LIVE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch IV - NET Sept 28, 08

[Hootz]

Ahhh, yes...sorry. I missed that line....

[Antares]

Just got the following:

Flight 4 of Falcon 1 | Static Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The static fire took place on Saturday [20 Sep 2008, CA time], as expected, and no major issues came up. However, after a detailed analysis of data, we decided to replace a component in the 2nd stage engine LOX supply line. There is a good chance we would be ok flying as is, but we are being extremely cautious.

This adds a few extra days to the schedule, so the updated launch window estimate is now Sept 28th through Oct 1st [CA time].

—Elon—

[Stephan]

Static Firing images below:

_{(Let's not embed images, as links could change, just attach to your post, please! - Ford Mustang)}

[Jim]

They are very good at static fires

[Yegor]

New update:
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

[kevin-rf]

No kidding. They even managed a static fire of the second stage:

Wow, the last one to try that hat trick was Nedelin...

[Chris Bergin]

New update:
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

To expand on that (as it's not a static link)...

Flight 4 of Falcon 1 | Static Fire

The static fire took place on Saturday [20 Sep 2008, CA time], as expected, and no major issues came up. However, after a detailed analysis of data, we decided to replace a component in the 2nd stage engine LOX supply line. There is a good chance we would be ok flying as is, but we are being extremely cautious.

This adds a few extra days to the schedule, so the updated launch window estimate is now Sept 28th through Oct 1st [CA time].

[yinzer]

The problem is that twice now they have thrown away their mission constraints document (if they even had one) and have recycled the count.  The whole point of a mission constraints document is that you decide on your limits BEFORE the launch, when you have a clear head and a lot of time to think about it.  Waiving these constraints at the last minute shows poor judgment at best and carelessness at worst.

Your suggestion is quite misleading.

The hard truth is that not one of the mission failures was due to a fast recycle time or a poor mission constraint.

Mission one -   corroded bolt
Mission two -   excessive fuel slosh due to absence of baffles
Mission three - inadequate time delay between separation and firing

Each failure was caused by a design issue.  Recycle time and lack of mission constraint didn't enter the equation.

A large contributing factor to the second failure was loading an incorrect configuration file into the rocket, causing the first stage to underperform and staging to happen at a higher dynamic pressure.  The third failure was the result of incompletely characterizing relevant engine performance parameters.

Both of these are indicative of poor systems engineering.

Without more information you might conclude that SpaceX had merely been unlucky.  When you consider that they have more post-ignition aborts in their first three flights than the rest of the western launch vehicle world had in the previous 20 years, it adds weight to the theory of serious systems engineering problems.

[josh_simonson]

For the hot fire they almost certainly loaded propellants into the second stage and it's likely that data collected during that process led to the decision to replace the second stage component. 

[Comga]

I think it's more that they (SpaceX) should have picked an easier first-step goal than an orbital booster.  Had they decided to say build a reusable suborbital first stage, they probably could've done that off of the 24-50 people they originally had, and gotten it done for a fraction of what they spent on Falcon 1.  Fully-reusable vehicles, if designed right can be much more forgiving than expendables--you don't have to be perfect right out of the box, you just have to be able to gracefully abort a lot until you get the bugs worked out.

~Jon

You could be correct, and your extensive writings have made much of the argument for reuseability.  However, it may be a matter of emphasis for SpaceX.  They have always claimed to be recovering the first stage for reuse.  The problem may have been emphasizing achieving orbit over recovering the first stage. 

Suppose they had not tried for orbit on the early flights but had gone nearly straight up, as in your RTLS Pop-up first stage discussion.   It would not have helped Flight 1.  Nothing helps with a failure in the first few seconds of flight and they recovered the remains of the rocket from the reef.  But think of the second launch.

If Flight 2 had gone nearly straight up, they would have had a good chance to recover the first stage.  They would be able to refurbish it, or to see it was not workable, which would be better to learn early if they are going to plan on it.  Even the second stage might be recoverable, particularly if there was an extensive delay before ignition that intentionally added huge gravity losses.  This could, in principle, leave it reentering with sufficiently limited velocity that it could be recovered without the protection needed for reentry from orbital speeds.  So long as the system follows the commanded trajectory with both stages, the system operability would be demonstrated, with or without achieving orbit.

