Author Topic: Falcon 1 - Post Failure thread (Read 134931 times)

Hotol · « **Reply #100 on:** 03/25/2006 10:33 am »

Thanks for the coverage. Again the best place for following launches live on the net. My thoughts are with the SpaceX team and I hope they come back from this stronger.

Tap-Sa · « **Reply #101 on:** 03/25/2006 10:45 am »

Quote

sammie - 25/3/2006 1:03 PM
SpaceX should have kept their mouth shut about the greatest reliability ever until they have a succesfull launch.

Well (little nitpicking here

they have been talking about vehicle reliability. Who knows, the Falcon may actually be very reliable vehicle. If the cause of the failure was indeed the blanket then technically that was pad failure. What's supposed to stay on the pad is part of the pad structure, no? The Shuttle would fail too if beanie cap got stuck to ET nose.

Terrible Twosome · « **Reply #102 on:** 03/25/2006 10:57 am »

Do SpaceX have another vehicle in production, or will they need the time to build it?

spacemac · « **Reply #103 on:** 03/25/2006 11:17 am »

Iv not read all the posts so maybe somebody already has post this but ill post it anyway.

Look at the Falcon Launch Video and keep a extreamly close eye on when the video is at Sec30 when the thermal blanket slams into the direction of the rocket engine. Then at Sec36 the engine seems to respond to this blanket slaming into the engine by giving a brighter glow than is normal. After that everything seems to go straight to hell.

SEC 30 THERMAL BLANKET SLAMS INTO THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINE
SEC 36 ENGINE KAPUT

Would everything have gone fine if it was not for the thermal blanket being there? (i think so, Elon has worked so hard to get everything right, debugging and pre preperation)

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #104 on:** 03/25/2006 11:19 am »

Quote

James Lowe - 25/3/2006 3:22 AM

Quote
Stowbridge - 24/3/2006 9:15 PM

They'll come back from this. I'm glad everyone is working on that principle and they deserve our support.

That is the only sentiment that is being expressed here, as it should be. I know I totally speak for Chris when I say that as a media site, we totally support SpaceX's mission and look forward to covering their successful attempt next time out.

Very much the case. They'll bounce back from this, I'm sure.

JamesSpaceFlight · « **Reply #105 on:** 03/25/2006 11:54 am »

Personally, it seems they need better organisation. To have a miscommunication with a recovery ship and delay due to the error is simply unacceptable, as an example. They seem to have suffered from human error resulting in vehicle issues more than vehicle annomolies alone. They need to take a long hard look at the team they have and maybe consider bringing in a few more people to address this.

Jim · « **Reply #106 on:** 03/25/2006 12:28 pm »

Quote

Spirit - 25/3/2006 5:33 AMI think that the blanket turned on the other side of the rocket, it tore apart but not at all and what was left of it continued fluttering and 1-2 secs later I saw the orange flame. I think the blanket hit the noozle or caught on fire before separation from the vehicle. Maybe the fire rised along the blanket and damaged the engine.Of what I saw i think the vehicle rotated 90 degrees and then the video cut off.Anybody know if there is an on-board safety system causing ECO if something caches on fire?BTW where can I find the pricelists of the other launch vehicles owned by ILS, Sea Launch, Arianaspace...Something like http://www.spacex.com/graphics/content_v2/Falcon%20Chart%202.gif

What would detect a fire? Launch vehicle don't carry fire detection systems.

braddock · « **Reply #107 on:** 03/25/2006 12:30 pm »

There have been so many positive expressions of support in the forums since the failure.

I have just sent to SpaceX Media Relations a page and a half worth of your supportive sentiments, to be forwarded to the SpaceX team.

Jim · « **Reply #108 on:** 03/25/2006 12:42 pm »

I am going to be honest here and probably get flamed for it.

I have mixed emotions about Spacex. I want upstart companies to be successful. We need some fresh blood. The more the merry.

But when you start pumping your chest and making boastful statements* before you fly, I think is a little hubris. The rocket gods punished them for it. After all, It is rocket science!!

