon, the roll was an oscillation and the rate was not enough to concern me, anyway.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Graham on 08/08/2008 02:05 pm
Did anything happen to that video?  I try to hit the link and get nothing behind it...

Ehhh? ;) Still working for me:

Which browsers are you using? It seems to work in IE but not Firefox.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jongoff on 08/08/2008 02:38 pm
Which browsers are you using? It seems to work in IE but not Firefox.

I watched it just fine in FireFox 3.01

~Jon
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: just-nick on 08/08/2008 02:54 pm
Which browsers are you using? It seems to work in IE but not Firefox.

I watched it just fine in FireFox 3.01

~Jon
Picky web server syndrome.  Just got it to work fine off IE7 at work which normally crashes if I breath too loudly.  Safari at home was no joy, though.  Thanks all.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/08/2008 07:24 pm

Actually, the biggest problem on Taurus was aero torques from raceway misalignment.  We hit something like 8 RPM on the first flight.  Back to Falcon, the roll was an oscillation and the rate was not enough to concern me, anyway.

Interesting information...

The Falcon oscillations definitely seemed to increase with altitude, so I don't think it was aerodynamic in this case. Moreover, since I don't remember seeing this on flight 2 the regen plumbing really seems like the best theory.

It seemed like the roll control just ignored it until it hit a threshold, then overcompensated slightly. Hopefully just a minor tuning of the controller?

It was certainly interesting to see the response time of the actuators.


PS - Rats...I'm also having trouble with the video. It's connecting ok, but it won't buffer properly for my slow connection and I can't save it to disk. Video formats and encapsulation are a complete zoo these days. :(

If it helps anybody, you can go a layer past the .asx file, which basically is nothing more than an xml playlist that points here:

mms://a570.v22165a.c22165.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/570/22165/v0001/spacex.download.akamai.com/22165/F1-003.wmv

(copy and paste...the forum software appends an errant "http://" on it when I try to link it)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/08/2008 07:40 pm
There's a nice quality downloadable 18MB .wmv version here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13944.msg305447#msg305447
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/08/2008 11:26 pm
It seemed like the roll control just ignored it until it hit a threshold, then overcompensated slightly. Hopefully just a minor tuning of the controller?

Yeah, basically.  Once the roll angle error hit a limit, the FCS rolled it back to zero.  That repeated several times.

My guess is they will just set the null on the roll control nozzle to a slight angle rather than straight down.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: antonioe on 08/09/2008 12:53 am
My guess is they will just set the null on the roll control nozzle to a slight angle rather than straight down.
Yes, but what slight angle?  Will it be the same next flight?  If I knew that was the source of the limit cycle, I would simply make the control loop a Type I rather than a Type zero and be done with it.  That said, in general, limit cycles are not bad unless they cause excessive use of a consummable.

However, I'm not fully convinced that is what is happening in this case.  I'd love to see the telemetry, I've fixed many a GN&C/aero/flight dynamics problem in my life from telemetry.  I've never had a case where the video helped (Joe, how about you?)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/09/2008 01:03 am
I had a situation once that I just couldn't figure out from data or analysis of the parts (and I had great data).  I figured it out from the video.  (This was not rocketry).

I agree that switching from a P controller to a PI controller might be a good solution if that is, in fact, the problem.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: antonioe on 08/09/2008 01:22 am
I had a situation once that I just couldn't figure out from data or analysis of the parts (and I had great data).  I figured it out from the video.  (This was not rocketry).
Well, I must admit that video would be nice in a partial deployment (antenna or solar panel) situation; fortunately we've never had a situation quite like that on one of our own spacecraft (knock on wood - statements like these are only good until the next flight...)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: just-nick on 08/09/2008 01:27 am
My guess is they will just set the null on the roll control nozzle to a slight angle rather than straight down.
Yes, but what slight angle?  Will it be the same next flight?  If I knew that was the source of the limit cycle, I would simply make the control loop a Type I rather than a Type zero and be done with it.  That said, in general, limit cycles are not bad unless they cause excessive use of a consummable.
Wow.  Would you care to elucidate your verbiage?

I've worked with a few PID controllers, but never really understood the theory behind them (attach wires, play with settings until desired outcome achieved).  Seems like a fantastic chance to learn...

  --Nick
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/09/2008 01:32 am
I had a situation once that I just couldn't figure out from data or analysis of the parts (and I had great data).  I figured it out from the video.  (This was not rocketry).
Well, I must admit that video would be nice in a partial deployment (antenna or solar panel) situation; fortunately we've never had a situation quite like that on one of our own spacecraft (knock on wood - statements like these are only good until the next flight...)

Mine was not too dissimilar from the current cargo bay door hose issue on the orbiters.  I had a flexible hose flexing in an unexpected way, but that was very difficult to determine from pressures, temperatures and pump speeds.  When the video showed a "kink" forming in the hose under operating conditions, my low-pressure fault got really easy to understand.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/09/2008 01:37 am
My guess is they will just set the null on the roll control nozzle to a slight angle rather than straight down.
Yes, but what slight angle?  Will it be the same next flight?  If I knew that was the source of the limit cycle, I would simply make the control loop a Type I rather than a Type zero and be done with it.  That said, in general, limit cycles are not bad unless they cause excessive use of a consummable.
Wow.  Would you care to elucidate your verbiage?

I've worked with a few PID controllers, but never really understood the theory behind them (attach wires, play with settings until desired outcome achieved).  Seems like a fantastic chance to learn...

  --Nick

A "P" controller won't "push" against the system unless there's an error.  So, if there's a steady "push" from the system (i.e. roll torque on this rocket), there will be a steady error with the P system before it can compensate for the steady "push" (assuming the system is stable, of course).

The "I" in a "PI" controller will "Integrate" that error, effectively "pushing" harder and harder until it nulls out the error, and then it will hold that setting.  Thus, a system with a steady "push" (roll torque) can still have zero mean error if controlled by a stable PI controller.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: antonioe on 08/09/2008 01:47 am

I've worked with a few PID controllers, but never really understood the theory behind them (attach wires, play with settings until desired outcome achieved).  Seems like a fantastic chance to learn...

  --Nick
Nick:

If there is ONE area in our profession where one microgram of math is work a megaton of experimentation, control systems is IT.  "Play with settings until desired outcome is achieved", while instructional (and I commend you for having done that!) has to immediately give way to differential equations (at least linear... it's OK, they don't bite...), block diagrams (very intuitive) and Lagrange transforms (a shorthand for the linear diff eqs.)  Formally, a "Type alpha" system is one that has "alpha more zeros than poles in its closed-loop transfer function".

