FAILURE: SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - August 2

[guru]

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.

[iamlucky13]

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.

[iamlucky13]

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.

[Jim]

There were QA problems on the first mission otherwise why would they institute all the QA changes after the failure

[iamlucky13]

^ 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.

[just-nick]

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.

[Cretan126]

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.

[kraisee]

The SpaceDev website says they've already been paid the full amount for this.

Ross.

[kraisee]

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.

[iamlucky13]

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.

[synchrotron]

A posting by Henry Spencer:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/08/why-did-latest-falcon-1-rocket-fail.html

[Chris Bergin]

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.

[Herb Schaltegger]

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 . . .

[Herb Schaltegger]

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.

[guidanceisgo]

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!

[Analyst]

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

[kevin-rf]

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.

[marshallsplace]

News on one of the payloads...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7543807.stm

beam me up......

[manlymissileman]

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

[dchill]

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 ;^)