* best design reliability - doesn't mean anything until you have a successful string of flights
* cheapest prices - announce prices after your test program
* semi-reusable

braddock · « **Reply #109 on:** 03/25/2006 12:45 pm »

Quote

JamesSpaceFlight - 25/3/2006 7:54 AM
They seem to have suffered from human error resulting in vehicle issues more than vehicle annomolies alone. They need to take a long hard look at the team they have and maybe consider bringing in a few more people to address this.

The only launch-site human error that I know of was the LOX valve left open on the first attempt, and this amusing recovery ship incident. The other delaying issues were with a second stage leak, a disasterous faulty shorted valve on the first stage tank, and an engine ignition timing issue.

The recovery ship was in the wrong place, because of a miscommunication with the military range folks about which hazard ellipses on the map they were allowed to be in. SpaceX knew where they were, they just thought they were okay in the outer hazard ellipse, vs the inner hazard ellipse. I'm not sure a larger team is ever a cure for miscommunication...

If SpaceX is going to succeed at making space flight affordable, they are going to have to learn how to deal with issues by improving the process, and not adding another launch team member to payroll just to stare at the recovery ships position.
I believe SpaceX said yesterday that their countdown procedure now has nearly twice as many steps as on the first attempt.

Jonesy STS · « **Reply #110 on:** 03/25/2006 12:52 pm »

Quote

Jim - 25/3/2006 7:42 AM

I am going to be honest here and probably get flamed for it.

I have mixed emotions about Spacex. I want upstart companies to be successful. We need some fresh blood. The more the merry.

But when you start pumping your chest and making boastful statements* before you fly, I think is a little hubris. The rocket gods punished them for it. After all, It is rocket science!!

* best design reliability - doesn't mean anything until you have a successful string of flights
* cheapest prices - announce prices after your test program
* semi-reusable

You won't get flamed for that as it's a perfectly accurate statement.

We're all very sorry for them on what happened, but they did give off an air of self rightousness in their statements beforehand and the suing of Lockheed/Boeing.

Seems they were taught a lesson.

Jonesy STS · « **Reply #111 on:** 03/25/2006 12:53 pm »

Quote

braddock - 25/3/2006 7:45 AM

The recovery ship was in the wrong place, because of a miscommunication with the military range folks about which hazard ellipses on the map they were allowed to be in. SpaceX knew where they were, they just thought they were okay in the outer hazard ellipse, vs the inner hazard ellipse.

Good job they moved the ship away too!

SimonShuttle · « **Reply #112 on:** 03/25/2006 01:00 pm »

Quote

Jim - 25/3/2006 7:42 AM

I am going to be honest here and probably get flamed for it.

I have mixed emotions about Spacex. I want upstart companies to be successful. We need some fresh blood. The more the merry.

But when you start pumping your chest and making boastful statements* before you fly, I think is a little hubris. The rocket gods punished them for it. After all, It is rocket science!!

* best design reliability - doesn't mean anything until you have a successful string of flights
* cheapest prices - announce prices after your test program
* semi-reusable

Fair point, but they aren't going to say anything else. I think they'll tone it down a bit now though.

Who are you with again Jim? Boeing?

hyper_snyper · « **Reply #113 on:** 03/25/2006 01:02 pm »

Whatever the failure (which I'm sure will come out in the coming days), the fact of the matter is that they cut a lot of corners in developing this rocket. They tried to make their system very inexpensive in order to usher in a new era of commerical access to space. I believe that there is a reason why Delta's and Atlas's are so expensive and it's not just supporting a bureacracy. There's a lot of redundancy built into those rockets, a lot of which, if implemented on Falcon, would cause the price to climb as well. Now, I love SpaceX and I really want them to succeed and I'm sure they will. I just don't want them settling for anything that will be prone to failure just because it is inexpensive.

Jim · « **Reply #114 on:** 03/25/2006 01:04 pm »

Quote

SimonShuttle - 25/3/2006 8:00 AM]Fair point, but they aren't going to say anything else. I think they'll tone it down a bit now though.Who are you with again Jim? Boeing?

