FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2

[toddbronco2]

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.

[JWag]

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.

[Chris Bergin]

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.

[synchrotron]

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.

[Antares]

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.

[JWag]

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".

[jimvela]

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. 

[clongton]

Chris “relayed” to us what Elon sent out to all his employees:

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.

[Namechange User]

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.

[Namechange User]

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. 

[synchrotron]

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.

[jimvela]

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.

[Namechange User]

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.

[just-nick]

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...

[sandrot]

[...]  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

[rolfkap]

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:

'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

[clongton]

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.

[CentEur]

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.

[pbreed]

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?

[edkyle99]

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