OK, OK, so that's Greek to you...  ;D it means that, mathematically, the error signal is being integrated (integral with respect to time) and added to the raw error signal in the feed back loop to zero the error signal...

If you are interested in control systems and you are just starting, I strongly recommend THIS book:

http://www.amazon.com/Schaums-Outline-Feedback-Control-Systems/dp/0070170525

for $19.89 and free shipping, you can't beat it!!!

By the way: learn ANALOG control first, because then DIGITAL control theory will be a cakewalk.  If you don't, you just get your head stuck in the math and never get the feel for the PHYSICS of the problem.

Oh, I forgot!  The NEXT best way to crash a rocket - after the "trial and error" method - is to apply pure math unadulterated by any feel for the physics of the problem whatsoever...

(By the way: great explanation, Lee Jay!  have you considered teaching, or are you already doing that?)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/09/2008 02:01 am
(By the way: great explanation, Lee Jay!  have you considered teaching, or are you already doing that?)

Thanks!  I'm not (other than the occasional guest lecture) but I get that a lot.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: just-nick on 08/09/2008 03:54 am
Never expected the free control systems course.  This is great.  Might have stuck with engineering with teachers like this...

And I think I'm starting to get it.  With a "P" system, if I set a certain degree of control response to error (e.g. 1 degree of nozzle deflection per degree of roll error) the system will null the roll rate against a steady-state roll force, but at a certain degree of error from the desired angle.

The "PI" will generate progressively more response until it not only nulls the roll rate but will work the vehicle back to the desired roll position.

I assume the same ideas could be used (perhaps in parallel) to achieve a desired rate about an axis, in addition to position as I've been thinking about it?  I assume the derivative part of a PID basically computes some "lead" on the rate of change and damps out the response in order to avoid overshoots?

I might have to pick up that book now.  My math isn't that bad -- though I never made it past 3rd quarter calculus (which was right around the time I was playing with PID's) -- I'm teach a pretty I pretty mean statistics class.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Oberon_Command on 08/09/2008 04:02 am
While we're on the subject of control systems, a question to those knowledgeable: is there any way a fuzzy controller would ever be feasible or advantageous for launch guidance?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: braddock on 08/09/2008 11:53 am

[...]  I'd love to see the telemetry, I've fixed many a GN&C/aero/flight dynamics problem in my life from telemetry. [...]

I'd LOVE to see the look on Musk's face if you offered your services.  :)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: antonioe on 08/09/2008 12:30 pm

[...]  I'd love to see the telemetry, I've fixed many a GN&C/aero/flight dynamics problem in my life from telemetry. [...]

I'd LOVE to see the look on Musk's face if you offered your services.  :)


Only matched by the look DWT's face if I did that!...  :D  Hmmm.. that might be worth the try...
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: JonSBerndt on 08/09/2008 01:26 pm
Quote from: Lee Jay
A "P" controller won't "push" against the system unless there's an error.  So, if there's a steady "push" from the system (i.e. roll torque on this rocket), there will be a steady error with the P system before it can compensate for the steady "push" (assuming the system is stable, of course).

The "I" in a "PI" controller will "Integrate" that error, effectively "pushing" harder and harder until it nulls out the error, and then it will hold that setting.  Thus, a system with a steady "push" (roll torque) can still have zero mean error if controlled by a stable PI controller.

Flight control of rockets is interesting stuff. I'm certainly not an expert in this field (although "I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once" ;-). I get to occasionally work with implementing some launch vehicle control schemes and tweaking them in the course of my work, and also at home using the open source simulation software (JSBSim) I've been developing with a small team for the past ten years (see www.jsbsim.org). I've been working on some hopefully instructive examples of creating autopilot functionality using PID controllers in the documentation for JSBSim. It might interest you. Visit the web site and click on the "Documentation" link at top. See the Case Study near the end, "Piston Aircraft with Autopilot and Scripting". I've also implemented a simple rocket simulation with first stage open loop control, but that example isn't complete, yet.

Another question here involved the use of fuzzy logic for rocket control. There's an interesting paper you might want to take a look at, called "Robust, Non-linear Control Using Neuroevolution". You can see that here: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/ftp/pub/neural-nets/papers/gomez.phdtr03.pdf.

Jon
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jimvela on 08/09/2008 01:33 pm
Only matched by the look DWT's face if I did that!...  :D  Hmmm.. that might be worth the try...

Sounds too much like an invitation for a visit by a red-hot poker to me...

Back on topic, it seems to my naive point of view that you'd always want to keep your vehicle in a known state to prevent unexpected/unknown unknowns (e.g. slosh, spinning up fluids in tanks, unexpected loads on mechanical systems, etc.).

In some cases you might even want to spin up the LV/payload, but even then you'd want everything held to a steady state.

Is that not what is done with mature launch vehicles?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jabe on 08/09/2008 03:11 pm
What was a bit of a surprise to me regarding the failure is that one reason that the Falcons' are a 2 stage rocket is that the second most common failure for rocket failure is Separation issues as quoted in here. (http://www.spacex.com/FutronDesignReliability.pdf)
Quote
After propulsion, the second most common cause of launch failures was separation events, which were responsible for 28 percent of all failures.  Separation failures included staging, payload separation, or fairing separation.
With the expertise available I bet they are "kicking themselves" for missing this issue considering they know staging is a main problem for failure.  From the reading here it seems to be a "rookie" mistake to miss it or am I over simplifying the issue?cheers
jb

Sidenote, even though Falcon 1 doesn't need it for ullage why didn't they include a "ullage" type motor to aid in separation?  Or does that add in extra reliabilty issues if one of the ullage motors fails to fire... (I'm assuming that they are a "simple motor")
Does the Falcon 9 need a ullage motor?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: daver on 08/09/2008 03:34 pm
At stage separation would there be any atmospheric drag?  Could the 1st stage of slowed down as well as the 2nd stage holding speed or accelerating?   Hope this isn't a stupid question from watching to much NASCAR.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: antonioe on 08/09/2008 04:06 pm
Sidenote, even though Falcon 1 doesn't need it for ullage why didn't they include a "ullage" type motor to aid in separation?  Or does that add in extra reliabilty issues if one of the ullage motors fails to fire... (I'm assuming that they are a "simple motor")
Does the Falcon 9 need a ullage motor?

Strictly speaking, an ullage motor is a device to produce a small amount of acceleration for a relatively long period of time, long enough to allow gas bubbles in the upper stage's tanks or feed system to migrate away from lines and feed point(s).