NASA

Tap-Sa · « **Reply #115 on:** 03/25/2006 01:06 pm »

Quote

Jim - 25/3/2006 3:42 PM
when you start pumping your chest and making boastful statements* before you fly, I think is a little hubris.

Little hubris is a normal part of doing private business. You take some risk in promoting your product, sometimes it works, this time it backfired a bit...

The design of Falcon rocket is quite conventional. It tries not to employ any breakthrough technology, just repeat the feat first done almost half a century ago. IMO it's less about rocket science and more about established rocket engineering. The velcro blanket is another beast, AFAIK such design hasn't been used anywhere before. It's a pity if this seemingly hasty quickfix ruined the flight. But I'm sure we'll see Falcon I eventually making it into the orbit, this was just strike one.

braddock · « **Reply #116 on:** 03/25/2006 01:09 pm »

Quote

Jim - 25/3/2006 8:42 AM
But when you start pumping your chest and making boastful statements* before you fly, I think is a little hubris. The rocket gods punished them for it. After all, It is rocket science!!

Being one year into running my own technology startup, let me say there are some rather nasty pressures when you are trying to do something different. If you don't know what your ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE-improvement goals are, and don't state them with absolute confidence, then your startup doesn't stand for anything, and why should anyone want to bother with you and your unproven idea?

For a technology startup in the current marketplace, to be or not to be boastful is almost an existential question. SpaceX exists, therefore they exhibit ambition and confidence. After all, they need to get a round of investment capital this year or it's over.

Thomas ESA · « **Reply #117 on:** 03/25/2006 01:17 pm »

My sympathies.

InfraNut · « **Reply #118 on:** 03/25/2006 01:31 pm »

Quote

Spirit - 25/3/2006 12:33 PM

I think that the blanket turned on the other side of the rocket, it tore apart but not at all and what was left of it continued fluttering and 1-2 secs later I saw the orange flame. I think the blanket hit the noozle or caught on fire before separation from the vehicle. Maybe the fire rised along the blanket and damaged the engine.
Of what I saw i think the vehicle rotated 90 degrees and then the video cut off.

To me it seems the blanket came loose in several (at least 4) discrete stages.

The yellow sideways flames indicate burning RP-1 either from a chamber rupture or rupture of the fuel plumbing or turbopump that later ignited. Alternatively the FTS opened a fuel release valve and the venting fuel caught fire.

I thought before the launch that if something would go wrong, it would be something not examined closely or something tested well enough. Because of the excellence of the engineering team, the basic engine operations etc. should have a excellent chance of working, but in things like ground systems, avionics software exception handling, redundancy handling, electric power distribution systems, potentioal failures are more easily overlooked.

In hindsight the blanket quick fix seems a bad idea. As someone else pointed out velcro can have very varying adhesion, so a single or a few tests cannot be relied upon to guarantee it will come off at a similar force. Also the blanket itself may be glued to the rocker by freezing condensation. The blanket should have been removed PRIOR to launch for predictable results and to have a chance to correct any problem.

Based on this, my best guess is that the insulation blanket seem the more likely root cause, and that either

(1) the skewed and unstable aerodynamics as the rocket gained speed exceeded the limitation in TVC course correction capacity or the "high frequency" changes went outside what the flight control algorithm could handle properly, or

(2) In the last step(s) of ripping loose, the blanket whipped the engine till something broke. Possibilities for how the emgine could have been damaged are too many to list guesses, even constrained by what we see happen. There are more direct damages and also indirect damages leading to loss of control and leading to RSO/auto flight termination.

Quote

BTW where can I find the pricelists of the other launch vehicles owned by ILS, Sea Launch, Arianaspace...
Something like http://www.spacex.com/graphics/content_v2/Falcon%20Chart%202.gif

There are no such list with official prices since the big players all negotiate prices for each launch. Some reports from for example the FAA have estimated pricing information.

Jim · « **Reply #119 on:** 03/25/2006 01:36 pm »

The FTS for this launch was only set up to shut down the engine. There were no means of breaking up the rocket (except by its own devices) or dispersing the propellants.