Quote from: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:39 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.
[...] 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. [...]
Quote from: synchrotron on 08/03/2008 04:11 pmQuote from: clongton on 08/03/2008 03:43 pmNow - 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.
Quote from: clongton on 08/03/2008 03:43 pmNow - 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.
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.
Quote from: jimvela on 08/03/2008 04:19 pmQuote from: synchrotron on 08/03/2008 04:11 pmQuote from: clongton on 08/03/2008 03:43 pmNow - 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?
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.
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?
[...] 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. [...]
Quote from: pippin on 08/03/2008 02:20 pmA 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.
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...
Quote from: pbreed on 08/03/2008 05:25 pmOf 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
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?
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.
Remember, we really don't know anything about the failure, except the approximate time that the vehicle broke up or otherwise exhibited the failure.
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.
Quote from: Patchouli on 08/03/2008 07:14 pmIt 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.QuoteWith 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).
[...] I think they fire the second stage while it's still on the first stage eliminating the need for ullage motors. [...]
Quote from: sandrot on 08/03/2008 04:44 pmQuote from: jimvela on 08/03/2008 03:39 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 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.
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.