Separation is traditionally accomplished either via springs (the favorite method from a reliability and cost standpoint) or retrorockets; neither of these methods provide ullage (spring accelerations usually do not last enough for practical gas separation).

One observation on the SpaceX video showing separation; it appears to me that the camera had a very wide angle lens.  This tends to exaggerate distances and therefore speeds away or towards the camera.  What appears to be a rather rapid separation and recontact is probably a lot slower (and the separation distance achieved before recontact much smaller) than it seems from watching the video.

As the Capitol Steps used to sing, "Objects in Mir are closer than they appear"  :D
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Comga on 08/10/2008 12:07 am
On the video the first stage pushed the second up to 6 seconds after MECO.

Perhaps, but did you notice how well aligned the two stages remained? Unlike F1-002 with the yaw (or pitch) rate at staging where the second stage bell smacked the interstage, they seemed to stay remarkably well aligned. 

It appears that they did solve at least one of the problems of flight 2.  Perhaps if they had had an even larger rate, though, ....

PS. I like the three digits so they won't have to renumber after the first one hundred flights of the Falcon 1.  :-)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jabe on 08/10/2008 12:31 am
PS. I like the three digits so they won't have to renumber after the first one hundred flights of the Falcon 1.  :-)
I like that idea :)

but the $10 million question (or how however much you view the cost of the next launch and probaly including the reputation for Spacex) is the solution as simple as few seconds delay before separating?  Lets hope so..be great to see  F1!-100 some day soon :)
jb
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: antonioe on 08/10/2008 12:50 am
We're guilty of the same optimism: here's a 15-year old picture of Pegasus flight 4 (the USAF Alexis mission, launched April 25, 1993).  You can clearly see the "F-004" marking on the tail.  And here we are today, ready to launch Pegasus number... 40!  At this rate, around the year 2035 we will be glad we used three digits.

By the way, this is a good picture of the Pegasus operations at Dryden:  the spacecraft is being attached to the rocket under a class-10,000 clean tent (notice the two techs in bunny suits).  As you can see, it is a pretty spartan operation (the guy sitting in the chair is the obligatory safety inspector).
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: just-nick on 08/10/2008 05:36 am
...the guy sitting in the chair is the obligatory safety inspector...

What's he get paid, hourly?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/10/2008 05:04 pm
With the expertise available I bet they are "kicking themselves" for missing this issue considering they know staging is a main problem for failure.  From the reading here it seems to be a "rookie" mistake to miss it or am I over simplifying the issue?

IMO, each of their failures has come from system interactions
1) material with the environment
2) software with propulsion with vehicle dynamics with sep system
3) flight control with propulsion with sep system

This is the result of an organization with a seriously lacking or non-existent systems engineering and integration organization.  IMEO, SpaceX has hired experts in all of the major single systems.  But, until they figure out some way to manage the interactions, they will have systems that each function perfectly alone without any guarantee of functioning well together.

A proper SE&I organization doesn't cause success.  It prevents failure.  (Though I suppose it can optimize too.)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/11/2008 03:35 am

At some point SpaceX changed the fuel, that is a big hardware/requirements change.  Several years later the software was still trying to burn the original fuel.


Where the heck did you read that they changed the fuel?  It's been LOX/RP-1 for as long as they've been around.  Given that the quotes refer to mixture ratios, it simply sounds like an incorrect profile was loaded (in terms of when to run rich/lean).

I thought I remembered a change in fuel - it was the upper stage.

"... This Falcon 5 would be fitted with a liquid hydrogen second stage powered by one or more RL10 engines. "
http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/falcon9.html (http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/falcon9.html)
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Comga on 08/11/2008 04:19 am
I thought I remembered a change in fuel - it was the upper stage.

"... This Falcon 5 would be fitted with a liquid hydrogen second stage powered by one or more RL10 engines. "
http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/falcon9.html (http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/falcon9.html)

This is incorrect, at least for the foreseeable future.
The Falcon 9 will use a single large expansion version of the same LOX/RP-1 engine as the nine engines in the first stage.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: joncz on 08/11/2008 01:16 pm
This is the result of an organization with a seriously lacking or non-existent systems engineering and integration organization.  IMEO, SpaceX has hired experts in all of the major single systems.  But, until they figure out some way to manage the interactions, they will have systems that each function perfectly alone without any guarantee of functioning well together.

A proper SE&I organization doesn't cause success.  It prevents failure.  (Though I suppose it can optimize too.)

This echoes for me the approach that a lot of .com companies evolved - no rigorous design, review, build methodology.  Instead they keep iterating on builds until they get something that sells.

That's easy to do when all you're expending are recycled electrons and time.  It's a lot harder to do when you have to bend metal.

I think Musk brings with him a lot of that seat of the pants baggage and bias from his .com background.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Danderman on 08/11/2008 02:14 pm
This is the result of an organization with a seriously lacking or non-existent systems engineering and integration organization.  IMEO, SpaceX has hired experts in all of the major single systems.  But, until they figure out some way to manage the interactions, they will have systems that each function perfectly alone without any guarantee of functioning well together.

A proper SE&I organization doesn't cause success.  It prevents failure. 

My understanding is that the chief systems engineer for SpaceX is Elon. Now, this may simply be a misunderstanding, and he may have 50  systems engineers at SpaceX. However, the model that SpaceX seems to be using is not that different from that used to develop many successful launchers.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/11/2008 02:38 pm
This is the result of an organization with a seriously lacking or non-existent systems engineering and integration organization.  IMEO, SpaceX has hired experts in all of the major single systems.  But, until they figure out some way to manage the interactions, they will have systems that each function perfectly alone without any guarantee of functioning well together.

A proper SE&I organization doesn't cause success.  It prevents failure. 

My understanding is that the chief systems engineer for SpaceX is Elon. Now, this may simply be a misunderstanding, and he may have 50  systems engineers at SpaceX. However, the model that SpaceX seems to be using is not that different from that used to develop many successful launchers.



What is Elon's experience for this role ? There's the problem. If he doesn't mind learning on the job burning up rockets and tens of million of dollars that's fine but a few experienced professionals may have saved him the trouble.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: mikegi on 08/11/2008 02:40 pm
This echoes for me the approach that a lot of .com companies evolved - no rigorous design, review, build methodology.  Instead they keep iterating on builds until they get something that sells.

That's easy to do when all you're expending are recycled electrons and time.  It's a lot harder to do when you have to bend metal.