Flight 3 could also have benefited from a pop-up trajectory.  Although it may be hindsight, the added delay for second stage ignition would have let them survive the recontact as did Flight 2.    They could not have carried payloads, (unless one believes that they truly achieved success by simply integrating and launching Tachsat) but they would not have lost any payloads.  And they would have at least improved chances for hardware recovery. 

Ditto for Flight 4.  There is nothing to put into orbit.  What is gained by going downrange except bragging rights if the second stage reaches orbit?  If they demonstrated adequate velocity and precision control  on a pop-up trajectory, with plenty of time to test controlled coasting, engine restarts, and payload release, would they not have a flight that could be called fully successful without being "spin"?

It may be that "serving two masters" is contributing to the failures.  Adding parachutes to the first stage is not without cost, yet they are not gaining the benefits you have described with a truly reusable system. 

Or perhaps this is a discussion for another forum and we can just wait four more days for Launch 4.  Here's wishing them luck, whatever the direction they point the rocket. 

[mrmandias]

Will their second generation rockets be from a clean sheet, or just a development of the first round? If they start each round of development under the assumption that everything is on the table, then they have a long-term winner and the silver bullet is not out of the question.

As they say in Wall Street, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

I think the same principle applies here.  Maybe a bunch of different tries at clean sheet development will give you some chance at a silver bullet.  It will also give you a pretty good chance at running out of money.

Luckily Elon Musk is an enthusiast.

[kevin-rf]

Luckily Elon Musk is an enthusiast.

...Who has money

[William Barton]

You miss read the V2 flyaway cost from that table, it's $230,000.00 not $23 million. Leading to (from memory on the throw mass) $115 per lb down range to the target. I hate inflation adjusted numbers, else where on astronautix they quoted $2 billion in 1944 dolars for the development program. The apples to apples should have been made on the dolar/year thing.

230K seems like a high unit cost considering the extremely low salaries of the production workers.

[alexterrell]

I almost wish SpaceX had gone further to the extreme.  Aggressively launch and learn what works and what doesn't and accept the failures.  The price of the hardware is a small part of the equation - and an increasingly small part as the production volume increases.

Surely this is what they have been doing. ??

The extreme would be to schedule at least six launches per year, and launch come what may, accepting that there may be failures but that they'll be fixed in the two months.

In contrast, there was over a year between launch 1 and launch 2 with huge changes.

[wannamoonbase]

The extreme would be to schedule at least six launches per year, and launch come what may, accepting that there may be failures but that they'll be fixed in the two months.

In contrast, there was over a year between launch 1 and launch 2 with huge changes.

They've flown 3 times with a essentially a different vehicle each time.  This will be the first time they fly the same configuration twice.

It's not a stable product, its still being developed.  If the design becomes stable then reliability should improve with each successive flight.   

[just-nick]

Speaking of launching -- and not the endless circling of the how-messed-up-is-SpaceX debate -- what's the latest word on when they plan to go for the next shot?

 --Nick

[ChefPat]

Speaking of launching -- and not the endless circling of the how-messed-up-is-SpaceX debate -- what's the latest word on when they plan to go for the next shot?

 --Nick

It looks like the next window is Septermber the 28th through October the 1st.

[Avron]

Speaking of launching -- and not the endless circling of the how-messed-up-is-SpaceX debate -- what's the latest word on when they plan to go for the next shot?

 --Nick

It looks like the next window is Septermber the 28th through October the 1st.

If all is good at the range..   is there any issues that may have a conflict in terms of range usage?

[James Lowe1]

Speaking of launching -- and not the endless circling of the how-messed-up-is-SpaceX debate -- what's the latest word on when they plan to go for the next shot?

 --Nick

I've gutted most of the off topic conversation from this thread.

Please alert a mod when threads are pulled off topic. Thanks.

[jabe]

flight four press kit up at spacex..
click here for pdf

edit:more info here as well.

My memory is failing..was it a 2 second delay before..so it is now a 5 second delay?