I think Musk brings with him a lot of that seat of the pants baggage and bias from his .com background.
There's a huge difference in producing software for general distribution versus one-shot usage. Rockets are one-shot usage and that requires getting it right the first time. That imposes *significant* constraints on the design and requires orders of magnitude more testing. You need many different sets of software designer eyeballs looking at the design so that any logic errors are discovered.

I remember when I went to Vancouver, BC to have laser vision correction (PRK) back in the mid 90s. As I was laying in the chair, the opthamologist was configuring the "burn" using Windows 3.1! I said nervously, "don't tell me you use Windows 3.1 to control the laser". He replied that it was simply functioning as a terminal to setup the laser's internal computer. I still considered bolting out of the office!
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/11/2008 04:04 pm
This is the result of an organization with a seriously lacking or non-existent systems engineering and integration organization.  IMEO, SpaceX has hired experts in all of the major single systems.  But, until they figure out some way to manage the interactions, they will have systems that each function perfectly alone without any guarantee of functioning well together.

A proper SE&I organization doesn't cause success.  It prevents failure. 

My understanding is that the chief systems engineer for SpaceX is Elon. Now, this may simply be a misunderstanding, and he may have 50  systems engineers at SpaceX. However, the model that SpaceX seems to be using is not that different from that used to develop many successful launchers.


He isn't the chief systems engineer.  He is the chief technology officer, whatever that means
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/11/2008 05:40 pm
At stage separation would there be any atmospheric drag?  Could the 1st stage of slowed down as well as the 2nd stage holding speed or accelerating?   Hope this isn't a stupid question from watching to much NASCAR.

Minimal, and there should be as much or more drag on the larger, yet nearly empty (low density) first stage as there is on the upper stage, especially with the fairing still attached.

Actually, during flight 2 there was appreciable drag that caused the rocket to rotate, but the first stage still fell-clear of the 2nd prior to ignition.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jongoff on 08/11/2008 06:32 pm
There's a huge difference in producing software for general distribution versus one-shot usage. Rockets are one-shot usage and that requires getting it right the first time. That imposes *significant* constraints on the design and requires orders of magnitude more testing. You need many different sets of software designer eyeballs looking at the design so that any logic errors are discovered.

Well, rocket vehicles don't *have* to be one-shot use.  For expendable launch vehicles, sure they do have to essentially function perfectly right out of the box.  But that isn't necessarily the only way of doing things--it may be possible to develop reusable rocket vehicles in an incremental fashion.  By doing that you can start with a subset of the overall problem, and work out issues in an incremental fashion, where at least a decent chunk of failures can be found in a non-catastrophic manner.  We're not positive it will work, but at least a few groups (Masten, Armadillo, XCOR, and Blue Origin) are trying that approach.  While we're mostly focusing on suborbital vehicles for now, there's nothing that is keeping a better-funded group from using this approach to attack orbital problems. 

But that isn't the approach they took, and the one they did take is a lot harder to make work.  I still think they'll get it right in the next attempt or two, but perfection isn't going to be easy.

~Jon
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/11/2008 07:55 pm
But that isn't necessarily the only way of doing things--it may be possible to develop reusable rocket vehicles in an incremental fashion.  By doing that you can start with a subset of the overall problem, and work out issues in an incremental fashion, where at least a decent chunk of failures can be found in a non-catastrophic manner.  We're not positive it will work, but at least a few groups (Masten, Armadillo, XCOR, and Blue Origin) are trying that approach.  While we're mostly focusing on suborbital vehicles for now, there's nothing that is keeping a better-funded group from using this approach to attack orbital problems. 

But that isn't the approach they took, and the one they did take is a lot harder to make work.  I still think they'll get it right in the next attempt or two, but perfection isn't going to be easy.

~Jon

I agree that an incremental approach can solve a great many developmental issues.  The hard part about rockets is that some things cannot be easily tested and accurately tested.

SpaceX's failures on launch 2 and 3 were both only evidenced at the edge of the atmosphere with engines firing in near vacuum conditions.  While there are some ways of simulating this on the ground, my understanding is the available test beds are only able to accommodate 2nd stage engines, not larger first stage engines.

I don't see how Masten, Armadillo, XCOR, or Blue Origin's incremental approach will make them better able to test for high-speed, near vacuum operations.   Of course, this isn't currently an issue for them as none of their initial products will be orbital. 

If and when any of those companies make the leap to orbital, I expect they'll have to jump in the fire and hope for the best, just like everyone else.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: guru on 08/11/2008 08:19 pm

I don't see how Masten, Armadillo, XCOR, or Blue Origin's incremental approach will make them better able to test for high-speed, near vacuum operations.   Of course, this isn't currently an issue for them as none of their initial products will be orbital. 

If and when any of those companies make the leap to orbital, I expect they'll have to jump in the fire and hope for the best, just like everyone else.


Near vacuum operation testing isn't so hard.  The engines on most of those companies' vehicles are small enough that they could be tested on altitude pressure test stands like the E-6 stand at PWRs West Palm Beach facility, or the vacuum test chamber at NASA's Plum Brook facility in Ohio.  I'm sure there are other facilities and additional options as well (like building their own diffuser and steam generators).

High speed is pretty hard to test, though.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Dalon on 08/11/2008 09:06 pm
Near vacuum operation testing isn't so hard.  The engines on most of those companies' vehicles are small enough that they could be tested on altitude pressure test stands like the E-6 stand at PWRs West Palm Beach facility, or the vacuum test chamber at NASA's Plum Brook facility in Ohio.  I'm sure there are other facilities and additional options as well (like building their own diffuser and steam generators).

High speed is pretty hard to test, though.

I completely agree, their current products could certainly be tested in near vacuum conditions.  The problem arises when and if they scale up for an orbital vehicle. 

If any of those companies ever deploy an orbital vehicle, it will certainly have more or larger engines, perhaps Much larger engines.  This could certainly put them in the same boat as SpaceX and the rest.  Like the rest, they would have a massive single point of failure for which they would be unable to definitively test prior to launch.

Do you know the limits of those facilities?  One would think that SpaceX's Merlin is too large to be tested at such a facility for the simple reason that SpaceX never made use of those facilities. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/11/2008 09:33 pm
Is there a universally (or at least widely) accepted compendium of "everything that can possibly go wrong with a rocket engine?" This is not a new technology. Regenerative liquid fuel rocket engines have been being designed, developed, and flown since the says of the Hindenberg.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jongoff on 08/11/2008 09:43 pm
SpaceX's failures on launch 2 and 3 were both only evidenced at the edge of the atmosphere with engines firing in near vacuum conditions.  While there are some ways of simulating this on the ground, my understanding is the available test beds are only able to accommodate 2nd stage engines, not larger first stage engines.

First off, this depends a lot on the scale of engine you're talking about.  For instance, there's a company whose test site is about 800yds from our test site that has a high-altitude testing rig good to over 24klbf.  That's not too shabby.  Armadillo, XCOR, and Masten aren't planning on doing stuff bigger than that anytime soon.

More importantly, you're incorrect about the testing failures.  The first failure was due to an incorrect set of engine code leading to staging at an unexpectedly low altitude.  In an RLV, if the vehicle was acting that far off-nominally, you'd abort the flight.  Early.  On the third flight failure mode, if shutdown transients were a concern, you'd fly a flight or two where you intentionally don't separate the upper stage, but do an attached-stage abort after measuring in-situ the shutdown transient.

Quote
I don't see how Masten, Armadillo, XCOR, or Blue Origin's incremental approach will make them better able to test for high-speed, near vacuum operations.   Of course, this isn't currently an issue for them as none of their initial products will be orbital.

While it's true that most of us are targetting suborbital operations first (Blue Origin has been a bit more vague on what its actual plan is), most of us are intending to offer nanosat launch services, where our suborbital vehicle launches a 1-2 stage nanosat launcher sometime after MECO.  We'll need to know those things for that situation, but as I said, there are ways of getting that information that doesn't put much risk on your vehicle.

Quote
If and when any of those companies make the leap to orbital, I expect they'll have to jump in the fire and hope for the best, just like everyone else.

If someone's designing a fully-reusable orbital LV and makes it so it can only be tested using full-up testing, with no option for incremental testing or envelope expansion....well, they're being retarded. 

Full-up testing for ELVs may make sense, but for RLVs?  Why?

~Jon
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: jongoff on 08/11/2008 09:45 pm
Near vacuum operation testing isn't so hard.  The engines on most of those companies' vehicles are small enough that they could be tested on altitude pressure test stands like the E-6 stand at PWRs West Palm Beach facility, or the vacuum test chamber at NASA's Plum Brook facility in Ohio.  I'm sure there are other facilities and additional options as well (like building their own diffuser and steam generators).

High speed is pretty hard to test, though.

I completely agree, their current products could certainly be tested in near vacuum conditions.  The problem arises when and if they scale up for an orbital vehicle. 

If any of those companies ever deploy an orbital vehicle, it will certainly have more or larger engines, perhaps Much larger engines.  This could certainly put them in the same boat as SpaceX and the rest.  Like the rest, they would have a massive single point of failure for which they would be unable to definitively test prior to launch.

Do you know the limits of those facilities?  One would think that SpaceX's Merlin is too large to be tested at such a facility for the simple reason that SpaceX never made use of those facilities. 

Dalon,

Not to be too offensive, but you're illustrating that you either don't know what you're talking about, or haven't thought this through very well.  There are plenty of ways of getting the data you're talking about incrementally without having to have gargantuan vacuum test stands or rolling-the-dice.  That dichotomy exists only in your mind.

~Jon
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/11/2008 10:05 pm
I thought I remembered a change in fuel - it was the upper stage.

"... This Falcon 5 would be fitted with a liquid hydrogen second stage powered by one or more RL10 engines. "
http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/falcon9.html (http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/falcon9.html)

This is incorrect, at least for the foreseeable future.
The Falcon 9 will use a single large expansion version of the same LOX/RP-1 engine as the nine engines in the first stage.

This is *not* incorrect.  Read the thread.  The discussion was about the initial Falcon 5 (not Falcon 9) designs.  Aviation Week reported at the time (2003-4) that SpaceX had contemplated a future RL10-powered Falcon 5 upgrade.  Here's a link.   

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/03294top.xml
 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: dunderwood on 08/11/2008 10:08 pm
The assertion that a 'fuel change' had something to do with the software glitch on flight 2 is still incorrect.  Changes in the upper stage of F9 don't have anything to do with upper stage of F1-002.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/11/2008 11:25 pm
Vacuum engine test facilities are more limited by their ability to maintain a vacuum with hundreds of pounds of gas per second flowing into their chamber.  Total thrust can be a concern, but is usually not the limiter.

You could probably get a lot of information with a FOIA request for the trade studies that went into the selection of building A-3 at Stennis vs refurbishing Plum Brook vs one of the chambers at Arnold Engineering Development Center.

As for a complete list of everything that can go wrong with an engine, I'm sure the SSME FMEA would be about 99.99% of that.  Not sure if that's on L2 or if it's eye-tar.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Comga on 08/11/2008 11:29 pm

This is *not* incorrect.  Read the thread.  The discussion was about the initial Falcon 5 (not Falcon 9) designs.  Aviation Week reported at the time (2003-4) that SpaceX had contemplated a future RL10-powered Falcon 5 upgrade.  Here's a link.   

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/03294top.xml
 - Ed Kyle

I did read the thread and am casting absolutely no aspersions on your excellent summary of the Falcon 5/9 evolution.  However, A_M_Swallow was saying that the flight failure was due to changing between LOX/RP-1 and LOX/LH2, which was never done.  There was once talk of using RL-10's as you correctly pointed out, but this was never part of the hardware.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/12/2008 12:20 am

This is *not* incorrect.  Read the thread.  The discussion was about the initial Falcon 5 (not Falcon 9) designs.  Aviation Week reported at the time (2003-4) that SpaceX had contemplated a future RL10-powered Falcon 5 upgrade.  Here's a link.   

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/03294top.xml
 - Ed Kyle

I did read the thread and am casting absolutely no aspersions on your excellent summary of the Falcon 5/9 evolution.  However, A_M_Swallow was saying that the flight failure was due to changing between LOX/RP-1 and LOX/LH2, which was never done.  There was once talk of using RL-10's as you correctly pointed out, but this was never part of the hardware.

But was it part of the software?
The software is not the hardware.

When I admitted it was the upper stage requirements that changed rather than the first stage requirements I was accepting that is was probably a red herring.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nobodyofconsequence on 08/12/2008 01:45 am
whatever that means
Well, for a DOTCOM, that would be the guy responsible for product development and operations as opposed to general IT...
And there it WOULD include SI (as a responsibility)
A CTO is responsible for the representation of technology to the outside world, they are largely a "technology sales man". Engineering operations is typically led by a VP of engineering who had better be a damn good engineer, manager, and executive. In some firms, one reports to the other, but often they have nothing to do with each other.

Many times you don't have a CTO. You only have a COO - operations officer - if you have major manufacturing or other massive process function that requires tight execution of  stacks/silos/supply chains.
The whole "C" level is meant to split up and scale executive function when it outgrows the single CEO/president role.

Sometimes it is a mere corporate conceit.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nobodyofconsequence on 08/12/2008 01:54 am
Forgive me for asking, but if F1 first stage engine cutoff has a stutter, why not adaptively compensate by waiting for the trailing interruptions before staging, knowing that after the turbo runs dry you can only support combustion/diffusion for a limited period - then stage. E.g. no fixed interval. You may have to burn second stage a little longer digging into propellant reserves, but so what?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/12/2008 03:54 am
The shutdown impulse would be too unpredictable.  What data criterion would you use?  Pc?  Acceleration?  What if it didn't pulse?  No, it's best to do it on a timer.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nobodyofconsequence on 08/12/2008 04:37 am
1.The shutdown impulse would be too unpredictable. 

What data criterion would you use? 
2. Pc? 
3. Acceleration?
4. What if it didn't pulse? 

No, it's best to do it on a timer.
1. Really? There is a known amount of props when the turbo runs dry and stops (spin down time). So either it burns or diffuses, right? It's not just going to sit there.
3. If it burns, we get an impulse - the impulse size is prop consumption by known amounts (so we decrease worst case timer by consumption estimate)
2. If it doesn't, it's diffusion in a vacuum - exponential decay, lengthen  timer until drop off edge below combustion lower bound, then reset to safety pad.
4. What if the fixed timer length is always wrong? E.g. still don't wait long enough and have a later burp? Or too long and we coast too much to make it up with the second stage reserve?

Just intrigued by the issue. Have always been skeptical of "time outs", mostly because of the arbitrary choice made in setting them.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Flometrics on 08/12/2008 04:46 am
Based on what Elon said, the engine thrust taper off was longer than expected, and this is why the vehicle failed. If the first stage had been test launched with a dummy second stage, the nut failure and first stage/second stage contacts would have still happened but would have been much less expensive failures, and would have happened earlier. This path would have been safer, but not as sexy.

Keep in mind that SpaceX has still not actually competed against other launch service vendors. Their launches have been funded by the DOD, which has an interest in reducing launch costs, but can't spend too much on failure. Now SpaceX will have to launch 3 times successfully to even begin to compete. After that will the competitors cut their rates temporarily to force Spacex into bankruptcy?
The assumption that the competition will stand still is a foolish one, but it seems to be in every rocket business plan.
I want SpaceX to succeed, but I think they need to focus on getting to orbit with the Falcon 1, not developing new engines, space capsules and getting more government contracts that cause them to lose focus. 
Steve
 

Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/12/2008 04:48 am
You're losing at most 10's of fps in the coast for staging.  Other liquid rockets use 6 sec or so.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nobodyofconsequence on 08/12/2008 04:58 am
...Keep in mind that SpaceX has still not actually competed against other launch service vendors. Their launches have been funded by the DOD, which has an interest in reducing launch costs, but can't spend too much on failure. Now SpaceX will have to launch 3 times successfully to even begin to compete. After that will the competitors cut their rates temporarily to force Spacex into bankruptcy?
The assumption that the competition will stand still is a foolish one, but it seems to be in every rocket business plan...
If this is a business, he'll have to take the accumulated dev costs and allocate a portion of them against each successful launch. The more duds, the less the profitability, and at some point there's no way to have a successful business AND a low cost launcher.

The principle advantage to surviving the competition is the profitability of the service.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nobodyofconsequence on 08/12/2008 04:59 am
You're losing at most 10's of fps in the coast for staging.  Other liquid rockets use 6 sec or so.
That's nothing. See your point.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Comga on 08/12/2008 06:13 am
If this is a business, he'll have to take the accumulated dev costs and allocate a portion of them against each successful launch. The more duds, the less the profitability, and at some point there's no way to have a successful business AND a low cost launcher.

You are making an assumption about how Musk wants to conduct his business in this case.  From his past statements, it is not certain that he intends to recoup his initial investment.  He has not said that he will see what the market will bear and will make a profit selling rocket launches at 75% of the going rate.   

One does not set out to cut costs by a factor of ten (whether or not he can do it) just to undersell the competition.  You can either take him at this "visionary" word or not.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/12/2008 08:30 am
If this is a business, he'll have to take the accumulated dev costs and allocate a portion of them against each successful launch. The more duds, the less the profitability, and at some point there's no way to have a successful business AND a low cost launcher.
No, that's a wrong calculation. Sunk costs don't count. For each launch he has to decide if the cost of THAT launch will be recouped by the coming business, the money you spent before is gone, no matter how you decide, only money you are ABOUT to spend counts for a decision.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/12/2008 10:06 am
Based on what Elon said, the engine thrust taper off was longer than expected, and this is why the vehicle failed. If the first stage had been test launched with a dummy second stage, the nut failure and first stage/second stage contacts would have still happened but would have been much less expensive failures, and would have happened earlier. This path would have been safer, but not as sexy.

Keep in mind that SpaceX has still not actually competed against other launch service vendors. Their launches have been funded by the DOD, which has an interest in reducing launch costs, but can't spend too much on failure. Now SpaceX will have to launch 3 times successfully to even begin to compete. After that will the competitors cut their rates temporarily to force Spacex into bankruptcy?
The assumption that the competition will stand still is a foolish one, but it seems to be in every rocket business plan.
I want SpaceX to succeed, but I think they need to focus on getting to orbit with the Falcon 1, not developing new engines, space capsules and getting more government contracts that cause them to lose focus. 
Steve
 



US competitors who "cut their rates to force SpaceX into bankruptcy" could wind up facing action by the Justice Dept. Foreign competitors... that's 100% politics (instead of only 90%).
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/12/2008 11:01 am
US competitors who "cut their rates to force SpaceX into bankruptcy" could wind up facing action by the Justice Dept. Foreign competitors... that's 100% politics (instead of only 90%).

I would think that depends on who the customer is. Which in turn would make it quite unlikely ULA or others would go dump out SpaceX, would probably hurt 'em more than SpaceX does.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Nate_Trost on 08/12/2008 02:46 pm
One has to wonder, if they win a services contract under COTS II, if they'll even bother booking any Falcon 1e flights/finishing the vehicle.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Danderman on 08/12/2008 03:07 pm
One has to wonder, if they win a services contract under COTS II, if they'll even bother booking any Falcon 1e flights/finishing the vehicle.

I cannot imagine Elon trying to fly Falcon 9 without Falcon 1 having at least one successful flight.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: aero313 on 08/12/2008 03:15 pm

US competitors who "cut their rates to force SpaceX into bankruptcy" could wind up facing action by the Justice Dept. Foreign competitors... that's 100% politics (instead of only 90%).

So it's OK for Elon to sell launches below cost, but not for anyone else to do it?
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/12/2008 03:17 pm

US competitors who "cut their rates to force SpaceX into bankruptcy" could wind up facing action by the Justice Dept. Foreign competitors... that's 100% politics (instead of only 90%).

So it's OK for Elon to sell launches below cost, but not for anyone else to do it?

They could get sued by the US gov't for overcharging, if they were to advertise lower prices that are not available to the US gov't. 
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/12/2008 03:18 pm
So it's OK for Elon to sell launches below cost, but not for anyone else to do it?
Depending on the market position: yes!
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Nate_Trost on 08/12/2008 03:26 pm
Note that I said Falcon 1e, not Falcon 1. They have a few more Falcon 1 flights on the manifest, however they are no longer taking orders for the Falcon 1 and have not listed any Falcon 1e flights yet. They've grown enough to try and do F9/Dragon/COTS that doing F1e if the flight rate is only 1-2 a year may not be worth the effort.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/12/2008 07:29 pm
1.) Based on what Elon said, the engine thrust taper off was longer than expected, and this is why the vehicle failed.

2.)  If the first stage had been test launched with a dummy second stage, the nut failure and first stage/second stage contacts would have still happened but would have been much less expensive failures, and would have happened earlier. This path would have been safer, but not as sexy.

3.) After that will the competitors cut their rates temporarily to force Spacex into bankruptcy?
The assumption that the competition will stand still is a foolish one, but it seems to be in every rocket business plan.


1.) The term "Burp" keeps getting used in this thread, and I think that's incorrect and misleading. Taper-off is more in line with what one would expect and what the video of staging seems to show (smooth accelleration and recontact).

2.) Launch 1 and maybe launch 3 I agree with this on. Launch 2 got value out of having the second stage, which would partially support a full-up launch 3 despite the new engine. It still seems to me that the shut-down transient should have been predicted. They had a light payload that should have given them margin to be very conservative about their staging delay. Rather than waste a 1st stage merely to time the transient, just give it maybe 10 seconds and improve it for later flights. Since it got missed, however, they might not even be watching for it with a dummy stage.

3.) An unsustainable cut in rates merely to drive out competition is illegal. Anyways, it's not like they are without competition now (Russia, Japan, Europe, Israel, now India even). Also Falcon can't do everything the other companies do.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/12/2008 07:40 pm
We're calling it a "burp" because of what is seen at 2:57 in the video in this message:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10356.msg304528#msg304528
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nobodyofconsequence on 08/12/2008 07:55 pm
No, that's a wrong calculation. Sunk costs don't count. For each launch he has to decide if the cost of THAT launch will be recouped by the coming business, the money you spent before is gone, no matter how you decide, only money you are ABOUT to spend counts for a decision.
Not sunk cost but capital use effectiveness. When you add private investors, this is what you brag about to show how good a businessman you've been at running the thing. Plus, since you've told everybody how you've cracked the code on launch vehicle development, Falcon 1 becomes the metric against how other projects are compared. In this case, the dev costs allocated against successful launches gives you some idea how Falcon 9 and succeeding LV's and there services will do.

You're right about a Boeing or LockMart with sunk cost - but that is because they are established and the manner by which they account for ULA revenues is quite different. Don't assume that "newspace" can pull off the same deal. Look no further than Kistler - you can't sweep it  all under the rug.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/12/2008 08:07 pm

US competitors who "cut their rates to force SpaceX into bankruptcy" could wind up facing action by the Justice Dept. Foreign competitors... that's 100% politics (instead of only 90%).

So it's OK for Elon to sell launches below cost, but not for anyone else to do it?

So far, Elon is selling trips to Davy Jones' Locker. What's the going rate for that? Fact is, until he starts launching things to orbit, nobody can claim he is "selling launches below cost." And the issue for those competitors who "cut their rates to force SpaceX into bankruptcy" is the motive. I don't think anyone imagines SpaceX will be driving ULA into bankruptcy any time soon. In fact, he will merely be forcing them (if he can) to lower their costs and become more efficient. Last time I checked, that was the essense of capitalism.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/12/2008 08:10 pm
US competitors who "cut their rates to force SpaceX into bankruptcy" could wind up facing action by the Justice Dept. Foreign competitors... that's 100% politics (instead of only 90%).

I would think that depends on who the customer is. Which in turn would make it quite unlikely ULA or others would go dump out SpaceX, would probably hurt 'em more than SpaceX does.

Other than the "Invisible Hand of the Marketplace," nothing compels a commercial customer to buy from the lowest priced vendor. I don't even think there's a law forcing government agencies to do that, because they can take other factors into account.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: aero313 on 08/12/2008 10:03 pm

US competitors who "cut their rates to force SpaceX into bankruptcy" could wind up facing action by the Justice Dept. Foreign competitors... that's 100% politics (instead of only 90%).

So it's OK for Elon to sell launches below cost, but not for anyone else to do it?

They could get sued by the US gov't for overcharging, if they were to advertise lower prices that are not available to the US gov't. 


Come on, Jim.  You know there are easy ways around this.  Just look at Orbital's Responsive Small Spacelift contract with SMC.  It's not a Pegasus, it's a Raptor 1.  Same SRMs, same wing, same fins, same L-1011, but it's NOT a Pegasus (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) so Orbital can charge the Air Force less than they charge NASA.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/12/2008 10:18 pm
Not sunk cost but capital use effectiveness. When you add private investors, this is what you brag about to show how good a businessman you've been at running the thing. Plus, since you've told everybody how you've cracked the code on launch vehicle development, Falcon 1 becomes the metric against how other projects are compared. In this case, the dev costs allocated against successful launches gives you some idea how Falcon 9 and succeeding LV's and there services will do.
Still no. You're mixing Marketing/Technology with Finance.
He has to convince them, that he will be able to deliver. That's basics and has nothing to do with development costs.
If they believe he can, investors will only look at the business case from their point of entry, not how much money he sank before.

I don't know about Kistler, but I'm pretty sure the reason they didn't find investors was one of
a) Investors were not convinced they would make it to orbit or
b) Investors were not convinced in the operational business case once they make it into orbit.
I don't think they ran away for hearing how much money Kistler had sunk before.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/12/2008 10:22 pm
US competitors who "cut their rates to force SpaceX into bankruptcy" could wind up facing action by the Justice Dept. Foreign competitors... that's 100% politics (instead of only 90%).

I would think that depends on who the customer is. Which in turn would make it quite unlikely ULA or others would go dump out SpaceX, would probably hurt 'em more than SpaceX does.

Other than the "Invisible Hand of the Marketplace," nothing compels a commercial customer to buy from the lowest priced vendor. I don't even think there's a law forcing government agencies to do that, because they can take other factors into account.
That was not my point:
ULA is almost exclusively doing gov. business. So the only customer they could offer lower prices to is gov. But if they do that, they have no other business opportunity to recoup that from, because they only sell to the government.
Now these gov. guys usually are not as dumb as some people make 'em, so as soon as ULA comes in and tell 'em: "No need to buy at SpaceX, we'll sell you that service at 25% of the current price", they will say "Cool, let's make a long-term contract" and here goes ULA's business case for the next 20 years.
No need for Justice Department to sue 'em...
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: HIPAR on 08/12/2008 11:41 pm
There are requirements to be met that do not necessarily pertain to the actual work when executing a government contract.  All that boiler-plate that's stapled onto the basic work statement escalates the final costs.

That's why commercial launches can be sold for less.

---  CHAS
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/12/2008 11:51 pm
That's why commercial launches can be sold for less.

Who does that (in the US)?
ULA doesn't sell commercial launches.
SeaLaunch doesn't sell to gov.
OK, maybe Orbital.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Jim on 08/13/2008 12:46 am
There are requirements to be met that do not necessarily pertain to the actual work when executing a government contract. 


Not true for launch services
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nobodyofconsequence on 08/13/2008 03:57 am

Still no. You're mixing Marketing/Technology with Finance.
He has to convince them, that he will be able to deliver. That's basics and has nothing to do with development costs.
If they believe he can, investors will only look at the business case from their point of entry, not how much money he sank before.

I don't know about Kistler, but I'm pretty sure the reason they didn't find investors was one of
a) Investors were not convinced they would make it to orbit or
b) Investors were not convinced in the operational business case once they make it into orbit.
I don't think they ran away for hearing how much money Kistler had sunk before.

Depends on who you define as "investors". Definitely Kistler's aren't Space-X's. One's I know use capital efficiency as a way to gauge the health of an investment, and they won't invest in a hole in the ground.

But yes, get some sharkskin suit IVB's from Miami, and all they care about is the going forward story. But Musk won't touch their money, no matter. Money isn't just money.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/13/2008 05:23 am
1.) The term "Burp" keeps getting used in this thread, and I think that's incorrect and misleading. Taper-off is more in line with what one would expect and what the video of staging seems to show (smooth accelleration and recontact).

Without seeing the telemetry, we can't know this.  Of the turbo engine shutdown signatures I can envision, most have 1-3 low frequency pulses in them (and lots of low amplitude, higher frequency ones) rather than being a taper-off.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/13/2008 05:26 am
There are requirements to be met that do not necessarily pertain to the actual work when executing a government contract.
Not true for launch services

I agree, but why then do they tack ~25% on to the commercial cost to account for govt insight.  I cannot figure that out.  It really can't cost them that much more to deal with us.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/13/2008 07:23 am

Depends on who you define as "investors". Definitely Kistler's aren't Space-X's. One's I know use capital efficiency as a way to gauge the health of an investment, and they won't invest in a hole in the ground.
Which is exactly what I said.
Ones I know will only care about "capital efficiency" (aka ROI) of THEIR investment, not what happened before. "Hole in the ground" is about credibility.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/13/2008 12:18 pm
There are requirements to be met that do not necessarily pertain to the actual work when executing a government contract.
Not true for launch services

I agree, but why then do they tack ~25% on to the commercial cost to account for govt insight.  I cannot figure that out.  It really can't cost them that much more to deal with us.

I think it does.  We have federal clients and the burden of doing work with the Feds is at least 25% more onerous than commercial clients.  And that isn't launch services.

Lots more things like 'hurry up and wait' changing objectives, indecisiveness and general CYA measures.  I can't fault them too much as much of its done to ensure that the taxpayers are getting their money worth.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: nobodyofconsequence on 08/13/2008 04:36 pm
... "capital efficiency" (aka ROI) of THEIR investment, not what happened before. ...
Not to keep picking at this bone, but ROI is something else. Yes, one might wish to think they are, but "past performance is no indication of future returns".
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: pippin on 08/13/2008 05:23 pm
... "capital efficiency" (aka ROI) of THEIR investment, not what happened before. ...
Not to keep picking at this bone, but ROI is something else. Yes, one might wish to think they are, but "past performance is no indication of future returns".
OK, ROI is a net value. but please note that I stated that it's ROI of the INCREMENTAL investment that counts. Here CE and ROI have pretty much the same meaning.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: aero313 on 08/13/2008 07:13 pm
There are requirements to be met that do not necessarily pertain to the actual work when executing a government contract.
Not true for launch services

I agree, but why then do they tack ~25% on to the commercial cost to account for govt insight.  I cannot figure that out.  It really can't cost them that much more to deal with us.

You're kidding, right?  The NASA oversight...  oops, I mean INSIGHT...  requires significant additional manpower to answer RIDS that frequently add no value.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: Antares on 08/14/2008 03:41 am
Heh, I can only speak for what I and those of similar ilk do ;)  Work the problem off-line as a respected part of the team.  Seriously.  My compadres who don't buy in and just be obstructionist... yeah, I probably don't like them either.  We need to change that.  I'd love to see specific examples of what the contractors see as non value added.
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 08/15/2008 01:11 am
Please keep this thread on topic....
Title: Re: FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: eeergo on 09/10/2008 09:54 pm
I think this has not been posted in another thread, but bear with me if it did: it's an interesting report from the AIAA Conference on Smallsats, summarizing SpaceX's future plans. It contains some bits of new and additional information about the 'lost seconds' after second stage ignition inside the interstage. The author quotes the result as 'spraying bits of shrapnel and debris' with the major consequences of loss of Kestrel nozzle and ripping of the first stage recovery parachutes.

Some more sketchy info to add to our database :) :

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1207/1
Title: Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/11/2008 03:56 am
Abort analysis

No biggie: 0.5 psi off on turbopump purge pressure. Adjustments are being made. Countdown should resume soon

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/

Has the cause of this abort been found and fixed?
Also the Helium loading pause?